Is it just me who finds the Targaryens after the Dance more interesting?

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

Honestly, all the Targaryens before and during the Dance are a lot more insufferable and boring than those that come after the dragons died. Jaehaerys & Alysanne’s children, Aemon, Baelon, and Alyssa seem cool. But other than them, the rest are either psychotic, assholes, or boring. Aside from Aegon IV, Aerys II and Aerion the Targs after actually seem like better human beings. But even the 3 I mentioned are interesting as characters.

[Craving Peaches]

Yes they were honestly so far up their own backsides before the dragons died. Even Jaehaerys. At least that was the impression I got from reading Fire and Blood. It really put me off them. I used to like them before that. Now I dislike them quite a bit, with the exception of Aegon V and Baelor Breakspear.

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes they were honestly so far up their own backsides before the dragons died. Even Jaehaerys. At least that was the impression I got from reading Fire and Blood. It really put me off them. I used to like them before that. Now I dislike them quite a bit, with the exception of Aegon V and Baelor Breakspear.

Even if you dislike them as people, I see them as more interesting characters

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, King Maegor the Cool said:

Even if you dislike them as people, I see them as more interesting characters

Yeah they are more interesting because they can't just use dragons to solve all their problems.

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

9 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yeah they are more interesting because they can't just use dragons to solve all their problems.

Exactly.  That’s the main reason I will always put Viserys II and Daeron II over Jaehaerys and Alysanne as rulers. 

[GZ Bloodraven]

1 hour ago, King Maegor the Cool said:

Honestly, all the Targaryens before and during the Dance are a lot more insufferable and boring than those that come after the dragons died. Jaehaerys & Alysanne’s children, Aemon, Baelon, and Alyssa seem cool. But other than them, the rest are either psychotic, assholes, or boring. Aside from Aegon IV, Aerys II and Aerion the Targs after actually seem like better human beings. But even the 3 I mentioned are interesting as characters.

This is so correct. I think it's because of less incest as time goes on, and less focus on dragons and Targs claiming dragons and Targs flying around on dragons. The Targaryens are the most interesting when they are interacting with people outside their own family, I think.

Before the Dance, I guess I find Aegon I, Rhaenys, Visenya, Maegor, Jae I and Alysanne (though less than Jae II and Shaera) Aemon and Baelon, Rhaenys, and Rhaenyra "interesting." After the Dance, the only ones I don't find interesting are Aegon IV and Aerys I. 

[Alester Florent]

I think characters are often more interesting when lightly drawn. The more the author writes about them, the less room for ambiguity, for readers to come up with their own theories or characterisations, etc. As such, the extensive detail we now have on the pre-dragon Targs may have done them a disservice in making them less interesting.

Right now, we are free to imagine a great deal to the good about Daeron II, Viserys II, Maekar, Aegon V, etc. But once we've had hundreds of pages on each of them going into their foibles we will probably find them just as banal and disappointing as we do Jaehaerys and Viserys I.

[Lord Varys]

The Targaryens lacking dragons are just a mundane royal dynasty with queer marriage customs, delusions of grandeur, and hereditary mental problems.

They are not very interesting as a family.

Egg is interesting not so much because he is a Targaryen, but because he is a prince who attached himself to a humble would-be knight. The Targaryens of the Dunk & Egg era are only interesting, I think, as foils to the dysfunctional and fucked-up royals of the ASoIaF books. Baelor Breakspear and Valarr and Maekar shine like saints compared to the Baratheons and false Baratheons of the later era.

There is some potential, I think, for the Young Dragon and Baelor the Blessed being interesting people with extreme, half-mad characters with a lot of charisma. And the Dragonknight might be interesting, too, but only as the super knight he allegedly was. Aside from that, there isn't much interesting stuff going on there.

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Targaryens lacking dragons are just a mundane royal dynasty with queer marriage customs, delusions of grandeur, and hereditary mental problems.

They are not very interesting as a family.

Egg is interesting not so much because he is a Targaryen, but because he is a prince who attached himself to a humble would-be knight. The Targaryens of the Dunk & Egg era are only interesting, I think, as foils to the dysfunctional and fucked-up royals of the ASoIaF books. Baelor Breakspear and Valarr and Maekar shine like saints compared to the Baratheons and false Baratheons of the later era.

There is some potential, I think, for the Young Dragon and Baelor the Blessed being interesting people with extreme, half-mad characters with a lot of charisma. And the Dragonknight might be interesting, too, but only as the super knight he allegedly was. Aside from that, there isn't much interesting stuff going on there.

It means they have to have a personality outside of, I have a dragon, do what I say. They actually have to politick, and negotiate to survive. They can’t just fall back on their cheat code. I guarantee none of the Targaryens before and during the Dance could’ve ruled without dragons. 

[Alester Florent]

4 hours ago, King Maegor the Cool said:

It means they have to have a personality outside of, I have a dragon, do what I say. They actually have to politick, and negotiate to survive. They can’t just fall back on their cheat code. I guarantee none of the Targaryens before and during the Dance could’ve ruled without dragons. 

Viserys I didn't have a dragon. 

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

7 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Viserys I didn't have a dragon. 

But he had dragon riders.

[Alester Florent]

14 minutes ago, King Maegor the Cool said:

But he had dragon riders.

Yes and no. For much of his reign, the Velaryons were the real dragon powerhouse, with Meleys, Vhagar and Seasmoke. Daemon was a loose cannon who couldn't be relied on in a crisis. Arguably the only dragonrider of any substance he had directly at his disposal before Laena's death was Rhaenyra with Syrax. Had Daemon and the Velaryons rebelled against him instead of going after the Stepstones, it could have been quite one-sided in dragon terms.

But despite this relative weakness in terms of available dragons, we also don't hear of his having to deploy dragons as a statement to keep the peace. His reign was largely managed with conventional government and diplomacy.

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

5 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Yes and no. For much of his reign, the Velaryons were the real dragon powerhouse, with Meleys, Vhagar and Seasmoke. Daemon was a loose cannon who couldn't be relied on in a crisis. Arguably the only dragonrider of any substance he had directly at his disposal before Laena's death was Rhaenyra with Syrax. Had Daemon and the Velaryons rebelled against him instead of going after the Stepstones, it could have been quite one-sided in dragon terms.

But despite this relative weakness in terms of available dragons, we also don't hear of his having to deploy dragons as a statement to keep the peace. His reign was largely managed with conventional government and diplomacy.

But the threat of dragons was always there. I guarantee if the dragons weren’t around at that point, the 6k would’ve shattered

[Loose Bolt]

4 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Viserys I didn't have a dragon. 

Actually he was last rider of Balerion. Or he was dragonrider but his dragon died.

[James Steller]

18 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I think characters are often more interesting when lightly drawn. The more the author writes about them, the less room for ambiguity, for readers to come up with their own theories or characterisations, etc. As such, the extensive detail we now have on the pre-dragon Targs may have done them a disservice in making them less interesting.

Right now, we are free to imagine a great deal to the good about Daeron II, Viserys II, Maekar, Aegon V, etc. But once we've had hundreds of pages on each of them going into their foibles we will probably find them just as banal and disappointing as we do Jaehaerys and Viserys I.

I strongly disagree with this. Aegon III became my favourite non-ASOIAF character thanks to Fire and Blood fleshing him out and developing him. We already knew the gist of his life, but having it play out in detail made it more real. We got to see how he interacted with the various adults in his life. Cregan, Tyland, Unwin, and Torrhen all became more real through their diverse interactions with Aegon, and it really means something when he stands up to Marston Waters, Gareth Long, and especially when he takes charge of his kingdom at long last. It was the best way for FAB to end.

[frenin]

20 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Right now, we are free to imagine a great deal to the good about Daeron II, Viserys II, Maekar, Aegon V, etc. But once we've had hundreds of pages on each of them going into their foibles we will probably find them just as banal and disappointing as we do Jaehaerys and Viserys I.

Disagree completely.

I had close to zero interest in Jaeharys and Alysanne before reading Fire and Blood, afterwards i came out believing they were just assholes with god complexes and a hand for ruling, i came out disliking them, not disappointed but just "these dudes suck".

Viserys there's nothing to say as he's pretty much still a blank slate by the time he dies.

Aegon III, i loved the guy, knowing about him and his regency (best part of the book by far imo) was a thrill. If it was not because the regency i'd honestly demand kindle my money back.

2 hours ago, James Steller said:

I strongly disagree with this. Aegon III became my favourite non-ASOIAF character thanks to Fire and Blood fleshing him out and developing him. We already knew the gist of his life, but having it play out in detail made it more real. We got to see how he interacted with the various adults in his life. Cregan, Tyland, Unwin, and Torrhen all became more real through their diverse interactions with Aegon, and it really means something when he stands up to Marston Waters, Gareth Long, and especially when he takes charge of his kingdom at long last. It was the best way for FAB to end.

Wow, never thought i'd ever agree with you in anything related ASOIAF lol.

 

9 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Viserys I didn't have a dragon. 

His family had tho and he could always claim one (allegedly).

 

 

[EggBlue]

I completely agree.

I don't think it's because of the lack of dragons that post-dance Targs seem more interesting; rather, pre-dance Targs are somewhat underdeveloped.

A lot of post-dance Targs (Rhaegar, Egg, Egg's kids, Daeron, and great bastards ) are influential and essential to the recent stories of Dunk&Egg and the main series. Something that inevitably makes them more developed and thought through, if not flashed out.  In comparison, pre-Dance Targs are just a bunch of "mad" women, childbirth-dying moms, and selfish dudes. What has made F&B fun is a combination of alternatives to events and the chance to discuss them with other overly enthusiastic fans on websites like this! not characters, unlike the main series. 

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

If the Targaryens had dragons after the Dance we wouldn’t get Aegon III(kinda, he technically had a few dragons, but they never matured), Viserys II, Daeron II, Daena,  Baelor Breakspear, Maekar, Aegon V, his children, or Aerys and Rhaegar as we know them. 

[Curled Finger]

The Targaryens in general are a weird bunch, but Westeros is a weird place full of serious assholes.  Even with dragons the masses were still assholes.  Look at my favorite asshole in all the stories, Otto Hightower.  All those dragons and he still couldn't resist trying to get right in the middle of all that power.  What a jackass.  First thing anyone should have fed any of those dragons right there.  So while you've got the lunatics like Maegor and Baelor the Blessed, there are some very reasonable forward thinking rulers like Jaehaerys & Alysanne and Aegon V.  Dragons or not, the Targaryens would have been far better off not involving any of the other noble houses, not in big ways.  All the key positions should have been held by Targs or people from Valyria, at the very least.  Keep all of them in their places, paying tribute and taxes and out of the business of ruling.  

Now we get magical northern people.  We didn't get to see them without magic.  Were they any different than with magic?  Sansa seems OK, not too magical?  Bran is uber magical and he handles it better than most little boys would.  Arya?  Well, she's had it really rough, maybe magic is all that gets her by.  Jon denies his magic.  Then there is Dany, the last Targaryen, maybe.  She's got a dragon and a few magical Targ elements to her, but she mostly seems OK.  (Rebuttal opinions not required here)  Are Targs more interesting without dragons?  I think it would be easier to judge if we had seen Targs with dragons and other magical people at the same time.  One magical family is stacking the odds a bit.  

After FAB my favorite was Viserys as a boy.  What a little badass he was!  

[Alester Florent]

11 hours ago, King Maegor the Cool said:

But the threat of dragons was always there. I guarantee if the dragons weren’t around at that point, the 6k would’ve shattered

I mean that guarantee isn't really actionable because there's no way of knowing. But there seems to be no particular indication that there were meaningful tensions or movements towards civil war or independence during Jaehaerys or Viserys's reigns. In fact there's very little to suggest that there were serious such movements at any point between Jaehaerys and Aerys II. When civil war does break out (during the Dance, or the Blackfyre Rebellions) the conflicts are generally between different Targaryen claimants to the IT rather than those seeking independence or to overthrow the dynasty altogether.

If such things had been in motion, then the early reign of Viserys I is when I would expect to see them come alive. After 105 AC for a few years, the crown had a pile of dragons but no dragonriders. Balerion was dead; Rhaenyra was a child so Syrax is effectively out of the equation; Daemon and Caraxes are in open dispute with the crown. For a lord looking to make their play for independence, it would look like they might never get a better chance. To deploy dragons, Viserys would have to go cap in hand to either Daemon or Rhaenys and beg them to do so for him. (Yes, we have a SSM saying he could have tried to remount another dragon himself, but this is speculative in-world, and he could conceivably have tried to find some dragonseeds, but we also know they're a potential liability if they're the only ones with dragons).

Compare this to Aenys and Maegor's reigns when there are massive, existential, revolts across much of the 7K when the crown has at least two of Balerion, Vhagar and Quicksilver available most of the time. The very real threat of dragons didn't stop them then; why should the hypothetical threat stop them under Viserys?

I think the answer is twofold: firstly, the internal tensions and disunity of the 7K during the long Targ peace is overestimated - because 120-odd years since unification looks a lot less on the page than it feels like in reality; because we underestimate the religious impact of the "divinely sanctioned" Targ kings; because we're basing our understanding of the internal politics on Robert's and Joffrey's reigns which are very different for a variety of reasons (in particular, the North and Riverlands explicitly secede in part because the Baratheons are not Targs, and therefore lack the same dynastic legitimacy). But secondly, because Jaehaerys and Viserys were generally conventionally good kings who managed the realm well and gave their subjects no particular incentive to rebel.

In short, the great lords believed, probably rightly, that they were better off under Targ rule in a united 7K than they would be going it alone, and memories of independence were by this stage pretty much dead anyway, a bygone era for which none of the major players had any particular nostalgia.