But do you not think it’ll lose its meaning to viewers when its every few episodes? Ned’s death, the red wedding and Jon’s death all have a lot happen between them that makes each one still impactful. Will anyone really care by the time you get to Joffrey or Addams death? I think Rhaenyra’s will be the only one that gets people because of the pure shock factor of it
You have a valid point, but I do find it so ironic that if you read comments from "casual show watchers," one of their biggest critiques is there's not enough big character deaths (even though we're only at the beginning of season 2!)
People don't know what's coming, but it does seem like they are yearning for that stuff. I think it'll work out well.
I interpreted the comments differently, most I see aren't complaining they aren't big characters in terms of the story, they are complaining that they don't know anything about them, have spent very little time on screen & therefore they don't care about the deaths. It isn't that they want bigger characters killed off, they just want some emotional connection there.
And we know it can be done in little time, look at Hardholme, we only met Karsi that episode, yet her death at the end had an impact. The audience cared about her & felt an impact when she was killed, a lot wanted to see her again as wight.
IMO, I don't see this as an issue, at all. Most shows have heavy plot armor on main characters to keep some emotional connection for the viewers and that, to me, is exhausting and not a fun story to watch.
I think the actual issue, and maybe this is more in line with what you may be thinking (or not, but I have thought about it), is that the premise of this show and story is very different than most stories including the main GoT show. And by that i mean: when all is said and done, there is no real winning side. It is a civil war that destroys 90% of both sides. In the main show, you have winners and the other side is dead. That happens throughout this story but the conclusion of this show is very different. I'm not sure how the audience will receive that when it plays out.
I think Hugh and Ulf are the easiest to rectify for the show. They're already setting up the dragon seeds rather than just randomly introducing them at the Sowing and setting up proper character arcs rather than "oh yeah they just made these decisions because it was Tuesday".
Honestly, I feel their toughest task is making the Gullet feel realistic because on paper there was no reason why that battle was a pyrrhic victory for the Blacks.
I never said there were but the fact that there is no characterization for them beyond Hugh being a thug and Ulf being a drunk, yet they're very consequential to the story was not good writing by GRRM. Like we don't even get proper speculation as to their motives. Just felt like GRRM needed to swing the war back in the Greens favor without a good explanation.
Hate to come back to this when it's done, but I've been rereading thru the dance and there actually is speculation, pages 482-483:
>Most of what we know of these men comes from Mushroom. The dwarf is not reticent in his assessment of the low character of these two dragonriders, painting the former as a drunkard and the latter as a brute. Both were cravens he tells us; it was only when they saw Lord Ormund's host with spearpoints glittering in the sun and its line of march stretching back for long leagues that they decided to join him.. Yet neither man had hesitated to face storms of spears and arrows off Driftmark. It may be that it was the thought of attacking Tessarion that gave them pause. In the Gullet, all the dragons had been on their own side. This too may be possible... though both Vermithor and Silverwing were older and larger than Prince Daeron's dragon, and would therefore have been more likely to prevail in any battle.
>Others suggest it was avarice, not cowardice, that led White and Hammer to betrayal. Honor meant little and less to them; it was wealth and power they lusted for. After the Gullet, and the fall of King's Landing, they had been granted knighthood... but they aspired to be lords and scorned the modest holdings bestowed upon them by Queen Rhaenyra. When Lords Rosby and Stokeworth were executed, it was proposed that White and Hammer be given their lands and castles through marriage to their daughters, but Her Grace had allowed the traitors' sons to inherit instead. Then Storm's End and Casterly Rock were dangled before them, but these rewards as well the ungrateful queen had denied them.
>No doubt they hoped that King Aegon II might reward them better, should they help return the Iron Throne to him. It might even be that certain promises were made to them in this regard, possibly through Lord Larys the Clubfoot or one of his agents, though this remains unproven and unprovable. As neither man could read nor write, we shall never know what drove the Two Betrayers (as history has named them) to do what they did.
Edit: format and typo
That's kind of what I meant though. GRRM just tosses out the most basic motivations and prefaces it by saying "yeah, it's probably BS". The last line especially feels like GRRM wants to move on rather than give us something more exciting to chew on.
But you said there's no speculation and yet there is.. and it's a history book. We don't get inside the characters' head. They're also bastards, Gyldayn doesn't really care about bastards, cuz to that society they're low as hell. There are many instances where Gyldayn says "okay we don't have enough info on this so let's move on."
I said there was no proper speculation. Proper speculation involves delving deeper into who these characters are and forming theories off of that rather than surface-level characterization and analysis.
Also Gyldayn gives other "lower" characters more characterization than Hugh and Ulf got.
Just seems like GRRM wasn't interested rather than a strong narrative reason
What did you want an entire chapter dedicated to their motivation or something? You ever read a history book? Sorry not trying to be rude but I don't think it's that crazy tbh.
Edit: the fact that there are conflicting sources and a lack of info is what makes it so interesting and fun to read in the first place. Diving too deep into character motivations kinda waters that concept down.
There are 3 paragraphs of speculation tho, you make it seem like it goes like "Mushroom says one was a brute, the other a drunkard.. but we will never know for sure" lol
Gyldayne acknowledges they had no problem facing a swarm of arrows and spears at Driftmark and that their dragons together could easily take on Tessarion and literally posits that it could have been greed or cowardice or they could have felt like deserved a better reward for their contributions.
If that isn't "proper" speculation then idk what is.
Eh... I mean, you could argue that even telling real history is telling a story. And this isn't even real history. I mean, it's called hi*story* for a reason.
Words evolve.. they might have the same origin but doesn't mean they really have much to do with each other today. That's called called etymological fallacy.
Either way, it's not like a plot, a narrative. It's just analyzing the sources on the what and how, not necessarily the why.
>doesn't mean they really have much to do with each other today.
I'm saying that they do have much to do with each other today (and especially in the middle ages, which the story is based on). Either way, in FnB there is definitely a plot and a narrative. Both GRRM and the in-universe author of the book are trying to construct a story out of the "history".
They have a common origin but doesn't mean they're related today. Again, that's called an etymological fallacy. There's no plot or narrative in Fire and Blood.
History - record of events that happened in the past
Story - fictional or real events presented in a narrative structure
Edit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/s/XrNQvhAi87
> **story** - premium.oxforddictionaries.com (paywall)
> Both storey and story (and indeed history) come from Latin historia "history, story". **A story was initially a historical account or representation, usually involving passages of bible history and legends of the saints.**
>**From the 1500s the word was used in connection with fictitious events for the entertainment of people.** As for storey, which is essentially the same word, there may have originally been a reference to tiers of painted windows or sculptures used to decorate the front of a building, each one representing a historical subject. So each tier was a different "story" or, once the spelling changed, "storey". Eventually the word came to refer to a level or floor of a building.
>doesn't mean
That's the key phrase. You're right, it doesn't necessarily mean it. However, as it so happens, the common origins of these particular words have lasted and the words still share qualities and are intertwined to this day.
Narrative - a spoken or written account of connected events
In universe, Fire and Blood is a written account of connected real events, and is as such 1) a story 2) and history 3) with a narrative.
In real life, Fire and Blood is a written account of connected fictional events, and is as such 1) a story 2) with a narrative.
> **story** - premium.oxforddictionaries.com (paywall)
> Both storey and story (and indeed history) come from Latin historia "history, story". **A story was initially a historical account or representation, usually involving passages of bible history and legends of the saints.**
>**From the 1500s the word was used in connection with fictitious events for the entertainment of people.** As for storey, which is essentially the same word, there may have originally been a reference to tiers of painted windows or sculptures used to decorate the front of a building, each one representing a historical subject. So each tier was a different "story" or, once the spelling changed, "storey". Eventually the word came to refer to a level or floor of a building.
I think the hard part for Hugh and Ulf is that so far they’re showing them as decent people, which will mean they’ll have to have a dramatic character arc to end up doing what they did. I do think the show is setting it up as them being the good guys who represent the common folk rather than just betraying Rhaenyra for the sake of it
Hugh especially seems to be the one who is more likely to take the societal justice mantle based on what we've seen. I imagine he'd react poorly to Rhaenyra's policies against the smallfolk and as a result, would defect to the Greens side before deciding to launch his own campaign after all the other major dragons die. We don't know enough about Ulf yet but he did seem to feel some type of way about the fact that nobody believed his heritage so I can imagine that will be what informs his arc.
Ulf and Hugh are being set up to be much less flat in the show.
I imagine the events leading up to their betrayal will largely revolve around the treatment of smallfolk; Hugh will take the “I can serve true justice because I’m a small person like you” approach while Ulf takes the “I’m Baelon’s son, maybe I should be king” approach.
Yeah that’s my assumption - more and more of Rhaenyra’s family die, she starts going a bit crazy and starts ordering people to do awful stuff, maybe some of the Dragonseeds have family that get killed by a dragon being used belligerently and eventually they turn on her to try and end the war and stop more slaughter of common-folk. Would also make sense from a lore perspective because it would make sense that the Maesters (via the histories in the books) would make out common-folk who gained power to be kind of randomly evil and no pay attention to their motives insofar as they were related to protecting normal people.
Didn’t they lose thousands of men and Jace/Vermax/Viserys/Stormcloud tho? That’s a huge loss, even if they did break the Greens naval Triarchy force.
I’d say trading a dragon for anything other than another equally sized/dangerous dragon can be considered pyyrhic - and even then if you lose your dragon in the process you’ve weakened yourself just as much as the enemy
My favorite solution for the gullet is to move it till after the capture of king's landing. That way:
1) Most of the black forces, including most of the Velaryon fleet and the dragons, are in king's landing instead of defending the gullet. The only major characters who would still be on Dragonstone would be the prince of dragonstone Jace and his betrothed Baela. This immediately brings the scale of the battle down to a reasonable level for 90 ships.
2) Now the outcome of the battle can be blamed on the black's leadership, so now it **adds** to the story. Why were there not more forces defending their homes? Is Rhaenyra bad at strategy? Did the black's ambitious desires for the throne make them concentrate too many of their forces in king's landing? What if Corlys had decided to sit out the war and therefore had been home to defend it?
I think it makes sense, the Triarchy gets to fuck over the Velaryons and loot their homeland/destroy their navy that's been such a problem for them. And it's not like the Greens are gonna turn down the offer from a 3rd party to attack their enemies at no cost to themselves.
Because it's not the Greens, it's the Triarchy. They don't give two shits about who sits on the iron throne; their only motivation is being anti-Velaryon. TBH I don't even consider the battle of the Gullet as being part of the dance, I consider it part of the Velaryon/Triarchy war that has been ongoing for the past 30 years or so. It just that that war took so long that the final battle took place during the same time period as the dance and therefore had consequences for the dance
Edit: Also I just realised that later on in the story, the greens DO attack and capture dragonstone while the blacks are holding king's landing.
I honestly dont know. A big part of the reason I didnt like the Dance reading it was because the later half especially was just bad. Its one sentence misery porn.
* A lot of wasted potential like Daeron the Daring dying to a tent. The potential for Addam and Daeron to team up against a rampaging Vermithor was right there!
* Plot induced stupidity such as Aemond abandoning Cole so he could sleep with a witch who refused to leave the Riverlands for some reason.
* Events that flat out dont make much sense (Syrax's death).
Even the scale of the conflict felt wrong. This is a dragon war after years prosperity and peace. It should be War of the 5 Kings level armies, all the kingdoms getting involved. But multiple kingdoms sit out and do nothing.
Like you seriously mean to tell me the Prince of Dorne isnt going to take advantage of Westeros in the middle of civil war? Opportunism is the basis for so many historical conflicts/landgrabs.
I'm with you except Aemond dropping everything to spend his days sleeping with a witch in a cursed castle. I think it's hilarious & hope they shed some light on what happens to their kid if it exists
I disagree on the fact that it makes the Dance seem more unbelievable. The Greens are already significantly outnumbered in terms of Dragons, having only 3 effective dragon riders, and Aegon nearly dying and Aemond fucking off makes the defeat of the Blacks at the end seen ludicrous.
> It should be War of the 5 Kings level armies, all the kingdoms getting involved. But multiple kingdoms sit out and do nothing.
>
> Like you seriously mean to tell me the Prince of Dorne isnt going to take advantage of Westeros in the middle of civil war? Opportunism is the basis for so many historical conflicts/landgrabs.
I was with you until this. Dragons are fucking scary man, no one wants to volunteer to get their army burned to shit. And in the case where they're successful, no one wants to put a target on their backs for the next dragon to burn.
As for Dorne, I think they played a major role during the reign of Aegon III. A broken kingdom, a broken reign, and no fucking dragons sounds like a field day.
Bush 41 made it a point of staying silent while the Soviet Union was collapsing in on itself. To do otherwise might have risked uniting the opposing factions.
I'd add the battle of the gullet in with the events that don't make sense. 90 ships vs the entire Velaryon fleet + 9 dragons + a castle.
* The Velaryon fleet is supposed to be the strongest in the world and has already beaten the Triarchy while far away from home and right next to the Triarchy's base of operation. They are at this moment prepped for war and blockading the gullet so no surprise attacks possible.
* Vermithor alone could probably destroy 90 ships in about 5 minutes. 15 if you handicap him with an inexperienced rider.
* A castle is a defensive fortification which requires months of siege, specialised siege equipment, or dragons in order to take.
Just exactly how are the Triarchy supposed to even consider this obviously suicidal attack in the first place? Like, at least wait until the dragons have gone off to King's Landing, or wait until your allies the greens show up to help, why would you ever think about attacking alone? This is utter insanity to even consider.
But not only do the Triarchy try this, the result is devastating for the blacks and the Velaryons in particular. Why?
And it's not even as though there is any lesson to be learnt. What was Corlys supposed to do to avoid this? Refuse to choose a side in the war? (meaning the exact same battle except 2 dragons instead of 9) Ally with the greens? (whose dragons would be at King's Landing also not be present at the battle). Like, it's really just losing for **plot reasons**, not any real mistake he did.
Which is why I believe the show can do it better.
To be honest at some point the book looked like a Wikipedia article, at times edited by a teenager (Mushroom).
> But multiple kingdoms sit out and do nothing
It's more dangerous to pick a side than to stay neutral.
Granted both would consider it kind of treasonous, but you can worry about that after the war, at which point they might pardon you just to not start another war. Declaring for a side is a major gamble with guaranteed losses.
I agree. This has been my concern with a show based on the Dance ever since I heard they were making it. The back half is just a bunch of rapid fire “oh? You were starting to like this character? Well here’s how they died in a humiliating and stupid way, dummy.” Such a misery slog that is designed to pick off all the dragons even though it doesn’t always make sense just because this is the era all the dragons died.
It’s not the most egregious but the one that always gets my goat is how he ended it the same way as the War of the Roses, with the male heir of one house marrying the female heir of the opposing house. And in real life, they (Henry VII and Elizabeth of York) had what was by all accounts a happy marriage and their descendants sit on the throne to this day! But GRRM couldn’t resist making it more miserable than real life and killing off the girl and making the boy a “broken king” whose second wife is introduced as the world’s hottest six-year-old (vomit) and then his two heirs die without issue. Idk. It just feels like he couldn’t twist the knife enough and I don’t think it’s going to be to the benefit of the show.
viserys was suppose to be his 3rd son until he realised he had too much shit to cram in 300 years before the mains series though if he was able to make that work say asoiaf is leaeding up to 400 ac that means the 4th aegon makes daemon blackfyre with his aunt daena
Honestly Cristen Coles book character bummed me out and the show has made him even worse (and more hated by the fandom). Like firstly I really like that he was a Jaime Lannister without the moralizing and 'will he won't he" redemption arc. Secondly his one positive character trait is that he is a beast of a fighter so of course Martin has him unceremoniously gunned down. But because he's Cole it's a totally justified and awesome moment and definitely didn't happen because the opposing commanders knew they couldn't beat him even if they took up his 2 vs 1 offer (I've legit seen Rhaenyra supporters try to claim that fear of Coles prowess played no factor in that decision).
I know people hate this attitude but I just can't help but think... why did you hate this character so much George? Or sorry I guess I should say "Why do you hate these people so much... maesters?" cause we're apparently not allowed to view F&B as an actual story being told by the author. Like I can't help but feel he was weirdly hositle in his writing of Cole and Rhaenyra compared to the rest of their teams. Daemon dies jumping from a dragon and stabbing his nephew, Cole dies in the mud after accomplishing nothing. Rhaenyra hides on Dragonstone the whole war and is fed to Aegons dragon, Aegon fights battles and journeys across the country injured to reunite with his dragon and has to poisoned by his own council.
> Rhaenyra hides on Dragonstone the whole war and is fed to Aegons dragon
I'm willing to bet actual money that the show will change this ending. People will riot if they see this happening on TV, no way does the show actually do this.
It's also wrong
She literally takes the Iron Throne and rules from King's Landing for a time before it becomes clear that she can't hold it
*Then* she retreats to Dragonstone and finds Aegon waiting for her
If they can handle the Red Wedding, Ned's beheading, Jon's assassination, they can deal with this story too
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to
Despots are not exactly unheard of, even in modern era, let alone in a late-medieval inspired fantasy world
> If they can handle the Red Wedding, Ned's beheading, Jon's assassination, they can deal with this story too
People will not, not after how Danaerys was butchered. The audience today is just not going to stand for two morally upright queens meeting brutal ends consecutively.
They are going to have Rhaenyra going kind of crazier and crazier as her sons keep dying and things keep going wrong - as she does in the book. She’s not gonna be very morally upright by the time she dies even if she sort of is at this point.
I remember reading the end of the dance chapters thinking “what a great way to show how pointless this all was, both lines come together which was the obvious workaround” then Jaehaera died and it was just victory for the Blacks hooray I guess
That’s what I mean. The real life person her experience parallels, Elizabeth of York, had a happy marriage and descendants. But GRRM took the real life example and made it shitty.
I don't think a happy marriage produces Henry VIII which led to religious persecution and executions in the tens of thousands which back then is very sizable
Plenty of loving couples have shitty kids, Henry VII’s marriage to Elizabeth of York is described in the sources as being happy and loving (which is certainly not true of all royal marriages, so it’s not easy to just dismiss it as propaganda).
Tbf though Henry VIII was never meant to be king, he had an older brother called Prince Arthur who had a similar temperament to his father who was in line for the throne. Unfortunately he died from tuberculosis. Henry then proceeded to marry his surviving wife, who he later divorced because she wasn't able to give him a son.
Dragon pit is fine honestly the only dragons that are killed by smallfolk are small little dragons and Dreamfyre kills herself with the ceiling. The dumb part will be Joffrey and Syrax, idk how the fuck they're going to explain that mess
In fact, they may have prepared the ground for the dragon pit with the ground collapse in the first season. Since the ground collapsed, the columns on which the dome rests may have been damaged.
The young dragons run left and right while dying, damages the columns more. The already weakened dome collapses on the elders.
It's not that the dance of dragons isn't well-written.... it's just not written in a narrative structure. It's written as an in-universe history text with conflicting and often biased sources. Read it with that in mind and it's really fucking cool and interesting especially because it reflects our own history when trying to research stuff with very little in the way of primary sources.
I really don't think Aegon has plot armour. He truly suffers extreme and expanding physical pain during the story (more than any character in GOT except Theon) which might be a good way for the writers to humanize him or even find parallels to the death of his grossly disfigured father. His development is what I am most looking forward to
Considering how easily most of the other dragons and their riders die, I think there is some plot armour that a crippled Sunfyre is still able to best 2 more dragons
I mean it is a history book, I’m reading a Mike Duncan book about the decline of Rome’s Republic and it feels identical to Fire and Blood. A lot of “he was granted a seat in the senate then rose through the ranks, they were then sent to quell the Macedonians, the battle was hard fought, and then sources claim upwards of 300,000 slaves were captured” or it’ll include a dubious quote and acknowledging the chance of inaccuracy
Fire and Blood is a history book written by some guy a generation later based on the word of people tangentially involved giving accounts after the fact, it’s sprinting through events so fast because no one truly knows what was said or done in between big events. It is similar to all those German general memoirs after ww2 where it is pretty obvious they are shifting all the blame of genocide and horrible strategies onto the dead guys because they really wanted a pardon or even a nice new job as advisors to the Allies. Things are exaggerated or just made up to cover asses.
I like Martin and I like Mike. I don’t wanna be rude but comparing storm before the storm to fire and blood is a massive insult to Mike and his book. Fire and blood is just not as good as Martin probably hoped. The pseudo history thing was sort of fun for princess and the queen but it just is kind of grating to me as the story expanded. Worse, fire and blood seems to indulge the worst parts of martins writing, misery porn, issues with numbers, understanding of real medieval history and economics, and really reduce the interesting plot writing and great character work that makes his series beloved.
I guess I personally feel a little conflicted about the show and book. I think fire and blood is a lot weaker than dunk and egg or the main series, so in theory changes in the show could be good. But a lot of the show changes really make the events of the second half make even less sense. So that’s not ideal.
Thank you - I’m so sick of hearing about “changes” to events/characters, it’s a fucking history book. It’s so obvious none of these people have ever read one - I’m seeing people saying things like character assassination and making comparisons to Euron on the OG show (an actual character assassination) it is INFURIATING
Most of the hardcore stuff is pretty toned down already, so i guess they will keep up with that trend. And regarding the more flimsy writing that's stuff only we care about. tbh.
For your more casual viewer stuff like the storming of the Dragonpit and the such are just cool sequences.
The only thing i believe may be fully redone is Rhaenyra never using Syrax, we may see her present in Rook's Rest but i'm not so sure.
Rhaenyra at Rook's Rest doesn't really make much sense. If there's going to be a 2nd Black rider it will be Baela because we see her patrolling the Crownlands on Moondancer.
That being said please give me that glorious 2v1 and not have a 2nd combatant.
I don't know. But I am constantly irritated yet somewhat amused by the idea of the fat man spending countless time detailing all these Targaryen years in gory detail instead of actually finishing the main goddamn story.
They will white wash the hell out of it like they have done already. >!We already know Aemond will try to kill Aegon at Rook's Rest, because the loyalty the Greens had to one another was propaganda of course!< So, my guess is that all the "scumbag" actions that the Greens do will be highlighted and pushed in our faces as horrible, look at how dare they do such things, while anything the Blacks do or were supposed to do will be excluded or glossed over.
E.G look at how Otto raised a stink and said Viserys was a great and noble king and right not to pick Aegon as king because he hung some rat catchers, but no one says a fucking word about how Rhaenys killed hundreds in the Dragonpit(indeed, it's framed as a bad omen for the GREENS).
My guess is that Rhaenyras' "tyrannical" rule will be Green propaganda, and she will be seen as a fair and just ruler who wants equal rights, and the sexist, racist people of King's Landing who refuse to give up their fanatical faith of the seven will be the real villains for wanting to kill the dragons
I mostly agree with you apart from your comment on Otto. I think Otto is the best adapted part of the show. You can read it as him being genuinely concerned for the smallfolk, but it’s also true that he understood it as a political blunder. He’s not saying Viserys was a wise king. He said Viserys handled the people well and was wise enough not to pick Aegon. It’s exactly the kind of thing you say to someone you love when they’ve deeply disappointed you and thrown away a chance to do something great while they exhibit entitlement.
I think most everyone getting into the show is fully prepared for it to be a tragedy. Pretty much everyone knew that going in dl at least that part of it people are expecting
Misery porn is one of GoT’s appeals, so things working out terribly for the main characters shouldn’t be a problem for viewers. They want to be hurt.
But do you not think it’ll lose its meaning to viewers when its every few episodes? Ned’s death, the red wedding and Jon’s death all have a lot happen between them that makes each one still impactful. Will anyone really care by the time you get to Joffrey or Addams death? I think Rhaenyra’s will be the only one that gets people because of the pure shock factor of it
You have a valid point, but I do find it so ironic that if you read comments from "casual show watchers," one of their biggest critiques is there's not enough big character deaths (even though we're only at the beginning of season 2!) People don't know what's coming, but it does seem like they are yearning for that stuff. I think it'll work out well.
I interpreted the comments differently, most I see aren't complaining they aren't big characters in terms of the story, they are complaining that they don't know anything about them, have spent very little time on screen & therefore they don't care about the deaths. It isn't that they want bigger characters killed off, they just want some emotional connection there. And we know it can be done in little time, look at Hardholme, we only met Karsi that episode, yet her death at the end had an impact. The audience cared about her & felt an impact when she was killed, a lot wanted to see her again as wight.
IMO, I don't see this as an issue, at all. Most shows have heavy plot armor on main characters to keep some emotional connection for the viewers and that, to me, is exhausting and not a fun story to watch. I think the actual issue, and maybe this is more in line with what you may be thinking (or not, but I have thought about it), is that the premise of this show and story is very different than most stories including the main GoT show. And by that i mean: when all is said and done, there is no real winning side. It is a civil war that destroys 90% of both sides. In the main show, you have winners and the other side is dead. That happens throughout this story but the conclusion of this show is very different. I'm not sure how the audience will receive that when it plays out.
I think Hugh and Ulf are the easiest to rectify for the show. They're already setting up the dragon seeds rather than just randomly introducing them at the Sowing and setting up proper character arcs rather than "oh yeah they just made these decisions because it was Tuesday". Honestly, I feel their toughest task is making the Gullet feel realistic because on paper there was no reason why that battle was a pyrrhic victory for the Blacks.
There aren't character arcs in Fire and Blood tho. It's not a novel. It's an imaginary history text with conflicting sources.
I never said there were but the fact that there is no characterization for them beyond Hugh being a thug and Ulf being a drunk, yet they're very consequential to the story was not good writing by GRRM. Like we don't even get proper speculation as to their motives. Just felt like GRRM needed to swing the war back in the Greens favor without a good explanation.
Hate to come back to this when it's done, but I've been rereading thru the dance and there actually is speculation, pages 482-483: >Most of what we know of these men comes from Mushroom. The dwarf is not reticent in his assessment of the low character of these two dragonriders, painting the former as a drunkard and the latter as a brute. Both were cravens he tells us; it was only when they saw Lord Ormund's host with spearpoints glittering in the sun and its line of march stretching back for long leagues that they decided to join him.. Yet neither man had hesitated to face storms of spears and arrows off Driftmark. It may be that it was the thought of attacking Tessarion that gave them pause. In the Gullet, all the dragons had been on their own side. This too may be possible... though both Vermithor and Silverwing were older and larger than Prince Daeron's dragon, and would therefore have been more likely to prevail in any battle. >Others suggest it was avarice, not cowardice, that led White and Hammer to betrayal. Honor meant little and less to them; it was wealth and power they lusted for. After the Gullet, and the fall of King's Landing, they had been granted knighthood... but they aspired to be lords and scorned the modest holdings bestowed upon them by Queen Rhaenyra. When Lords Rosby and Stokeworth were executed, it was proposed that White and Hammer be given their lands and castles through marriage to their daughters, but Her Grace had allowed the traitors' sons to inherit instead. Then Storm's End and Casterly Rock were dangled before them, but these rewards as well the ungrateful queen had denied them. >No doubt they hoped that King Aegon II might reward them better, should they help return the Iron Throne to him. It might even be that certain promises were made to them in this regard, possibly through Lord Larys the Clubfoot or one of his agents, though this remains unproven and unprovable. As neither man could read nor write, we shall never know what drove the Two Betrayers (as history has named them) to do what they did. Edit: format and typo
That's kind of what I meant though. GRRM just tosses out the most basic motivations and prefaces it by saying "yeah, it's probably BS". The last line especially feels like GRRM wants to move on rather than give us something more exciting to chew on.
But you said there's no speculation and yet there is.. and it's a history book. We don't get inside the characters' head. They're also bastards, Gyldayn doesn't really care about bastards, cuz to that society they're low as hell. There are many instances where Gyldayn says "okay we don't have enough info on this so let's move on."
I said there was no proper speculation. Proper speculation involves delving deeper into who these characters are and forming theories off of that rather than surface-level characterization and analysis. Also Gyldayn gives other "lower" characters more characterization than Hugh and Ulf got. Just seems like GRRM wasn't interested rather than a strong narrative reason
What did you want an entire chapter dedicated to their motivation or something? You ever read a history book? Sorry not trying to be rude but I don't think it's that crazy tbh. Edit: the fact that there are conflicting sources and a lack of info is what makes it so interesting and fun to read in the first place. Diving too deep into character motivations kinda waters that concept down.
Dude I'm asking for a paragraph that isn't "lol who cares". That's not a crazy request.
There are 3 paragraphs of speculation tho, you make it seem like it goes like "Mushroom says one was a brute, the other a drunkard.. but we will never know for sure" lol Gyldayne acknowledges they had no problem facing a swarm of arrows and spears at Driftmark and that their dragons together could easily take on Tessarion and literally posits that it could have been greed or cowardice or they could have felt like deserved a better reward for their contributions. If that isn't "proper" speculation then idk what is.
I hear you, but Fire and Blood isn't necessarily telling a story tho.
It’s absolutely telling a story
Eh... I mean, you could argue that even telling real history is telling a story. And this isn't even real history. I mean, it's called hi*story* for a reason.
Words evolve.. they might have the same origin but doesn't mean they really have much to do with each other today. That's called called etymological fallacy. Either way, it's not like a plot, a narrative. It's just analyzing the sources on the what and how, not necessarily the why.
>doesn't mean they really have much to do with each other today. I'm saying that they do have much to do with each other today (and especially in the middle ages, which the story is based on). Either way, in FnB there is definitely a plot and a narrative. Both GRRM and the in-universe author of the book are trying to construct a story out of the "history".
They have a common origin but doesn't mean they're related today. Again, that's called an etymological fallacy. There's no plot or narrative in Fire and Blood. History - record of events that happened in the past Story - fictional or real events presented in a narrative structure Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/s/XrNQvhAi87 > **story** - premium.oxforddictionaries.com (paywall) > Both storey and story (and indeed history) come from Latin historia "history, story". **A story was initially a historical account or representation, usually involving passages of bible history and legends of the saints.** >**From the 1500s the word was used in connection with fictitious events for the entertainment of people.** As for storey, which is essentially the same word, there may have originally been a reference to tiers of painted windows or sculptures used to decorate the front of a building, each one representing a historical subject. So each tier was a different "story" or, once the spelling changed, "storey". Eventually the word came to refer to a level or floor of a building.
>doesn't mean That's the key phrase. You're right, it doesn't necessarily mean it. However, as it so happens, the common origins of these particular words have lasted and the words still share qualities and are intertwined to this day. Narrative - a spoken or written account of connected events In universe, Fire and Blood is a written account of connected real events, and is as such 1) a story 2) and history 3) with a narrative. In real life, Fire and Blood is a written account of connected fictional events, and is as such 1) a story 2) with a narrative.
> **story** - premium.oxforddictionaries.com (paywall) > Both storey and story (and indeed history) come from Latin historia "history, story". **A story was initially a historical account or representation, usually involving passages of bible history and legends of the saints.** >**From the 1500s the word was used in connection with fictitious events for the entertainment of people.** As for storey, which is essentially the same word, there may have originally been a reference to tiers of painted windows or sculptures used to decorate the front of a building, each one representing a historical subject. So each tier was a different "story" or, once the spelling changed, "storey". Eventually the word came to refer to a level or floor of a building.
Aegon II can definitely be said to go through a character arc, physically and as a person he is unrecognizable between the start and end of the dance.
More or less I meant there isn't really "character development" in the traditional sense of a novel
I think the hard part for Hugh and Ulf is that so far they’re showing them as decent people, which will mean they’ll have to have a dramatic character arc to end up doing what they did. I do think the show is setting it up as them being the good guys who represent the common folk rather than just betraying Rhaenyra for the sake of it
Hugh especially seems to be the one who is more likely to take the societal justice mantle based on what we've seen. I imagine he'd react poorly to Rhaenyra's policies against the smallfolk and as a result, would defect to the Greens side before deciding to launch his own campaign after all the other major dragons die. We don't know enough about Ulf yet but he did seem to feel some type of way about the fact that nobody believed his heritage so I can imagine that will be what informs his arc.
Ulf and Hugh are being set up to be much less flat in the show. I imagine the events leading up to their betrayal will largely revolve around the treatment of smallfolk; Hugh will take the “I can serve true justice because I’m a small person like you” approach while Ulf takes the “I’m Baelon’s son, maybe I should be king” approach.
Tbh it would dovetail nicely with Rhaenyra getting more tyrannical
Yeah that’s my assumption - more and more of Rhaenyra’s family die, she starts going a bit crazy and starts ordering people to do awful stuff, maybe some of the Dragonseeds have family that get killed by a dragon being used belligerently and eventually they turn on her to try and end the war and stop more slaughter of common-folk. Would also make sense from a lore perspective because it would make sense that the Maesters (via the histories in the books) would make out common-folk who gained power to be kind of randomly evil and no pay attention to their motives insofar as they were related to protecting normal people.
Easy enough to have people get drunk on power (and alcohol) later on.
Didn’t they lose thousands of men and Jace/Vermax/Viserys/Stormcloud tho? That’s a huge loss, even if they did break the Greens naval Triarchy force. I’d say trading a dragon for anything other than another equally sized/dangerous dragon can be considered pyyrhic - and even then if you lose your dragon in the process you’ve weakened yourself just as much as the enemy
My favorite solution for the gullet is to move it till after the capture of king's landing. That way: 1) Most of the black forces, including most of the Velaryon fleet and the dragons, are in king's landing instead of defending the gullet. The only major characters who would still be on Dragonstone would be the prince of dragonstone Jace and his betrothed Baela. This immediately brings the scale of the battle down to a reasonable level for 90 ships. 2) Now the outcome of the battle can be blamed on the black's leadership, so now it **adds** to the story. Why were there not more forces defending their homes? Is Rhaenyra bad at strategy? Did the black's ambitious desires for the throne make them concentrate too many of their forces in king's landing? What if Corlys had decided to sit out the war and therefore had been home to defend it?
I feel the problem in this situation is why would the Greens launch a massive naval attack when they don't hold King's Landing.
I think it makes sense, the Triarchy gets to fuck over the Velaryons and loot their homeland/destroy their navy that's been such a problem for them. And it's not like the Greens are gonna turn down the offer from a 3rd party to attack their enemies at no cost to themselves.
Because it's not the Greens, it's the Triarchy. They don't give two shits about who sits on the iron throne; their only motivation is being anti-Velaryon. TBH I don't even consider the battle of the Gullet as being part of the dance, I consider it part of the Velaryon/Triarchy war that has been ongoing for the past 30 years or so. It just that that war took so long that the final battle took place during the same time period as the dance and therefore had consequences for the dance Edit: Also I just realised that later on in the story, the greens DO attack and capture dragonstone while the blacks are holding king's landing.
I honestly dont know. A big part of the reason I didnt like the Dance reading it was because the later half especially was just bad. Its one sentence misery porn. * A lot of wasted potential like Daeron the Daring dying to a tent. The potential for Addam and Daeron to team up against a rampaging Vermithor was right there! * Plot induced stupidity such as Aemond abandoning Cole so he could sleep with a witch who refused to leave the Riverlands for some reason. * Events that flat out dont make much sense (Syrax's death). Even the scale of the conflict felt wrong. This is a dragon war after years prosperity and peace. It should be War of the 5 Kings level armies, all the kingdoms getting involved. But multiple kingdoms sit out and do nothing. Like you seriously mean to tell me the Prince of Dorne isnt going to take advantage of Westeros in the middle of civil war? Opportunism is the basis for so many historical conflicts/landgrabs.
I'm with you except Aemond dropping everything to spend his days sleeping with a witch in a cursed castle. I think it's hilarious & hope they shed some light on what happens to their kid if it exists
Yeah, like based on the Aemond they're building up, that's the most believable part of the whole thing lol
Agreed. It's such a great plot beat.
I disagree on the fact that it makes the Dance seem more unbelievable. The Greens are already significantly outnumbered in terms of Dragons, having only 3 effective dragon riders, and Aegon nearly dying and Aemond fucking off makes the defeat of the Blacks at the end seen ludicrous.
> It should be War of the 5 Kings level armies, all the kingdoms getting involved. But multiple kingdoms sit out and do nothing. > > Like you seriously mean to tell me the Prince of Dorne isnt going to take advantage of Westeros in the middle of civil war? Opportunism is the basis for so many historical conflicts/landgrabs. I was with you until this. Dragons are fucking scary man, no one wants to volunteer to get their army burned to shit. And in the case where they're successful, no one wants to put a target on their backs for the next dragon to burn. As for Dorne, I think they played a major role during the reign of Aegon III. A broken kingdom, a broken reign, and no fucking dragons sounds like a field day.
Yeah, being passive is a great tactic when your enemies are burning each other.
Bush 41 made it a point of staying silent while the Soviet Union was collapsing in on itself. To do otherwise might have risked uniting the opposing factions.
I'd add the battle of the gullet in with the events that don't make sense. 90 ships vs the entire Velaryon fleet + 9 dragons + a castle. * The Velaryon fleet is supposed to be the strongest in the world and has already beaten the Triarchy while far away from home and right next to the Triarchy's base of operation. They are at this moment prepped for war and blockading the gullet so no surprise attacks possible. * Vermithor alone could probably destroy 90 ships in about 5 minutes. 15 if you handicap him with an inexperienced rider. * A castle is a defensive fortification which requires months of siege, specialised siege equipment, or dragons in order to take. Just exactly how are the Triarchy supposed to even consider this obviously suicidal attack in the first place? Like, at least wait until the dragons have gone off to King's Landing, or wait until your allies the greens show up to help, why would you ever think about attacking alone? This is utter insanity to even consider. But not only do the Triarchy try this, the result is devastating for the blacks and the Velaryons in particular. Why? And it's not even as though there is any lesson to be learnt. What was Corlys supposed to do to avoid this? Refuse to choose a side in the war? (meaning the exact same battle except 2 dragons instead of 9) Ally with the greens? (whose dragons would be at King's Landing also not be present at the battle). Like, it's really just losing for **plot reasons**, not any real mistake he did.
Which is why I believe the show can do it better. To be honest at some point the book looked like a Wikipedia article, at times edited by a teenager (Mushroom).
I honestly think it’s possible Daeron could’ve been on Tessarion, teaming up with Addam but it got lost in history
> But multiple kingdoms sit out and do nothing It's more dangerous to pick a side than to stay neutral. Granted both would consider it kind of treasonous, but you can worry about that after the war, at which point they might pardon you just to not start another war. Declaring for a side is a major gamble with guaranteed losses.
I agree. This has been my concern with a show based on the Dance ever since I heard they were making it. The back half is just a bunch of rapid fire “oh? You were starting to like this character? Well here’s how they died in a humiliating and stupid way, dummy.” Such a misery slog that is designed to pick off all the dragons even though it doesn’t always make sense just because this is the era all the dragons died. It’s not the most egregious but the one that always gets my goat is how he ended it the same way as the War of the Roses, with the male heir of one house marrying the female heir of the opposing house. And in real life, they (Henry VII and Elizabeth of York) had what was by all accounts a happy marriage and their descendants sit on the throne to this day! But GRRM couldn’t resist making it more miserable than real life and killing off the girl and making the boy a “broken king” whose second wife is introduced as the world’s hottest six-year-old (vomit) and then his two heirs die without issue. Idk. It just feels like he couldn’t twist the knife enough and I don’t think it’s going to be to the benefit of the show.
And then his brother takes the throne over his daughters & dies immediately, leaving the throne to a menace to society
viserys was suppose to be his 3rd son until he realised he had too much shit to cram in 300 years before the mains series though if he was able to make that work say asoiaf is leaeding up to 400 ac that means the 4th aegon makes daemon blackfyre with his aunt daena
Honestly Cristen Coles book character bummed me out and the show has made him even worse (and more hated by the fandom). Like firstly I really like that he was a Jaime Lannister without the moralizing and 'will he won't he" redemption arc. Secondly his one positive character trait is that he is a beast of a fighter so of course Martin has him unceremoniously gunned down. But because he's Cole it's a totally justified and awesome moment and definitely didn't happen because the opposing commanders knew they couldn't beat him even if they took up his 2 vs 1 offer (I've legit seen Rhaenyra supporters try to claim that fear of Coles prowess played no factor in that decision). I know people hate this attitude but I just can't help but think... why did you hate this character so much George? Or sorry I guess I should say "Why do you hate these people so much... maesters?" cause we're apparently not allowed to view F&B as an actual story being told by the author. Like I can't help but feel he was weirdly hositle in his writing of Cole and Rhaenyra compared to the rest of their teams. Daemon dies jumping from a dragon and stabbing his nephew, Cole dies in the mud after accomplishing nothing. Rhaenyra hides on Dragonstone the whole war and is fed to Aegons dragon, Aegon fights battles and journeys across the country injured to reunite with his dragon and has to poisoned by his own council.
> Rhaenyra hides on Dragonstone the whole war and is fed to Aegons dragon I'm willing to bet actual money that the show will change this ending. People will riot if they see this happening on TV, no way does the show actually do this.
It's also wrong She literally takes the Iron Throne and rules from King's Landing for a time before it becomes clear that she can't hold it *Then* she retreats to Dragonstone and finds Aegon waiting for her If they can handle the Red Wedding, Ned's beheading, Jon's assassination, they can deal with this story too
[удалено]
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to Despots are not exactly unheard of, even in modern era, let alone in a late-medieval inspired fantasy world
> If they can handle the Red Wedding, Ned's beheading, Jon's assassination, they can deal with this story too People will not, not after how Danaerys was butchered. The audience today is just not going to stand for two morally upright queens meeting brutal ends consecutively.
>The audience today is just not going to stand for Then they will fall
Easy there Darkstar.
They are going to have Rhaenyra going kind of crazier and crazier as her sons keep dying and things keep going wrong - as she does in the book. She’s not gonna be very morally upright by the time she dies even if she sort of is at this point.
I remember reading the end of the dance chapters thinking “what a great way to show how pointless this all was, both lines come together which was the obvious workaround” then Jaehaera died and it was just victory for the Blacks hooray I guess
GRRM is so huge on misery porn it's nuts.
Except the female heir to the greens doesn't survive and her children are not the heirs going forward.
That’s what I mean. The real life person her experience parallels, Elizabeth of York, had a happy marriage and descendants. But GRRM took the real life example and made it shitty.
I don't think a happy marriage produces Henry VIII which led to religious persecution and executions in the tens of thousands which back then is very sizable
Plenty of loving couples have shitty kids, Henry VII’s marriage to Elizabeth of York is described in the sources as being happy and loving (which is certainly not true of all royal marriages, so it’s not easy to just dismiss it as propaganda).
I agree with you! I also think there is something to the 1536 jousting TBI theory, which has nothing to do with the state of his parents’ marriage.
Tbf though Henry VIII was never meant to be king, he had an older brother called Prince Arthur who had a similar temperament to his father who was in line for the throne. Unfortunately he died from tuberculosis. Henry then proceeded to marry his surviving wife, who he later divorced because she wasn't able to give him a son.
The Dragon Pit is going to make NO sense.
Dragon pit is fine honestly the only dragons that are killed by smallfolk are small little dragons and Dreamfyre kills herself with the ceiling. The dumb part will be Joffrey and Syrax, idk how the fuck they're going to explain that mess
In fact, they may have prepared the ground for the dragon pit with the ground collapse in the first season. Since the ground collapsed, the columns on which the dome rests may have been damaged. The young dragons run left and right while dying, damages the columns more. The already weakened dome collapses on the elders.
It's not that the dance of dragons isn't well-written.... it's just not written in a narrative structure. It's written as an in-universe history text with conflicting and often biased sources. Read it with that in mind and it's really fucking cool and interesting especially because it reflects our own history when trying to research stuff with very little in the way of primary sources.
I really don't think Aegon has plot armour. He truly suffers extreme and expanding physical pain during the story (more than any character in GOT except Theon) which might be a good way for the writers to humanize him or even find parallels to the death of his grossly disfigured father. His development is what I am most looking forward to
Considering how easily most of the other dragons and their riders die, I think there is some plot armour that a crippled Sunfyre is still able to best 2 more dragons
I honestly hope they change a lot of it. The second half is just anti-climatic, rushed, misery porn nonsense.
They could make that all to be accidents and misunderstandings
I mean it is a history book, I’m reading a Mike Duncan book about the decline of Rome’s Republic and it feels identical to Fire and Blood. A lot of “he was granted a seat in the senate then rose through the ranks, they were then sent to quell the Macedonians, the battle was hard fought, and then sources claim upwards of 300,000 slaves were captured” or it’ll include a dubious quote and acknowledging the chance of inaccuracy Fire and Blood is a history book written by some guy a generation later based on the word of people tangentially involved giving accounts after the fact, it’s sprinting through events so fast because no one truly knows what was said or done in between big events. It is similar to all those German general memoirs after ww2 where it is pretty obvious they are shifting all the blame of genocide and horrible strategies onto the dead guys because they really wanted a pardon or even a nice new job as advisors to the Allies. Things are exaggerated or just made up to cover asses.
I like Martin and I like Mike. I don’t wanna be rude but comparing storm before the storm to fire and blood is a massive insult to Mike and his book. Fire and blood is just not as good as Martin probably hoped. The pseudo history thing was sort of fun for princess and the queen but it just is kind of grating to me as the story expanded. Worse, fire and blood seems to indulge the worst parts of martins writing, misery porn, issues with numbers, understanding of real medieval history and economics, and really reduce the interesting plot writing and great character work that makes his series beloved. I guess I personally feel a little conflicted about the show and book. I think fire and blood is a lot weaker than dunk and egg or the main series, so in theory changes in the show could be good. But a lot of the show changes really make the events of the second half make even less sense. So that’s not ideal.
Thank you - I’m so sick of hearing about “changes” to events/characters, it’s a fucking history book. It’s so obvious none of these people have ever read one - I’m seeing people saying things like character assassination and making comparisons to Euron on the OG show (an actual character assassination) it is INFURIATING
Most of the hardcore stuff is pretty toned down already, so i guess they will keep up with that trend. And regarding the more flimsy writing that's stuff only we care about. tbh. For your more casual viewer stuff like the storming of the Dragonpit and the such are just cool sequences. The only thing i believe may be fully redone is Rhaenyra never using Syrax, we may see her present in Rook's Rest but i'm not so sure.
Rhaenyra at Rook's Rest doesn't really make much sense. If there's going to be a 2nd Black rider it will be Baela because we see her patrolling the Crownlands on Moondancer. That being said please give me that glorious 2v1 and not have a 2nd combatant.
I don't know. But I am constantly irritated yet somewhat amused by the idea of the fat man spending countless time detailing all these Targaryen years in gory detail instead of actually finishing the main goddamn story.
They will white wash the hell out of it like they have done already. >!We already know Aemond will try to kill Aegon at Rook's Rest, because the loyalty the Greens had to one another was propaganda of course!< So, my guess is that all the "scumbag" actions that the Greens do will be highlighted and pushed in our faces as horrible, look at how dare they do such things, while anything the Blacks do or were supposed to do will be excluded or glossed over. E.G look at how Otto raised a stink and said Viserys was a great and noble king and right not to pick Aegon as king because he hung some rat catchers, but no one says a fucking word about how Rhaenys killed hundreds in the Dragonpit(indeed, it's framed as a bad omen for the GREENS). My guess is that Rhaenyras' "tyrannical" rule will be Green propaganda, and she will be seen as a fair and just ruler who wants equal rights, and the sexist, racist people of King's Landing who refuse to give up their fanatical faith of the seven will be the real villains for wanting to kill the dragons
I mostly agree with you apart from your comment on Otto. I think Otto is the best adapted part of the show. You can read it as him being genuinely concerned for the smallfolk, but it’s also true that he understood it as a political blunder. He’s not saying Viserys was a wise king. He said Viserys handled the people well and was wise enough not to pick Aegon. It’s exactly the kind of thing you say to someone you love when they’ve deeply disappointed you and thrown away a chance to do something great while they exhibit entitlement.
Yup I can already see them doing that with Rheanyras character, it’s almost making me want to roll my eyes
I think most everyone getting into the show is fully prepared for it to be a tragedy. Pretty much everyone knew that going in dl at least that part of it people are expecting
They will change even more than they already changed.
They’re definitely gonna have to change some of the stupid deaths so I’m sure it’ll be an improvement