[Spoilers] Episode 108 Discussion

[Ran]

1 hour ago, sifth said:

Ralph Phineas

Fiennes, not Phineas.

Quote

Leave my kids fucking out of it! What have they done? You fucking retract that bit about my cunt fucking kids!

 

[sifth]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Fiennes, not Phineas.

 

Thanks, my mistake.

[butterweedstrover]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

That said - your own complaints about 'the evil Greens' are also quite silly. They are pretty sympathetic and complex in the show. Your issue simply is that you don't like how Rhaenyra and her people are portrayed - they are supposed to be 'more evil' as per your wishes, while the Greens should be more idealistic in a way you would prefer.

But that would go completely against as the characters of both Aegon and Aemond as described in FaB. They are both horrible people. No sane person would ever consider crowning Aegon if they had the choice. Nobody would view him as a potentially better ruler than Rhaenyra. There is really no way to portray Aegon and Aemond accurately and also create a scenario where Otto and Alicent honestly believe that either of these two would make a better monarch than Rhaenyra.

Anyone caring about the Realm and the well-being of the people would not want to create such a king. Of course, if Aegon or Aemond had been the chosen heirs of Viserys I it would be outright treason to bar them from ascending the throne (although you could even then make a case that it should be done anyway, being in the best interest of the Realm). But in a scenarion where the anointed and chosen heir is Rhaenyra common sense should cause pretty much anyone knowing Aegon and Aemond closely to not uphold male primogeniture if the inevitable result of that would be the rise of a King Aegon or King Aemond.

There is more to the Greens than Aemond or Aegon. In fact their main character is Alicent who has (had) the potential to be a complex nuanced character, and she just isn't. 

She has no conflicted relationship with her 'best' friend, she doesn't even acknowledge Rhaenyra or reminisce about their friendship until a 180 at the dinner table in episode 8. She is dedicated to seeing Rhaenyra's downfall, and yet the show can offer no practical reason as to why. They do introduce the concept that Alicent should fear for her children. 

And that is a perception. It doesn't have to be true, it has to be something Alicent could see as a potential outcome of doing nothing. Jealousy and Power have no basis in her story because they are not set-up as motivating factors, and yet she destroys her own children trying to force them on the throne, rejects ever olive branch, and allies herself with a known psychopath for what exactly? How does killing Harwin Strong help her?  

It is certainly evil, since it emotionally harms Rhaenyra and her children, but it does nothing to help expose her. In fact the reason there was speculation by book readers that the Blacks or Viserys might be responsible is because it silences a central figure that might admit to fathering bastards. 

You think Alicent is nuanced because she shows reluctance at times in destroying the blacks. But that reluctance is not reflected in a change of course. Motivations aren't real if they don't manifest in the decision making of said character, and having someone ignore their own emotions for sake of a single goal constitutes a bout of monomania. 

Her objectives are given no rational besides some paper thin conceptualization of jealousy or power that are not explored in any significant way that might give these things a firm ground to hold up three seasons of war/conflict. 

Rhaenyra on the other hand lacks any personal attachment to her supposed best friend. She shrugs off each insult as if they were launched by a stranger. She never lashes out despite the enormous pressure, she never shows anger or the impressions of violence. She never yells at her children, she does not ever stoop to murdering her enemies or even manipulating them in some ambiguous way, she is up right, calm, and all around forgiving. 

Not only does it makes Rhaenyra less realistic, it cripples any possible miscommunication between her and Alicent that might be used as reason to fuel this rivalry, that from what we have seen is completely one sided. 

And throwing around some stuff about Jace and Luke not automatically wilting at Aemond's psychopathic nature does not make them 'grey'. Jace and Luke are not grey, they are children with a desire to be good rulers, noble husbands, they want to honor their family name and defuse tensions with the Blacks. 

Smirking over a pig or dancing with the guy's wife who has been trying to humiliate you isn't a sign of moral corruption, it is a sign that, unlike Rhaenyra, these boys are human beings capable of more than just niceties. But they are fundamental noble and pure children who just want to do the right thing. 

Having conflicted characters is interesting. Having psychopaths on one side and a woman without any practical motive versus pure hearted heroes is no basis for a conflict that should focus on the psychological substance of both sides. 

They, for 8(!!) episodes have tried to get us in the head of Alicent and they couldn't by episode 8 find one reason to justify her course (due to their unwillingness to tarnish the Blacks reputation) so they land on some BS prophecy as the ultimate sign of defeat. 

Edited October 14, 2022 by butterweedstrover

[butterweedstrover]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I actually don't think they will take that road. I think Alicent is not going to become Rhaenyra's big nemesis. Her men will push her aside, take matters out of her hands entirely (I mean Aegon, Aemond, Criston, and Larys there). I could even see Rhaenyra and Alicent kind of re-bonding during Rhaenyra's reign, with Alicent finally realizing that her old friend is or could be a fine monarch, after all. Of course she would still be torn between loyalty for her family, trying to protect them, but I think the writers could make it work that these two women won't be stuck in an eternal bitch fight.

The way to turn this story into a good TV show is to do some unexpected things, especially where the personal relationships are concerned.

Huh, that's interesting. I thought your whole point is the show isn't allowed to give the Greens any practical reason for opposing the Blacks since (according to you) the book doesn't provide for that level of nuance. 

It does, but that is your justification which is useful to deflect any substantive critique of the show. And yet here you are assuming the show will change things from the book for sake of having a complex emotional relationship, something the show itself has spent three episodes undermining.   

edit: and what is even more hysterical is that the only possible way you can conceive of giving Alicent's character complexity is by removing all her agency. 

It's almost as if you know a character dedicated to doing something with no serious reason can only be redeemed by altering her actions. But the story doesn't allow for that, so you need her to become a passive Black supporter with no real affect on the plot. 

Edited October 14, 2022 by butterweedstrover

[Ingelheim]

 

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

There is more to the Greens than Aemond or Aegon. In fact their main character is Alicent who has (had) the potential to be a complex nuanced character, and she just isn't. 

She has no conflicted relationship with her 'best' friend, she doesn't even acknowledge Rhaenyra or reminisce about their friendship until a 180 at the dinner table in episode 8. She is dedicated to seeing Rhaenyra's downfall, and yet the show can offer no practical reason as to why. They do introduce the concept that Alicent should fear for her children. 

And that is a perception. It doesn't have to be true, it has to be something Alicent could see as a potential outcome of doing nothing. Jealousy and Power have no basis in her story because they are not set-up as motivating factors, and yet she destroys her own children trying to force them on the throne, rejects ever olive branch, and allies herself with a known psychopath for what exactly? How does killing Harwin Strong help her?  

It is certainly evil, since it emotionally harms Rhaenyra and her children, but it does nothing to help expose her. In fact the reason there was speculation by book readers that the Blacks or Viserys might be responsible is because it silences a central figure that might admit to fathering bastards. 

You think Alicent is nuanced because she shows reluctance at times in destroying the blacks. But that reluctance is not reflected in a change of course. Motivations aren't real if they don't manifest in the decision making of said character, and having someone ignore their own emotions for sake of a single goal constitutes a bout of monomania. 

Her objectives are given no rational besides some paper thin conceptualization of jealousy or power that are not explored in any significant way that might give these things a firm ground to hold up three seasons of war/conflict. 

Rhaenyra on the other hand lacks any personal attachment to her supposed best friend. She shrugs off each insult as if they were launched by a stranger. She never lashes out despite the enormous pressure, she never shows anger or the impressions of violence. She never yells at her children, she does not ever stoop to murdering her enemies or even manipulating them in some ambiguous way, she is up right, calm, and all around forgiving. 

Not only does it makes Rhaenyra less realistic, it cripples any possible miscommunication between her and Alicent that might be used as reason to fuel this rivalry, that from what we have seen is completely one sided. 

And throwing around some stuff about Jace and Luke not automatically wilting at Aemond's psychopathic nature does not make them 'grey'. Jace and Luke are not grey, they are children with a desire to be good rulers, noble husbands, they want to honor their family name and defuse tensions with the Blacks. 

Smirking over a pig or dancing with the guy's wife who has been trying to humiliate you isn't a sign of moral corruption, it is a sign that, unlike Rhaenyra, these boys are human beings capable of more than just niceties. But they are fundamental noble and pure children who just want to do the right thing. 

Having conflicted characters is interesting. Having psychopaths on one side and a woman without any practical motive versus pure hearted heroes is no basis for a conflict that should focus on the psychological substance of both sides. 

They, for 8(!!) episodes have tried to get us in the head of Alicent and they couldn't by episode 8 find one reason to justify her course (due to their unwillingness to tarnish the Blacks reputation) so they land on some BS prophecy as the ultimate sign of defeat. 

It surprises me to see that some people here argue that the show has been trying to make the Greens unsympathetic when everything it's done so far is actually the contrary.

Alicent has been completely whitewashed, her motivations are actually logical within the own context of the show (she's just a woman doing her duty as wife and queen while Rhaenyra is just selfish and doing what she wants with no care for her station of reputation, her father Otto manipulates her from the start to get close to king Viserys, she's been lied and betrayed by Rhaenyra, she hears the prophecy and just misinterprets it, etc) when in the books she's just a selfish woman who wants her son on the throne no matter what. Here she is far more complex and has rational reasons behind all of her actions. In the books, she's just a manipulative woman 10 years older than Rhaenyra.

Aemond is a kid who suffers from bullying not only from his young nephews but also from his own older brother, he takes Vhagar and is attacked by 4 persons at once, he loses and eye, etc.

Ser Criston Cole is a man betrayed by Rhaenyra, who just wants to keep him as some kind of sex toy with no regard towards his own vows and the peril he faces for sleeping with her just once. He confesses his deed to Alicent and asks for a quick death, and after that he is going to commit suicide but is stopped by Alicent just in time.

Daemon, for example, has actually been shown to be a far more evil person than his book version. He kills his wife for no reason at all except selfishness, he doesn't care about his daughters, doesn't care about her Velaryon wife wanting to come back to her home, etc.

Rhaenyra sleeps with Criston Cole, then marries Laenor and tells him that they can still have sex but just in secret, like he were some kind of sex toy. She doesn't face any repercussions for that, obviously, but she knows Cole is risking his life and doesn't care. In the books, Cole never sleeps with her, no matter which version of the story you believe. He's either a incel who can't take rejection well and joins the Greens because of that, or just a man looking to better his position by betraying her Queen.

I don't know, it's just not logical to pretend that the show is portraying the Greens in a bad light when it's just the opposite. Blacks have always been the book-favourites but here you can see the showrunners and writers trying to give complexity to the Greens while portraying some of the Blacks in a worse light.

Edited October 14, 2022 by Ingelheim

[butterweedstrover]

8 minutes ago, Ingelheim said:

 

It surprises me to see that some people here argue that the show has been trying to make the Greens unsympathetic when everything it's done so far is actually the contrary.

Alicent has been completely whitewashed, her motivations are actually logical within the own context of the show (she's just a woman doind her duty as wife and queen while Rhaenyra is just selfish and doing what she wants with no care for her station of reputation, she's been lied and betrayed by Rhaenyra, she hears the prophecy and just misinterprets it, etc) when in the books she's just a selfish woman who wants her son on the throne no matter what. Here she is far more complex and has rational reasons behind all of her actions.

Aemond is a kid who suffers from bullying not only from his young nephews but also from his own older brother, he takes Vhagar and is attacked by 4 persons at once, etc.

Ser Criston Cole is a man betrayed by Rhaenyra, who just wants to keep him as some kind of sex toy with no regard towards his own vows and the peril he faces for sleeping with her just once. He confesses his deed to Alicent and asks for a quick death, and after that he is going to commit suicide but is stopped by Alicent just in time.

Daemon, for example, has actually been shown to be a far more evil person than his book version. He kills his wife for no reason at all except selfishness, he doesn't care about his daughters, doesn't care about her Velaryon wife wanting to come back to her home, etc.

I don't know, it's just not logical to pretend that the show is portraying the Greens in a ba dlight when it's just the opposite. Blacks have always been the book-favourites but here you can see the showrunners and writers trying to give complexity to them.

Saying something doesn’t make it so. Saying the Greens have complex motivations doesn’t make it so. 

You can come up with excuses for why the villain is bad, just like you could say Gregor Clegane was abused as a child, but it doesn’t add nuance to their actions. 

Your analysis only works for the first five episodes. After the time skip Alicent does everything in her power to reject Rhaenyra’s olive branch, she puts her children’s lives in danger, promotes a rivalry not reciprocated by the other side, and never falters from her course. 
 

I can’t comprehend how you think Alicent is whitewashed when her actions have no semblance of logic and while Rhaenyra shows no emotional flaws, deflecting each of her stepmom’s cruelty with a gesture of friendship. 
 

For ten years Rhaenyra is nothing besides loyal, dedicated, and emotionally discreet. She does everything to try and assuage Alicent’s worry but for plot reasons Alicent cannot listen to reason. 
 

So she destroys her children, she aligns with a psychopath, she manipulates a dying old man against his own daughter, she stokes a rivalry and all for what? Because she is mentally unstable? Because she is jealous, greedy? The show can commit to nothing so they just throw in that BS prophecy as a cop out. 
 

The only way what you say is defensible is if you only look at the first five episodes. But in doing so you ignore how the latter episodes have deconstructed everything built up in the first five. 
The Greens have fundamentally no moral claims and are only given sympathy when they show deference to the Blacks. 
 

But the Greens exist under the premise of opposition to the blacks, so thereby their faction has no moral fidelity for viewers to latch onto or comprehend. 
 

As for Daemon, this conversation has been going for a while. Feel free to look back to my other posts on this thread, but just because you jump into a conversation so late in the game without reading the lead up doesn’t give me reason to repeat myself. Suffice to say Daemon has resoundingly been molded into the hero, helping both his king and the king’s daughter secure the throne against a bunch of unmotivated psychopaths. 
 

Which is why Daemon’s crimes have no emotional or political impact in the story while the Greens instigate every negative consequence on their own.

[Ingelheim]

We probably have been watching different shows then. Because the whitewashing of the Greens happens specially after episode 5, IMO. 

Let's leave it here then.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

How does killing Harwin Strong help her?  

Alicent explicitly states she did not want either Strong killed.  She was just venting and making an offhand comment, and Larys took it from there.  He's basically her evil genie.  She's also clearly terrified of him when he admits what he did.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, RumHam said:

I don't doubt that the Targaryens used some kind of blood magic bond to control dragons and bind them for life. I still think it's possible that with the right animal one could form a non-magical bond. It would probably require an unusually intelligent dragon with the right disposition. 

To be sure, such freak occurrences could also happen, but it is very far-fetched for me to assume that could happen with a monstrously huge apex predator like a dragon. For larger dragons, humans shouldn't even be proper prey ... more like vermin. Even with the magical bond we assume it is quite ridiculous to assume that a beast like Vhagar could be directed by a whip it might not actually feel during its scales.

I could see humans bonding with a dragon they raised from the egg on ... but such a bond would get ever more dangerous as the dragon grows (like Dany's dragons become dangerous for Irri and Jhiqui to handle as they grow), and should disappear by the point the dragon reaches truly monstrous size.

10 hours ago, RumHam said:

I mentioned the guy and his lion friend. I remember an example with an alligator and his handler too. Sometimes animals develop bonds with humans that do not require magic. Plus there's the bit about how she feeds him before each flight. Good dragonrider practice or the only way she can get him to reliably obey? 

I'd interpret this as a sign of affection. I mean, do you think she still could feed Sheepstealer daily after she was up in the Mountains of the Moon, all by herself with no funds?

10 hours ago, RumHam said:

As for the bolded....so? I don't see how that disqualifies her in either case. 

That was just to point out that she likely didn't have rival magical knowledge to tame or subdue a dragon.

7 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Both Ser Steffon Darklyn and Lord Gormon Massey participated (and died) in the Sowing. Although, with both of their houses being from the Blackwater Bay, it's perfectly possible that they may have had some drop of Targaryen blood.

Yeah, I'd imagine that both Darklyn and Massey had or thought they had some dragonlord blood through ancient Targaryen or more recent Velaryon marriages. I've always said that a Targaryen-Darklyn match during the Century of Blood would make sense, possibly involving a daughter or Gaemon or something along those lines, since the Targaryens would have friendly and favorable trade relations with the biggest Westerosi port in the region.

But, of course, Jace's offer was open to all, not just to people who had reason to believe they were legitimate or illegitimate Targaryen descendants. And apparently plenty of people tried who had no reason to believe they were Targaryen descendants.

Although I'd assume that especially Steffon Darklyn who held a rather important position at Rhaenyra's court would have been forbidden to try to mount a dragon if they had had reason to believe he had no shot at it because he had no reason to believe to be a Targaryen descendant.

6 hours ago, Ran said:

In my mind, it's always been a matter of having "the right drop" -- some "genetic" key, for lack of a better word. One can say there are indeed thousands of Targaryen descendants among dragonseeds and their descendants in turn, since it goes back centuries, but obviously the genetic lottery is fickle and the trait is rare unless carefully preserved. Hence Targaryen incest.

It is also the case that there were, on average, always less dragons than Targaryen descendants, and most of the latter would have been baseborn descendants of dragonseeds on Dragonstone and the other islands. They would have been never encouraged to try to claim one of the Targaryen dragons.

It is only with Aegon the Unworthy that the blood of the dragon is literally spread throughout the Seven Kingdoms ... and, strangely enough, one of his more obscure descendants is right now ideally suited to claim one of Dany's dragons - Brown Ben Plumm (if we go with Viserys Plumm as son of Aegon IV and Elaena).

The dragonseed dragonriders we can either view as lucky guys who were favored by a genetic lottery ... and the fact that the successful ones could have multiple dragonseeds among their ancestors would strengthen that idea. But Hugh and Ulf could also easily enough be the unacknowledged sons or grandsons of more recent Targaryen princes - Baelon and Aemon spring to mind, but Aenys' elder sons could also be considered. We hear that King Aenys eventually announced the betrothal of Aegon and Rhaena because people expected that the prince would father a bastard soon if he was not married. That would likely mean on one of the noblewomen that were vying for his attention and favors. But the Conqueror had moved the court to Dragonstone in 35 AC, so Aegon and Viserys both may have spend the bulk of their father's reign on the island, having fun with some of the baseborn Dragonstone women.

Addam Velaryon might prove a challenge for the show, since they downplayed the kinship between the Targaryens and the Velaryons. If he is not going to be a returned Laenor in disguise, they should go with the boys being the sons of Laenor, fathered prior to his marriage to Rhaenyra when he was trying to have fun with women. They definitely opened the door for Laenor having fathered children by including those lines.

[DMC]

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But the Conqueror had moved the court to Dragonstone in 35 AC, so Aegon and Viserys both may have spend the bulk of their father's reign on the island, having fun with some of the baseborn Dragonstone women.

Wasn't Viserys, like, 13 when Maegor took the throne and subsequently him as his "ward?"  Seems very unlikely he fathered a bastard.  

[butterweedstrover]

50 minutes ago, DMC said:

Alicent explicitly states she did not want either Strong killed.  She was just venting and making an offhand comment, and Larys took it from there.  He's basically her evil genie.  She's also clearly terrified of him when he admits what he did.

And she still goes back to him as if he would be a useful asset. 

The funniest part is, she has a terrified reaction then doesn’t do anything about it. She doesn’t show regret for her behavior against the Strongs, she doesn’t alter her approach to the Strongs, nor does she even try to distance herself from Larys.  
 

 

[butterweedstrover]

1 hour ago, Ingelheim said:

We probably have been watching different shows then. Because the whitewashing of the Greens happens specially after episode 5, IMO. 

Let's leave it here then.

I’d ask you for an example of the Greens being ‘whitewashed’ but appears you’re done with this conversation. 

I’m somewhat interested as Alicent is given zero moral arguments for denying Rhaenyra the throne but whatever, I guess your position will have to remain a mystery.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Ingelheim said:

That does make a lot of sense, because in reality the Targaryen blood purity is basically a myth; by the time Daenerys is alive, she has probably like...10%? of pure Targaryen blood. They've married too many times outside of their family brunch, but still the genes remain dominant the majority of occasions.

And still, they seem to be the only ones alive who can control dragons.

You only reach that conclusion if you start with Aegon and his sisters having 100% of Targaryen blood. The idea would be that the incest thing helps them preserve and retain the ability to bond with dragons, but we should not assume that it is necessary all the time. It could very well be that cousin marriages would be quite enough but the old dragonlords decided not to take any chances.

I mean, the way they reached this conclusion likely is some disaster back during the dawn of Valyria. Say, there was a group of or perhaps only one original dragonlord. A powerful sorcerer who was able to bond with a dragon by mixing their blood (or by actually mating with a dragon, creating a human-dragon hybrid who passed for human but could control dragons).

Now, originally it may have thought that all the descendants of the first dragonlord(s) retained that ability ... but their great-great-great-grandchildren then realized that fewer and fewer of their number actually could bond with dragons, with some of them even being killed by the dragons of their late parents when they tried to mount them.

At that point marriages among dragonlords and eventually sibling incest would be tried and eventually introduced as the norm to prevent something like that from ever happening again.

The whole notion of 'the blood of the dragon must remain pure' could be less an expression of Valyrian superiority and hubris but more a barely remembered warning from the oldest days of Old Valyria.

After all, the imperative is so strong that the Targaryens not only insist on that practice after their conquered Westeros but also after their dragons actually died out.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

There is more to the Greens than Aemond or Aegon. In fact their main character is Alicent who has (had) the potential to be a complex nuanced character, and she just isn't. 

She has no conflicted relationship with her 'best' friend, she doesn't even acknowledge Rhaenyra or reminisce about their friendship until a 180 at the dinner table in episode 8. She is dedicated to seeing Rhaenyra's downfall, and yet the show can offer no practical reason as to why. They do introduce the concept that Alicent should fear for her children.

Alicent does have nuanced and complex character in the show. For one, she is neither the ambitious gold digger nor the evil stepmother - both of which may be the case in the book. Remember, there are also rumors that she fucked both the Old King in his last days and King Viserys whilst Queen Aemma was still alive and pregnant.

Alicent is a potential ambitious slut in the book ... but the show decided to not present her as such. At all. That was a good decision there. Also, it seems clear that while Alicent likely never desired Viserys sexually, she still very much cares for him as a person. That also clearly isn't the case in the book where she allows his corpse to rot in his bedchamber and where she never so much as mentions her husband's name in her last days when reminiscing about her life.

The Alicent-Rhaenyra friendship is the reason why these two women are at odds. It is what causes their quarrel, not something else. Now, they should written it as a more gradual process - the ten year time jump doesn't work particularly well - but it is still clear that Alicent feeling hurt about what she perceives as a betrayal is the cause for their issues.

Rhaenyra never has but a superficial 'rivalry' with her stepmother. She is the Heir Apparent and secure in that position, so Alicent and her children are no real danger to her. Alicent retaining her beauty after the pregnancies while Rhaenyra gained weight may have hurt Rhaenyra somewhat on a personal level, but considering her station very few would have dared to mock her for this.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

You think Alicent is nuanced because she shows reluctance at times in destroying the blacks. But that reluctance is not reflected in a change of course. Motivations aren't real if they don't manifest in the decision making of said character, and having someone ignore their own emotions for sake of a single goal constitutes a bout of monomania.

I suggest we wait and see how crucial Alicent's own desires and intentions will be during the coup and the subsequent reign of Aegon II. I have the feeling that while she may be key in the interregnum where power transitions from Viserys to Aegon II, she might be pushed aside very easily and quickly afterwards.

Part of the reason the Greens are acting is to prevent female rule, and Alicent Hightower happens to be a woman, too. The men she has allied with are not really looking for a female shadow ruler. They are going to want for Aegon to rule himself and/or men he appointed to rule in his name (Otto, Criston, Aemond), not Queen Alicent.

Right now Alicent is at the center of power because she champions the cause of her son. But they won't need her anymore once her eldest son sits the throne.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Her objectives are given no rational besides some paper thin conceptualization of jealousy or power that are not explored in any significant way that might give these things a firm ground to hold up three seasons of war/conflict.

Alicent is clearly motivated and conflicted on multiple levels - a sense of duty to her father and House Hightower, the duty to her children, the duty to her husband the king, the old friendship and attachment she feels for Rhaenyra.

And, of course, the sense of betrayal she also feels because of Rhaenyra's supposedly unworthy actions.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Rhaenyra on the other hand lacks any personal attachment to her supposed best friend. She shrugs off each insult as if they were launched by a stranger. She never lashes out despite the enormous pressure, she never shows anger or the impressions of violence. She never yells at her children, she does not ever stoop to murdering her enemies or even manipulating them in some ambiguous way, she is up right, calm, and all around forgiving.

Why should she do any of those things? She was consistently presented as a very controlled person throughout the show, and she has no motivation to lose it.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Not only does it makes Rhaenyra less realistic, it cripples any possible miscommunication between her and Alicent that might be used as reason to fuel this rivalry, that from what we have seen is completely one sided. 

Which it is basically also in the book. Rhaenyra is her father's favorite, and the others (even Daemon) are jealous of her.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

And throwing around some stuff about Jace and Luke not automatically wilting at Aemond's psychopathic nature does not make them 'grey'. Jace and Luke are not grey, they are children with a desire to be good rulers, noble husbands, they want to honor their family name and defuse tensions with the Blacks. 

Luke I think isn't a great guy. He could have developed into a bad apple in the show, I think, if he wouldn't die so early. Jace is just bland and a tidbit naive.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Smirking over a pig or dancing with the guy's wife who has been trying to humiliate you isn't a sign of moral corruption, it is a sign that, unlike Rhaenyra, these boys are human beings capable of more than just niceties. But they are fundamental noble and pure children who just want to do the right thing.

You know what would have been a sign that Luke was a noble and pure child? If he had approached Uncle Aemond apologizing or trying to apologize for taking his eye. That would have been a noble thing to do. Instead, he smirks because he remembers the Pink Dread.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Having conflicted characters is interesting. Having psychopaths on one side and a woman without any practical motive versus pure hearted heroes is no basis for a conflict that should focus on the psychological substance of both sides.

LOL, while Aemond eventually develops into a monster if they don't change him significantly, he isn't at this time. And he wasn't as a boy. Considering they attention and care his writing got so far, we can expect them also invent three-dimensional context for his gruesome actions.

For instance, we have already seen Larys Strong lusting after Alicent. Aemond killing all the Strongs could be partially motivated by him learning from Criston or somebody else that Larys Strong actually pressured his mother into having sex, raping or abusing her.

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

 They, for 8(!!) episodes have tried to get us in the head of Alicent and they couldn't by episode 8 find one reason to justify her course (due to their unwillingness to tarnish the Blacks reputation) so they land on some BS prophecy as the ultimate sign of defeat. 

It is not the prophecy, it is Alicent believing or wanting to believe that her husband the king finally favored her son over his daughter. That Viserys genuinely wished for Aegon to be king. For her character as presented that would be very crucial. It means that Viserys gives her permission to bar Rhaenyra from the throne. She is not committing treason, nor betraying her husband's memory.

And we can be pretty sure that Alicent doesn't want this to devolve to assassinations and war. She is likely to think they can crown Aegon without having to fight or kill Rhaenyra or her children. After all, it is obvious that the reconciliation between the two women was sincere.

And here we do have potential for considerable misunderstanding on Rhaenyra's side - she and Daemon might believe that Alicent only feigned their reconciliation.

And since you mention the prophecy: It is clear that for Rhaenyra it is a very crucial part of her wanting to rule. That's why she pressured Viserys about this last episode. She sees it as her duty to uphold the Conqueror's legacy.

[DMC]

Just now, butterweedstrover said:

And she still goes back to him as if he would be a useful asset. 

The point remains she didn't want Harwin dead, which is what you were arguing.

Part of the reason she doesn't do anything against/distance herself from Larys is self-evident - she's terrified of him.  But yes, she also presumably uses their relationship to her advantage over the time skip.  As for not showing regret, again, watch the final scene of episode 6 again.  She clearly regrets what happened.  What more do you want?

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Wasn't Viserys, like, 13 when Maegor took the throne and subsequently him as his "ward?"  Seems very unlikely he fathered a bastard.  

For Viserys it is less likely, true. But Maegor could have taken him to the whorehouses and whatnot while he was his squire.

Less likely, though, that this happened on Dragonstone. There Aegon the Uncrowned is a better candidate. Do recall that Cat also thinks Robb had already had fun with the girls at the age of 14-15.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Do recall that Cat also thinks Robb had already had fun with the girls at the age of 14-15.

Yeah, it'd be kinda weird if Maegor took him to a whorehouse, but I suppose it's possible.  Kinda like Princess Bride.  "I'll very likely kill you tomorrow, but c'mon, let's go get ya laid!"

[butterweedstrover]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Alicent does have nuanced and complex character in the show. For one, she is neither the ambitious gold digger nor the evil stepmother - both of which may be the case in the book. Remember, there are also rumors that she fucked both the Old King in his last days and King Viserys whilst Queen Aemma was still alive and pregnant. 
 

The thing is though the book doesn’t offer psychological motivations. It utilizes rumors and one dimensional stereotypes to fuel the conflict, but we never get the actual substance behind their position. 
 

For example, if all Alicent wanted was power the question remains what motivates her lust for power. And as for yourself you seem inclined to ignore the gossip behind Rhaenyra from the book but embrace those of Alicent as established fact. 
 

The show was always suppose to flesh out their motivations. The problem is they couldn’t find one for Alicent because they couldn’t bring it upon themselves to give the Blacks some moral deficit.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Alicent is a potential ambitious slut in the book ... but the show decided to not present her as such. At all. That was a good decision there.
 

You’re assuming this slander was the basis for her character in the book, which it was not. 

However, the show could still have made her nuanced while showing her sexual proclivities. All it needed to do was give her a decent motivation. 

An act is not evil or lacking in nuance in of itself. The action is given depth by the motivations underlying it.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 Also, it seems clear that while Alicent likely never desired Viserys sexually, she still very much cares for him as a person.
 

And she cares so much for him she tries to use his weakened state as an opportunity to remove his daughter from the line of succession. 

The show tells us a lot about Alicent, but her actions in the plot have no basis in those perceived attributes and dilute her entire faction into bad guys, removing ambiguity from the conflict. 

Her dedication to Viserys is not shown in her evaluation of what needs to be done. The story prioritizes her own (irrational) vendetta over whatever affection she might have for the king. 

Offscreen we can be told about certain dynamics to people’s relationships, but if it doesn’t affect the story or their character then it only exists to magnify how shallow and meaningless her character really is.

Alicent also has a terrified reaction to her son being a rapist. But this is framed as the result of her pressuring him to become king and in response to this traumatic revelation… she names him king. 
 

Her motivations in the plot aren’t given any moral foundation by the story leaving her incessant desires to be simply evil without depth or even coherence.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 That also clearly isn't the case in the book where she allows his corpse to rot in his bedchamber and where she never so much as mentions her husband's name in her last days when reminiscing about her life. 
 

We’ll see what she does in the show, but if you’re going to hide a body it will decompose, they don’t have electric freezers.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The Alicent-Rhaenyra friendship is the reason why these two women are at odds.

That’s a nice theory but it doesn’t explain why Alicent is so dedicated in seeing her friend’s downfall even at the expense of her own children. 

And it doesn’t explain Rhaenyra’s completely passiveness in response to this betrayal or her lack of personal flaws that might further fan tension.

Alicent, for no reason at all wants, to see Rhaenyra destroyed. And Rhaenyra does not have even the slightest bit of anger, upset, or emotional crack in seeing her best friend try to ruin her. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is what causes their quarrel, not something else. Now, they should written it as a more gradual process - the ten year time jump doesn't work particularly well - but it is still clear that Alicent feeling hurt about what she perceives as a betrayal is the cause for their issues. 
 

A lie ten years ago that Rhaenyra has attempted at every turn to amend. Alicent showing an endless resolve to destroy Rhaenyra over a lie ten years ago, even at the expense of her children, her husband, her friendship, and her morals doesn’t reflect upon Alicent a complexity of character.

It reflects upon her an unrestrained monomania lacking in nuance or depth. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra never has but a superficial 'rivalry' with her stepmother. She is the Heir Apparent and secure in that position, so Alicent and her children are no real danger to her.
 

Despite all the times Rhaenyra actually shows concern that the Greens might actually pose a threat (which they do) she also shows no vindictiveness, anger, or stress at her best friend trying to destroy her. 

She shows no emotions and is calm, rational, and collected at every turn undermining the concept that ‘friendship’ led to this rivalry because obviously Rhaenyra isn’t taking it personally.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Alicent retaining her beauty after the pregnancies while Rhaenyra gained weight may have hurt Rhaenyra somewhat on a personal level, but considering her station very few would have dared to mock her for this. 
 

Actually, I think the show changed this with the “pretty foot” line.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I suggest we wait and see how crucial Alicent's own desires and intentions will be during the coup and the subsequent reign of Aegon II. I have the feeling that while she may be key in the interregnum where power transitions from Viserys to Aegon II, she might be pushed aside very easily and quickly afterwards. 
 

This is damning in of itself. If the only way for Alicent to have any moral complexity is for to lose all her agency then what is the point of developing the Greens and their potential motivations? What is the point of having a duel narrative at all.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Alicent is clearly motivated and conflicted on multiple levels - a sense of duty to her father and House Hightower, the duty to her children, the duty to her husband the king, the old friendship and attachment she feels for Rhaenyra. 
 

None of this is true. She is not motivated in seeing her family gain in status. Her possible motivation for sake of her family (episode 5) would be to see her family protected. 

And given the number of olive branches Alicent rejects, fueling a precarious war of succession, she is not behaving out of concern for her family’s well being. Neither is she acting out of affection for the king. Or the ‘friendship’ she had for Rhaenyra. 

Alicent is going against all these things for what exactly?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And, of course, the sense of betrayal she also feels because of Rhaenyra's supposedly unworthy actions. 
 

And Rhaenyra’s actions were whitewashed by having it made clear that Laenor is the one that failed her marriage. 

So what exactly is Alicent left with? A pointless jealousy which is way too paper thin to sustain a complex war of moral ambiguity.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

LOL, while Aemond eventually develops into a monster if they don't change him significantly, he isn't at this time. And he wasn't as a boy. Considering they attention and care his writing got so far, we can expect them also invent three-dimensional context for his gruesome actions. 
 

I was speaking of Alicent.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not the prophecy, it is Alicent believing or wanting to believe that her husband the king finally favored her son over his daughter. That Viserys genuinely wished for Aegon to be king. For her character as presented that would be very crucial. It means that Viserys gives her permission to bar Rhaenyra from the throne. She is not committing treason, nor betraying her husband's memory.

This is the same episode in which Alicent tells Aegon “you are no son of mine”. 
 

The assumption you’re running with is that Alicent always wanted Aegon on the throne and this is her ultimate excuse. But WHY? She has no moral argument to hold this position leaving the central motivation behind her character vapid and framing the other side a generic heroes.

Edited October 14, 2022 by butterweedstrover

[butterweedstrover]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

The point remains she didn't want Harwin dead, which is what you were arguing.

Part of the reason she doesn't do anything against/distance herself from Larys is self-evident - she's terrified of him.  But yes, she also presumably uses their relationship to her advantage over the time skip.  As for not showing regret, again, watch the final scene of episode 6 again.  She clearly regrets what happened.  What more do you want?

No, my argument is that Larys does nothing useful for her so why is she relying on him as a vital ally (besides to make the Greens look worse and more villainous). 
 

Her dedication to spreading rumors about the Strongs is what got them killed. If she had even an ounce of regret she might have tried to slow them down and give the family a break, but all that happens is they become so loud that when Rhaenyra returns that is all people are talking about.

Alicent acts upset and then just keeps doing what she was doing anyways.

Edited October 14, 2022 by butterweedstrover

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

No, my argument is that Larys does nothing useful for her so why is she relying on him as a vital ally (besides to make the Greens look worse and more villainous).

I originally responded to you saying this:

4 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

It doesn't have to be true, it has to be something Alicent could see as a potential outcome of doing nothing. Jealousy and Power have no basis in her story because they are not set-up as motivating factors, and yet she destroys her own children trying to force them on the throne, rejects ever olive branch, and allies herself with a known psychopath for what exactly? How does killing Harwin Strong help her?  

This is clearly suggesting she wanted Harwin dead, when she didn't.  Why she "allies" herself with Larys originally is made clear - he's the one who tips her off about the moon tea and that Rhaenyra almost certainly lied to her.  She's also, in that scene and episode, again bemoaning that she is isolated (which she is) and doesn't have any friends (which seems implausible but is how the show depicted it).  Larys ingratiates himself to her, and thus becomes one of her only friends at court.  That's completely understandable.  It's not until he kills his father and brother that Alicent realizes he's a psychopath.

15 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Her dedication to spreading rumors about the Strongs is what got them killed.

LOL, no, Larys got them killed.

Edited October 14, 2022 by DMC
Harwin not her

[butterweedstrover]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

I originally responded to you saying this:

This is clearly suggesting she wanted Harwin dead, when she didn't.  Why she "allies" herself with Larys originally is made clear - he's the one who tips her off about the moon tea and that Rhaenyra almost certainly lied to her.  She's also, in that scene and episode, again bemoaning that she is isolated (which she is) and doesn't have any friends (which seems implausible but is how the show depicted it).  Larys ingratiates himself to her, and thus becomes one of her only friends at court.  That's completely understandable.  It's not until he kills his father and brother that Alicent realizes he's a psychopath. 
 

And I’m clarifying what I meant which is that Larys doing something not only morally wrong but counter to her interests does not explain why she would return afterwards to him and solidify their alliance as if he were a useful asset.

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL, no, Larys got them killed.

Then why does she show any horror at all if she bares no responsibility. The framing was that her private chats with Larys are what brought on his action. 
 

And if she felt partly responsible, then she would amend her behavior and give the Strong name a break. But all she does is escalate her rhetoric and return to Larys.