lovelythings🌹

she/her hobbies: reading romance books, listening to music, and playing music. I'm just going to reblog stuff that I like or opinions that I either agree with or semi-agree with.

[warsofasoiaf]

In a previous ask, you mentioned "Aegon IV, both Aerys’s, Maegor, Aenys, or Rhaenyra” as being “the lowest of the low” in terms of rulers. Why would you put Rhaenyra on that list? Thanks.

You mentioned Rhaenyra as a bad Queen, worst than Robert. Would you care to explain your decision? Her ruling seemed like it would be peaceful, had it not been for Alicent, her ambitious mother-in-law, and her brother Aegon II, power driven. Of course, she was erratic at the end, but she had lost pretty much everything.

Thanks for the questions, Anons.

I don’t like Rhaenyra. I don’t think she’s a good queen, and I think blaming Alicent, Aegon, or the “green” party for her failures as queen excuses her for faults which are entirely her own.

First of all, the bastard problem. I don’t think it’s a matter of debate - at least not much debate - that Rhaenyra’s Velaryon sons were bastards born of her affair with Harwin Strong. Of course it’s not unknown for a ruler to father a bastard, but unfortunately, in the patriarchal society of Westeros, a female monarch can rule and be accepted by her bannermen only if they view her as a true leader. It’s a harder task for a woman, as Rohanne Webber says:

Lady Rohanne gave him a shocked look, but could sustain it no more than half a heartbeat before it turned into a grin. “I have heard a thousand empty courtesies in my time, but you are the first knight who ever said pissing in my presence.” Her freckled face went somber. “Those pissing contests are how lords judge one another’s strength, and woe to any man who shows his weakness. A woman must needs piss twice as hard, if she hopes to rule. And if that woman should happen to be small …” (“The Sworn Sword”)

Rhaenyra had a difficult task ahead of her, to be accepted as Lady of the Seven Kingdoms after her father died. Yet  the princess allowed herself to be attached to scandal with three different men, both before and after her marriage. Aegon IV was mocked in his time for his numerous affairs, and is now considered one of the worst kings of Westeros; Rhaenyra, as a woman, would never be able to maintain respect with her affairs. Too, few if any lords would happily follow a boy whose bastardy was common knowledge, especially knowing that trueborn male-line descendants of the king existed. Like her father – but even more impossibly – Rhaenyra expected the lords of Westeros to acknowledge her sons as true Targaryen heirs purely on the basis of her own will – to subjugate their power to her pleasure. She was, in effect, claiming more male privilege than an ordinary king – not only the right to take a paramour and have bastards (something no queen would ever be permitted, for fear of disrupting the succession), but the right to solemnize these bastards as her own royal heirs. Such a course of action would be dangerous for a king; for a queen regnant, it would be absolutely fatal.

Nor did Rhaenyra take the opportunity to give her future bannermen more than a legal reason to follow her. Besides her betrothal progress, we have no evidence of Rhaenyra traveling around the realm, the way her great-grandparents Jaehaerys and Alysanne did, forging important personal connections. Why is it that Queen Rhaenys is still beloved as a Targaryen queen, and not remembered for the possible bastardy of her son Aenys? Because Rhaenys took important steps to make sure she would be beloved - by crafting marriage alliances among the nobility; by patronizing singers and bards to praise the Targaryen regime; by becoming involved in charities for the smallfolk, etc.  What does Rhaenyra do to be like Rhaenys (or that other beloved Targaryen queen, Alysanne)? Nothing.

Really, Rhaenyra ignores every opportunity for appearance politics. Her failure to offer any sort of honorable terms beyond mere non-execution of the seven Targaryen royals painted her as cruel and heartless, a woman perfectly fitted to the Dowager Queen’s prophecies of mass executions and tyrannical domination. Rhaenyra’s rejection of Alicent’s offer to call a Great Council allowed Alicent to be the wronged champion of law and herself as a Maegor-like queen who ruled by force, seizing the legitimate (that is, male) claimant’s place through the overwhelming strength of her dragons. By arriving in the city in armor, on dragonback, surrounded by dragonriders, Rhaenyra sent a clear message that she was a conqueror and warrior first. By executing members of the small council and putting the dowager queen in golden chains (despite her lack of any real agency to leave the black-controlled Red Keep), Rhaenyra had demonstrated how pitiless she would be to her perceived enemies.

It was not simply an image problem either; Rhaenyra was foolish and cruel when it came to her ruling decisions.  Instead of sending Prince Joffrey into the field – utilizing his young dragon’s quick speed for reconnaissance against the fled Hightower-Targaryens (or even sending Ser Addam Velaryon to do so and leaving Prince Joffrey as the rider in the Dragonpit) – Rhaenyra instead planned a lavish induction ceremony to name him Prince of Dragonstone (using the city’s precious resources strained by war and winter for a party, and flaunting her obviously bastard son as the center of it). Instead of offering the green lords - including the leaderless and ironborn-harried Lannisters - pardons to end the war, Rhaenyra openly awaited the day she could display the heads of the green leaders as traitors, ensuring that the pro-green lords would never surrender to her.  Convinced that all her new dragonriders were determined to betray her Rhaenyra ordered the arrest of the loyal Ser Addam Velaryon, heir and probable son of Corlys Velaryon; the decision lost her not simply a dragon and dragonrider, but her most powerful lordly ally and Hand, half her army and her entire remaining naval force. Having concluded that Nettles and Prince Daemon had become romantically involved, Rhaenyra ordered Lord Mooton to execute her while she and Daemon rested at Maidenpool, ordering her bannerman to murder a guest (in defiance of anciently and sacredly held guest right), an innocent (in defiance of the Father’s justice), and a young woman (in defiance of the rules of chivalry). It’s only half a joke to call Rhaenyra “Maegor with teats”; Maegor had fallen specifically because, through his cruelty and anti-Faith policies, he had lost the respect and fealty of lords and smallfolk alike, and Rhaenyra did the same.

By the time of the Storming of the Dragonpit, Rhaenyra had lost the most important support of the monarch: the trust of the people. Gyldayn explicitly says that the rioters no longer believed the queen could protect them. Why would they? From the first moment of her rule in King’s Landing, Rhaenyra had established herself as a dragon-based conqueror, one who ruled on the fear of her subjects. The problem with ruling through fear, though, is when the people stop being afraid of the consequences of defiance - or, rather, consider the consequences worth whatever defiance they would undertake. Rhaenyra had committed that singularly royal crime: tyranny. She had arrested innocent men, bid her subjects track down children whose only crime was having royal blood, and ordered her lords bannermen to break ancient laws to satisfy her personal vengeance. Lords and smallfolk alike had no reason to follow her anymore (and indeed, had some reason to rise up against her, in the way the lords under Aerys II did).

Alicent did not force her to make these decisions. Neither did Aegon II, or any of the greens. Rhaenyra was a fool and a cruel woman on her own merits. She and Aegon II are for me tied as the fourth-worst monarchs of Westeros - above Aegon IV, but not by much. Unprepared to rule, convinced that her bloodline and her father’s decree alone were sufficient to ensure her rule would not be challenged, Rhaenyra failed to assert herself in the admittedly patriarchal society of Westeros. Vindictive to her enemies and foolish to her allies, Rhaenyra was simply a poor queen. IMO

The Queen Regent (NFriel)

[gameofgreen]

While on the subject of hotd biases playing out since another season is approaching, its so ridiculous that original characters like dyana, sylvi, kat, tb randos got more screen space and character development than canon daeron targaryen. His dragon tessarion got time equivalent to the dragon of aegon the younger in TWO seasons. Moreover useless syrax has more screen space than dreamfyre, sunfyre and tessarion COMBINED. But for what? She was painfully irrelevant in canon so ryan condal decided to give her yellowness half the space and stolen traits while throwing literal crumbs to mvp dragons sunfyre and tessarion.

[novaursa]

I'm so happy that I finally found someone who hates hotD "dwagons" as much as I do. Everyone is always like "oh the writing is bad but at least we have dragons" and I'm like???

What a horrible creatures they are. In the books dragons were pride and glory of house Targaryen, magnificent sleek beasts of many colors, the biggest wonder of this world.

Show!Syrax looks like a bastard child of inbred pug dog and an alien. Also she's way too small, where did the budget go? Certainly not on the potato sack costumes

Show!Caraxes physiology is just ridiculous. R I d i c u l o u s. I don't know what the fuck this thing is, but it's certainly not a dragon. Where are even its organs? Where do the food go? His waist is smaller than that of a barbie doll's, and he has... blades? On his hind legs?? How does this fucker even fly? CGI artists must have been hella drunk when creating him

Show!vhagar is just disgusting. 'Nuff said. Wrinkly old sack of rotting meat. Also she's smelly, according to the hotd concept book 🤡

The only good dragon is Sunfyre

Glad to have you here, anon. 🤝

Yeah, the HOTD dragons are horrendous if you look at them for too long, because they just don’t make fucking sense. I tend to prefer dragons that look more feral, realistic, and dangerous. I want to look at a dragon and think, “That motherfucker would ruin my entire bloodline,” not “aww, weird scaly puppy.”

There’s this cartoonish quality to a lot of them that I can’t unsee. I wasn’t even the biggest fan of GOT dragons, but at least they felt a little more grounded and visually coherent most of the time. HOTD dragons often look like someone had a “cool” concept, then forgot anatomy, mass, wingspan, and basic creature design halfway through.

Their body-to-wing proportions bother me too, because my brain starts overanalyzing how these things are supposed to stay in the air. Some of them look like they fly purely because magic felt bad for them. Show!Syrax, the Deformed Queen, might be the closest to having something resembling functional wing design, and even then I’m being generous because clearly I have suffered enough. 😂

And don’t even get me started on size consistency. 😑 Some dragons seem to shrink, some don’t grow when they should, and some change scale depending on the shot like the CGI department is playing fast and loose with reality.

This is a dragon:

This is a birth defect:

[novaursa]

the age conundrum in hotd and akotsk

Am re-watching akotsk bec I miss them :)) it struck me in one scene how much older daeron is from egg. I know henry ashton is 35 irl (fine man btw) but is playing someone in their early 20s. In the scene in the tent that they have together, for the non versed, he could easily be mistaken egg's father, rather than a brother. Even finn bennet as aerion, egg's other bro, looks older than he is supposed to be.

this got me thinking of hotd ageing confusions.

I was early sceptical about how sixteen years daeron would look as brother to basically grown up older brothers. iknow aemond is 18ish in the show but he looks older as the actor is older, so does aegon. but if a thirty five y/o actor can play a character in his twenties, that too a brother to a ten years old, I now think there would be no big problem with ages of daeron, aemond and aegon specially if they have no scenes together. Sure it would would hve been best if they had cast daeron in s1 like jace & luke. Daeron is supposed to be around jace age but it is what is.

The only flaw is that liv cooke as alicent looks way younger but thats the production issue. If they did not want to cast a third actor for alicent, put some veil and make up on her for aging. The olenna-like attire would not be bad. Alicent did have olenna like personality in source, her being dressed with veil would not be off character. At the least, akotsk maekar looks like father of two grown up sons. But green brothers themselves wont be big of an anomaly to me, after akotsk. Benjamin evans, the rumored actor of daeron is 17 irl so its not hard to imagine him as youngest brother to aegon and aemond. like egg is of daeron and aerion.

So here is the thing for me: I don’t mind age changes or small lore adjustments in AKOTSK because the show actually knows what it is doing.

The episodes are short, the whole season is centered around one main event, the writing is focused, and most of these characters are not going to carry years of plot afterward. So if an actor looks older than the exact book age, it does not really break anything for me. The story still works. The dynamics still work. The tone is still there. Amazing what happens when the writing is not held together with duct tape and delusion. 🤣

HOTD, on the other hand, is a completely different fucking disease.

The problem with HOTD is not just “oh, this actor looks too young” or “this character should be slightly older.” The problem is that the show has mangled canon, inverted lore, erased characters, blended characters together, invented ships, and then tried to pretend all of that is thoughtful adaptation. Years pass in one episode and then suddenly time stops for no reason. Children age, adults don’t. Alicent still looks too young because the production refused to commit to aging her properly (because Rhaenyra being shipped with an old woman is not attractive to them), even though a veil, stronger styling, and more severe court dress could have helped a lot. I agree with you, anon. Book!Alicent had that Olenna-like edge anyway, so leaning into an older, sharper visual style would not have been out of character.

With AKOTSK, Maekar looks like he could plausibly be the father of grown sons. The family structure still reads. Even if Daeron or Aerion look older than they technically should, the show has enough control over tone and writing that I can accept it.

I personally don’t think Daeron being younger than Aegon and Aemond in HOTD would be impossible to make work. If he is sixteen-ish while his brothers look older, fine. Families look like that sometimes, and actors rarely match exact ages anyway. The real issue is that HOTD failed to establish him early, failed to build the Green children properly as a family unit, and now everything around him feels like a patch job.

Age changes are not automatically the problem. Bad writing is. AKOTSK makes small changes and still respects the story. HOTD makes changes like it resents the book for existing.

[studiofiftyfours]

I sincerely hope that Ryan Condal and Sara Hess work on their own disgusting ‘Oedipus Complex’ and stop incorporating it into the characters they are writing for. A lot of us are repulsed by the constant inclusion of “mommy issues,” that they so-covet to the point of materializing them into the scrips they have been entrusted with. There are plenty of other psychological issues and complexities they could consider for our precious anti-heroes and villains. The scene with Daemon and his own mother was gag-worthy enough to disgusted by… but now Aemond as well apparently. I’m not sure that this season will be worthy of watching anymore. No wonder GRRM has abandoned ship and left the scene entirely.

[nyraslawyer]

“The bride was seventeen years old, the groom twenty, and all agreed they made a fine couple.”

“[…] Princess Rhaenyra had remarried, taking to husband her uncle, Daemon Targaryen.”

The marriages of Rhaenyra Targaryen.

[mononijikayu]

I want to preface this by saying that I'm not trying to devalue your interpretation, but only suggest that others are available. As you say, it's all in layers which mean that nothing is explicit and nothing is concrete.

The kids were betrothed when the girls were two: it would have nothing to do with the girls themselves (their wishes or desires). Is it love for the parents that won out or was it more of a political decision? The true motivation is not known to us. Only Rhaenyra's announcement with Viserys's blessing. It doesn't include Laena in the choice, nor Daemon, nor Laenor.

During the war, Baela is not implied to have any leadership position at all. She can fly Moondancer, just, but Quince is castellan. There's no record of Baela being in a position of power, but rather she's 14, lived to dance, hawk and ride and she plays kissing games and, at a certain point, was confined to the castle. As an instrument of defence, she's lacking. She's never on Rhaenyra's council, she contributes very little until she is forced to, when Aegon attacks her.

There's NO agency and authority there at all.

Driftmark has its own defences. The Velaryon Fleet. Driftmark is so defended that, when it comes to it, Rhaenyra cannot flee there because she has imprisoned thier lord. And Baela has a dragon the size of a horse. Driftmark and Dragonstone are not tactical moves for the Greens at that point either, as they are surrounded by sea.

It is Jace's decision to send Joffrey and Rhaena away. Only Rhaena and Joffrey: not Aegon and Viserys like the show. It's not Rhaenyra's decision or show of faith. Rhaena was chosen to accompany Joffrey who was offered to defend the Vale. All we have of her time there is the comforts she enjoyed. Nothing political, nothing specific to the war itself.

Rhaenyra calls Joffrey back to invest as Prince of Dragonstone, Rhaena stays as ward. We do not know why. We can say she "would have aided with relations" but we have no proof. No authority at all. There's not one moment of Rhaena interceding on Rhaenyra's behalf.

All of this, of course, means little because the show changes quite a bit. Rhaena and Baela spend their first ten years in Pentos. Rhaena spends the next six on Dragonstone and Baela is warded to Rhaenys. The decision for the betrothals are an act of political desperation in the face of Vaemond's accusations, having alienated the Velaryons. Rhaena was (for a scene) Rhaenyra's cupbearer, Baela has a dragon large enough to ride - she patrols, she fights, she is on the council. Rhaenyra DOES send Rhaena away, with her younger stepbother and two half-brothers. Baela will not remain on Dragonstone for the entirety of the war, nor will Rhaena be in the Vale.

i think if you're arguing against that position, one strong response is that it sets an unrealistically high bar for what constitutes female agency in fire and blood. the source material being a history book, is sparse and often written by biased male chroniclers, and many characters—especially women—are defined as much by what they represent politically as by explicit actions recorded on-page and most of all the filtering and choosing of men who record these texts in the citadel.

i think the issue is that you're treating "agency" as something that only exists when a character is explicitly exercising authority in a documented political office, but that's not really how fire and blood works, especially for its female characters.

alysanne herself for example provided A LOT of political advice and perspectives to jaehaerys and majority of which he did not agree with, but ended up doing it any way such as the institution of access to water for small folk even when jaehaerys said no, because women don't need to be wielding a sword to make political and societal changes in the story.

yes, the twins' betrothals were arranged. so were most of the noble marriages in westeros. that doesn't mean the girls were politically insignificant. in fact, the very reason they were chosen as brides was because of their political value. the arrangement united the blood, the claims and secured the tightening of velaryon support for rhaenyra, even when her kids are already velaryon.

whether baela and rhaena personally chose it is beside the point here; their existence and position were politically important, as much as their value personally to the velaryon boys, who themselves more than likely grew up by their side on dragonstone.

likewise, i don't think a lack of council seats means a lack of trust or importance. baela is repeatedly kept close to the centers of the black's power bases. she's on dragonstone, betrothed to the heir and soon to be the queen, and entrusted with a dragon.

during the war, dragons themselves are strategic assets. the blacks clearly considered her valuable enough that she remained within their sphere rather than being treated as an irrelevant bystander and wanted for her to contribute in ways she could and she does.

As for rhaena, i think you're dismissing the significance of her placement in the vale too quickly. historically, even real life, noble wards were not simply decorative guests. they were very powerful means to have good relations from noble family to noble family, and even royal family to royal family.

they reinforced alliances, fostered relationships, and represented the interests of their families. they were not useless, they were very important. that is why in the main story, jon arryn is careful to choose where robert arryn goes to be fostered, because they would have not only a lot of power, but also be the people robert grows with, gets to know and eventually has political, economic and social relations with.

there e may not have a passage that says "rhaena negotiated on rhaenyra's behalf" but fire and blood rarely gives that level of detail for anyone. the fact remains that she was sent to an important ally during a civil war and remained there even after joffrey was recalled. that suggests she served a continuing political purpose and to understate that is huge problem when she continues to be politically relevant in the story as time goes by, more than likely, esp with the second fire and blood book as well.

also more broadly, i think you're applying a standard to baela and rhaena that isn't consistently applied to other characters. there are many figures in fire and blood who spend large portions of the narrative being moved around by family decisions, marriages, inheritances, and political necessities. yet somehow, we still recognize them as politically significant because of the roles they occupy within the larger conflict.

and while it's true that the show changes many details, those changes didn't come from nowhere. the adaptation expands on implications already present in the text that grrm wrote and planned for.

baela as a dragon rider and fighter and trusted person in her own right, and rhaena as a trusted member of the royal family and of dragon magic and magic in general in her own right.

both girls as important pieces of the succession later on too, which is why they are also princesses. the show gives them more direct participation, but it isn't inventing their importance from thin air and aren't giving them enough to work with, even with added story lines. what's the point of storylines if they aren't utilizing it to its full extent?

so i don't think the question is whether baela and rhaena wielded formal authority comparable to a councillor or commander. they didn't and they shouldn't have to be, in order to be "important" to a war that isn't just about fighting on the field.

the question is whether rhaenyra valued them, trusted them, and considered them integral to her political project and most of all cared for them. and to that point, i think the evidence points much more strongly toward yes than no.

[brightestpurple]

They are already starting with this discourse that Rhaenyra is not to blame for anything and that others are responsible for the failures of Team Black's reign. They also claim she can't be mean to Baela, that 'this isn't like her', and so on. Most of the time, to support this argument, they bring up the books, even though in the books her relationship with her stepdaughters is completely nonexistent — there's no way to tell if they were close or distant. Are they really going to push this narrative this season, that she wasn't a cold person who made mistakes?

​I don't know how long you've been in the fandom, but certain discourses already existed and, apparently, they are going to gain more traction. These people don't want to see Rhaenyra's flaws; they have turned her into a perfect person. Clearly, both she and Aegon share some blame for what happened to each team. In the leadership positions they hold, it's pretty much impossible for them not to be blamed for anything. Making either of them look entirely blameless is a huge mistake. People don't want to view this moment in Rhaenyra's history as her being cruel or making mistakes; they will always shift her blame onto others.

[brightestpurple]

I think some people genuinely believe that if Helaena had fled with her children to her sister, they would have been completely safe because they view Rhaenyra as someone who could always control Daemon. But the story itself shows that this simply isn’t true.Daemon has always been impulsive, violent, and extremely difficult to control. Even when he supports Rhaenyra, that doesn’t mean he obeys everything she wants or follows her moral limits. Multiple times he acts on his own, makes decisions without consulting anyone, and even does things that politically harm Rhaenyra herself.So the idea that “Helaena only needed to go to her sister and everything would be fine” oversimplifies the situation. By that point, the war had already turned the children on both sides into political symbols. Aegon’s children were rival heirs, and that alone already placed them in danger regardless of Rhaenyra’s personal feelings.A lot of people also completely separate Rhaenyra from Daemon as if they were two independent forces, when in reality they were on the same political and military side. Even if Rhaenyra personally didn’t want Helaena or the children harmed, that still doesn’t guarantee absolute protection from allies, soldiers, personal vengeance, or decisions made without her consent.And honestly, people’s reactions to Blood and Cheese make this contradiction even clearer. Some treat Daemon as if he were merely an “uncontrollable weapon,” yet at the same time expect Rhaenyra to have total authority over him when it comes to protecting the Greens. Those two interpretations contradict each other.In the end, that’s the real tragedy of the Dance: eventually the violence grows beyond anyone’s control. Neither the Greens nor the Blacks were truly capable of stopping what they had started.

[brightestpurple]

Why is Alicent Hightower so criticized in House of the Dragon?Alicent is, without a doubt, one of the most controversial characters in the House of the Dragon universe. While some see her as a woman trying to survive in a game dominated by men, others view her as a symbol of hypocrisy and manipulation. But after all, why so much criticism?

The weight of selective moralityMany fans point out that Alicent presents herself as a moral figure — a defender of faith and “decency” — but her actions don’t always match her words. This contradiction between what she preaches and what she does provokes antipathy.

The resentment toward RhaenyraThe broken friendship between Alicent and Rhaenyra is a key point. When she marries her best friend’s father, many see her as a traitor, and the rivalry that grows from that makes her an easy target. For part of the audience, she never overcame her resentment and turned it into war.

The reflection of patriarchyAlicent is also a victim of a system that uses her as a political pawn. But instead of breaking free from it, she reinforces it. This behavior divides fans: some see her as a survivor, others as an accomplice to the structure that oppresses her.

The comparison with RhaenyraThe show often contrasts Alicent (duty, tradition, appearance) with Rhaenyra (freedom, desire, defiance). This duality forces the audience to take sides — and on the internet, those who represent “control” almost always receive more hate.

No fim das contas, a crítica a Alicent deriva de sua complexidade. Ela não é heroína nem vilã é uma mulher tentando preservar poder, status e família em um mundo que nunca lhe deu uma escolha real. E talvez seja exatamente isso que mais incomoda as pessoas: ver alguém tão humana, tão contraditória, refletindo as falhas do próprio sistema em que vive.

[brightestpurple]

Something I find funny in this fandom is that people get angry simply because an Alicent fan says that, in the show, she is a child bride. They say we can’t claim that because it didn’t happen in the books. But I don’t see those same people complaining about the scene where Alicent asks to see Rhaenyra’s youngest son right after he is born. If someone points out that this scene didn’t exist in the book and that Alicent never asked to see one of Rhaenyra’s children, people will insult you and call you an idiot.

[brightestpurple]

At first, I thought I would see more TG complaining about Alicent for handing her children over to Rhaenyra on a silver platter. But I was wrong: most of the posts with this topic are from TB.And is it because they care about Alicent’s children? Of course not. They just want something to criticize her for. They criticized her when she defended Aemond, they criticized her when she didn’t punish Aegon, and they said she should hate her own children.Now, after the second season came out, they changed their narrative. You don’t actually care whether she loves her children or not, so why are you talking so much about it?

[brightestpurple]

A crítica de que Alicent Hightower “reproduz o patriarcado” deriva de uma leitura que ignora como o poder realmente opera no mundo . Alicent não está em posição de reformar o sistema ela sequer possui o espaço político ou a legitimidade para fazê-lo.

Alicent precisa negociar sua própria sobrevivência e a de seus filhos operando dentro das regras existentes.

Rotular isso simplesmente como “patriarcado internalizado” reduz uma estratégia de sobrevivência a uma falha moral.

Historicamente e dentro da própria lógica da série mulheres em posições semelhantes só podem exercer influência dominando e utilizando as estruturas disponíveis, mesmo quando essas estruturas são desiguais.

Não se trata de concordar com o sistema, mas de reconhecer que agir fora dele muitas vezes não é uma opção viável. Além disso, essa crítica carrega uma expectativa implícita e irrealista a de que Alicent deva agir contra seus próprios interesses materiais e familiares em nome de uma resistência abstrata.

Na prática, isso significaria aceitar passivamente riscos reais à segurança de seus filhos. Em outras palavras, ela é submetida a um padrão de “pureza ideológica” que não é exigido de outros personagens. Portanto, a questão reside não apenas na personagem, mas em como o conceito de “reprodução do patriarcado” é aplicado. Quando usado sem considerar o contexto e as limitações estruturais, ele deixa de ser uma ferramenta analítica e se torna um julgamento simplista que ignora as condições reais sob as quais essa agência é exercida.

[brightestpurple]

O Valor do Choque como Substituto para o Desenvolvimento de Personagens

(Vazamentos do EP1) Acho que precisamos falar seriamente sobre o vazamento da conta Woke the Dragon (efcd4999-cd1e-4ccb-bc41-997873f03f02-1_all_5355.jpg) e o que ele sinaliza sobre a direção criativa da série. Além do óbvio desconforto da cena descrita, existe uma falha estrutural crônica na sala dos roteiristas que essa escolha expõe: a incapacidade de gerar tensão dramática sem recorrer ao sensacionalismo e a fetiches visuais.

Abaixo, apresento alguns pontos sobre por que essa dinâmica sugerida entre Aemond e Alicent falha em um nível puramente narrativo.

Reduzindo Conflitos Políticos a Complexos Freudianos: O universo de Westeros sempre foi implacável e cruel, mas a crueldade e a dinâmica perturbadora (como o incesto Targaryen) no material original servem a propósitos políticos, dinásticos e religiosos muito claros. Quando o roteiro decide que um momento de despedida entre Aemond e sua mãe precisa culminar em um beijo forçado que deixa Alicent "aterrorizada", a série abandona a alta política e a tragédia da guerra para flertar com um melodrama barato e chocante. Os roteiristas parecem acreditar que, para mostrar que Aemond é instável ou perigoso, ele precisa transgredir tabus sexuais/familiares, o que é um recurso narrativo incrivelmente preguiçoso.

Alicent Hightower e a Narrativa de Abuso Psicológico Constante: A trajetória de Alicent já é profundamente marcada por uma total falta de controle sobre o próprio corpo — desde ser usada pelo pai ainda jovem até seu casamento com Viserys. Introduzir uma dinâmica em que seu próprio filho viola seu espaço e limites, desencadeando o "terror" mencionado no vazamento, não constrói sua personagem; apenas a submete a mais um ciclo de abuso explícito e desnecessário. Se a intenção era mostrar o isolamento de Alicent e sua perda de controle sobre os filhos que ela mesma criou para serem armas, isso poderia ter sido alcançado por meio de diálogo, desprezo político ou insubordinação militar. O beijo forçado reduz uma queda política a um espetáculo de humilhação doméstica.

A "Caricatura" de Aemond Targaryen: Aemond tinha tudo para ser um dos personagens mais complexos e ameaçadores da temporada: o segundo filho que reivindicou o maior dragão do mundo, que carrega o peso de ter iniciado uma guerra acidentalmente e que busca constantemente provar seu valor. Ao atribuir-lhe essas características que beiram a fetichização (primeiro a obsessão quase filial por Sylva e agora essa ação contra a própria mãe), o roteiro corre o risco de transformá-lo em uma caricatura — como um "vilão de anime assustador" — em vez de um jovem general trágico e implacável. A presença imponente do personagem é sacrificada apenas para provocar repulsa instantânea no público nas redes sociais.

Em última análise, esse tipo de escolha reflete uma mentalidade da era do streaming.O roteiro não foi escrito para fazer sentido a longo prazo dentro do arco de um personagem, mas sim para criar o enquadramento perfeito que se tornará viral e chocará o espectador no domingo à noite. É o triunfo do "valor de choque" sobre a coerência temática.

[queenvhagar]

hotd alicent hightower not being sexually punished and denigrated each season = challenge unaccepted by condal and hess. rest in eternal peace in pages of fire & blood alicent we hardly knew you.

It's so interesting because the sexuality of the all the Greens is punished and denigrated by the narrative, and it's the opposite for the Blacks, which means something for Alicent this season, I think, unfortunately.

The show's biggest goal, first and foremost, is to make sure you see Rhaenyra as a hero and her cause as the just one. They've decided that their take on the show is the correct and superior one: Rhaenyra was one of those women in history, just like in our real world, who was misremembered and discounted because she was a woman who tried to claim power and the world, especially in the past, was so sexist. The system was against her, and she lost, despite her best efforts and doing everything "right." Isn't misogyny terrible and hasn't it destroyed so many lives? How would the world be - theirs and ours - if women had been allowed to rule? Could we have prevented certain conflicts from happening, or could we have shaped the world differently if this system of inequality hadn't existed? It's not a bad concept for a story on its own. This really did happen in history. It still happens today. The story here is one of right and wrong, justice and injustice. Rhaenyra was wronged, denied rule solely based on her gender, and history wrongly misremembered her, as our real history has wronged and misremembered countless women who reached for power in the past and who do it in the present.

The problem is, though, that the story of The Dance of the Dragons in Fire and Blood is not that story. The characters and their motivations, the themes, and the plot points all tell a different story, one of a larger sociopolitical story of rival claimants from the same family, where both sides own beasts capable of significant death and destruction, and the devastating civil war that was fought because both sides fought tooth and nail to take power and crush their rivals. And the point of this story is that war is never justified, that it can destroy indiscriminately, that any side in a war can be capable of extreme violence, injustice, and death. It's a story about power, the history of succession and the wars fought over it, and it's also about a family being torn apart over it. After a father dies, a siblings fight to the death, killing thousands in the process, a cycle that has happened countless times in our own real history. Succession wars - their destruction, the motivations for it, the real human impact on those involved, including the monarchs themselves, their families, lords on their side, and everyday people in the realm - this is the story that the Dance of the Dragons is telling in Fire and Blood, as it is written with an outline of indisputable plot points and character motivations that exist throughout. It's a rich political story with morally gray characters, something that the world of A Song of Ice and Fire is particularly known for.

The story that the show wants to tell, then, is incongruent with the actual source material. And so detail after detail of the source material is adjusted, tweaked, erased, added, and there are ripple effects across the entire narrative. Rhaenyra is the one who was wronged in this story. If she or any of the characters on her side (but especially the women, since this show is about historical sexism) did something questionable in the source material, it goes one of a few ways: 1) no they didn't, because it didn't happen 2) no they didn't, because a man actually did it and the women were unnecessarily blamed, or 3) yes they did, but it was for a good reason. The writers think they can do this both because they believe their story is better than the author's and because they think the format of Fire and Blood gives them the creative freedom to completely reinvent it without care. So everything Rhaenyra and the women on her side do is justified and done for the right reasons, and anything truly bad was actually one of the guy's faults, but since they support Rhaenyra, they're ultimately off the hook, because it's to support her in getting justice for how she's been wronged by the system. The war they fight for her and the pain they cause is justified because the Greens and their supporters deserve it for wronging Rhaenyra and denying her the throne.

Essentially, because the writers decided they were telling their own story, not the original, they changed several elements to make sure that Rhaenyra would be seen as the hero of the story, an ultimate victim of the historical system of misogyny that existed in her world (like in ours). In their show Rhaenyra should represent all wronged women in history. We should sympathize with her story and feel that what happened to her was unfair, and we should cheer when she experiences any glimpse at liberation. Her sexuality, her dragon-riding, her big moments where she puts the people around her in their place... We should cheer for her, the power she does have, and her quest to get even more.

By neccessity, then, the reshaping of the Greens must happen. Their side represents the system that Rhaenyra is suffering under, so they can't be sympathized with. Things that happen to them and the things that they do must all happen in the context of this. Alicent now represents all women who worked within and with the patriarchy, something the show sees as unforgivable, despite the reality of the world and the relative powerlessness an individual woman in that time, especially one married into the royal family, and the inability to do anything substantial to change or alter the system (or free themselves from it - more on this point later). The show wants the viewer to believe that Alicent has betrayed her own gender by not supporting Rhaenyra, so anything bad that happens to her is her own fault, and anything good that happens is actually bad. This applies to the portrayal of her sexuality. Alicent is forced into late night sex by her sick old husband? Well she agreed to this! Alicent is taken advantage of and forced to show her feet for a man's sexual pleasure, to her great discomfort? Well that's what she gets! Alicent finds a lover after her husband dies? Well she should have been doing other things - her grandson might still have been alive if she hadn't been getting her rocks off in Rhaenyra's old bedroom with Rhaenyra's ex! The other Greens face this treatment as well: Cole is reduced to a sex object, Aegon II is portrayed as a violent rapist and then his penis gets exploded for comedic effect, Aemond has mommy issues and likes to cuddle older women while he's completely naked and they're fully clothed (milk I think is involved? I'm not rewatching to clarify this point, sorry), Helaena's sexuality and motherhood is completely sidelined even after her own young son is murdered in front of her eyes, Larys has a sexual fetish centered around his disability that he uses Alicent fo fulfill.

The sexuality of the all the Greens is punished and denigrated by the narrative, and it's the opposite for the Blacks. But season 3 marks a big change: Alicent is no longer Team Green. She's given up her sons, the capital, and the war she started to finally "make a sacrifice for the first time in her life" (according to the writers, because they view her not as a character but as a representation of women who support the patriarchy). Alicent is framed at the end of season 2 as having freed herself from the patriarchy but getting rid of her attachment to her male relatives and by supporting a woman ruler, because this is a story about a just woman ruler who was wronged by the system and misremembered in history. Alicent is now finally supporting the right side.

So will she be free from the sexual punishment and denigration that has plagued her character? I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is actually yes, for a time, but I don't think that means that her sexuality will not be explored at all. If some unfortunate "leaks" are true, which could be likely, given how off course the show has veered from the source material and how Rhaenyra's relationships with her female advisors have been portrayed since season 2, I do actually think we may be getting more explicit Rhaenicent this season (nothing too extreme, but I would not bet against the relationship getting more romantic and/or sexual in nature). It makes sense, given what we know about the story that the writers want to tell and the way they've centered the show around that relationship. In this scenario only - one in which Alicent is sexual with Rhaenyra - will Alicent not be sexually punished or denigrated by the narrative. But we know that the relationship can't last forever. I doubt there would be any additional love interests for Alicent after Rhaenyra, but if there are, count on them reverting right back to shaming her for it.

To summarize, the sexuality of the all the Greens is punished and denigrated by the narrative, and it's the opposite for the Blacks, which means Alicent, despite being sexually punished and denigrated the most of all the Greens, may actually escape this portrayal in season 3, due to her having changed sides. This story is fundamentally different from the original story, and the byproduct of trying to force one story into the other is the removal and erasure of characters, themes, motivations, and internal story logic, much to the show's detriment.

[basingstokemercury]

"character deserved better" (but they were never going to get it that's the stuff great tragedies are made of) vs "character deserved better" (but the writers really blew it)

[lethargicblues]

!!WARNING!!

Long post with lots of words about Marientte (I don’t like her) I think this is like a character analysis but idk. This post is sort of like I’m describing her as human but I also don’t know. Okay proceed

Marientte is a teenage girl who thinks everything she is doing is for the better, she does often see her problems but usually avoids them by making up excuse after excuse. She acts like a coddled child who hasn’t been given basic consequences due to being coddled and being the favorited child (and if she’s the only child) and she self-sabotages herself quite a lot (putting herself in situations she can obviously get out of), she’s also a bit of a hypocrite saying she hates liars while spouting lies herself, saying you can’t kiss anyone without their consent despite her doing that herself.

Everyone thinks that just because she’s 14 that she doesn’t know what she’s doing or that she’s just stressed and while I agree with the stressed part a bit, 14 year olds are capable of critical thinking. Just because she’s stressed doesn’t mean jack shit to me, heroes, even teen heroes, can do the right thing while being stressed.

Marientte has probably always been praised by her parents, especially her father, and that’s probably why she needs someone to tell her that nothing is her fault and that she’s doing an amazing job as a student, friend, and hero. This also adds on the fact she relies on others heavily for emotional regulation and reassurance, wanting people to soothe her and such so they can make her feel like she’s an amazing person and that she’s doing the right thing.

She also has a sense of entitlement, lack of boundaries, and difficulty with accountability. I’m pretty sure anyone who criticizes Marinette can see those three things pretty clearly in some scenes of her and other characters.

1. Sense of entitlement: her being Ladybug and thinking she can just be rude to people just because she’s Ladybug

2. Lack of boundaries: the whole thing with Adrien

and 3. Difficulty with accountability: literally any time she does something bad and has to have someone reassure her that the thing she did bad wasn’t bad or was for the greater good

———

BONUS!!

Marinette is likely to have Obsessive Love Disorder. O.L.D. is a disorder that isn’t medically recognized but refers to a fixation on another person as if they are a possession or object (Adrien). Obsessive love may sometimes involve a relationship that does not actually exist (when Adrien and Marinette weren’t together at first). Also, Erotomania, a delusion disorder that refers to false beliefs that a person strongly believes, like a crazy fan having a crush on a famous celebrity, the key symptom of erotomania is a resolute and delusional belief by someone that another person is in love with them (Behavior relating to erotomania includes persistent efforts to make contact through stalking, written communication, and other harassing behaviors.)

Also I feel like Marinette is the type of person who won’t let go of the past, like imagine if Chloe came back from London or where ever and she genuinely changed a bit (because therapy) or Chrysalis/Ceries was defeated or something but she still hates Chloe, which is a bit valid but doesn’t acknowledge that Chloe changed a bit, or thinks Chrysalis is still around or something

——

Okay I’m done

Had to vomit this shit out before I forgot it all and give myself another headache over it

Edit: long ahh post 💔