#grrm critical

[baldwinhearts]

friendly reminder that even though george hasn't published any more books since 2011, that doesn't justify the disrespect he's receiving from some showrunners and some fans, and it certainly doesn't justify his work being butchered.

[junewild]

new asoiaf/got worldbuilding discourse just dropped! check out the author’s blog for more thoughts on asoiaf, lotr, and more.

[medeapalatyna]

You know I wish house of the dragon actually interrogated incest as a tool used by families to consolidate power and within families to dispossess women because aside from being played for shock value the Aemond/Daemon mother-fucking dreams kind of went nowhere and of all families the HIGHTOWERS!!! seem to be used to demonstrate the point that incest is an abuse tactic (wrt Otto > Alicent and Ormund > Daeron)

Like dawg why are we presenting the uncle/niece 2 for 1 combo of alyn and baela and daemon and rhaenyra as somehow morally ok incest couples. Why did the only interrogation of what dameon did to rhaenyra happen in s2 with those harrenhal dreams and then he was somehow absolved of everything by believing she should be queen because of a prophecy.

What are we doing here.

[0nlybitt3r4may]

they tried so hard to make Brienne unattractive at least in canon where she's not 'ideal' (by the standards during those times) but like look at her serving cvnt idc what you say

[bymyhandsinister]

The problem with Rhaegar Targaryen is that there are two of them. There's the one that GRRM intended to write, a tragic Lancelot-like figure that dooms the kingdom to war for love. There's the other one, Rhaegar as he's actually present in text, as a vague figure you can project anything onto.

Bcs here's the problem I think. The things that happen as a result of his actions are too grotesque and horrific. "Oh it was a tragic misunderstanding", well the Starks got put in a Saw trap. The way Elia dies is so horrible that it throws a shade over everything. It's probably GRRM's biggest mistake. It's a little difficult to be charitable about the entire thing, when this is what waits at the end of it. He didn't mean to do it, but he stepped into a huge nest of racism, misogyny and other issues.

Yes, GRRM meant for this whole thing to be something that couldn't have been predicted. Yes, Rhaegar couldn't have known what would happen. But also it's a little difficult to care, because Elia gets a death from an ero guro manga.

Yes, GRRM seems to forget how young these characters are, and that a 16 years can't actually have a consensual, balanced relationship with an adult man. Yes, it was meant to be a legitimate romantic relationship. And maybe if that was the only off thing in this story, it would just be something to squint at and move on. But compiled on top of everything else, it becomes another red flag that makes Rhaegar look less like Lancelot and more like a villain.

Like I can see clearly what Rhaegar was meant to be. Same as I can see that Dany/Drogo was meant to be romantic. I see it and I'm saying that GRRM failed to portray it the way he wanted to.

It's not that he is a bad person, it's that he's a bad character.

[sansa-stark-is-me]

The entire problem with the Dance is that George wrote a medieval setting story that all of the sudden has modern mentality about women. And the show amplified it to a thousand.

- Rhaenys isn't excepted despite the law being on her side but Rhaenyra is despite the law not being on her side

- Corlys has his entire "history remembers names not blood" like it makes any sense in a world like Westeros

The story bends itself for Rhaenyra despite logically it shouldn't.

With any realism, The Dance would have ended before it even began

You’re right both the books and especially the show the Dance feel confusing and unrealistic.

In any real medieval setting, inheritance laws and customs almost always favored male heirs over female ones. Even if Rhaenyra was named heir, if her father had a legitimate son, that boy would typically take precedence in the line of succession. Medieval societies were deeply patriarchal, and a woman claiming the throne over a male child even her own would face immense legal, political, and military opposition. So if a son were born, the lords, knights, and even the crown’s allies would likely rally around him instead of Rhaenyra, effectively ending her chance to rule. If you drop the Targaryens into the 12th century (which is where GRRM clearly drew from), Rhaenyra’s claim collapses instantly. Matilda was the daughter of a king with no sons, backed by oaths from every noble in England multiple times and even she couldn’t hold the throne and that was in a realm far less patriarchal than Westeros. Stephen, as the son of Henry I’s younger sister, took the crown simply because he was male. The church backed him, the nobles backed him, and even those who had sworn to Matilda switched sides the moment Stephen seized power.

Now, fast-forward to Westeros: barely 30 years before the Dance, the Great Council of 101 AC voted for male succession choosing Viserys over Rhaenys. That wasn’t just a random decision; it was precedent-setting. So why, realistically, would they suddenly abandon that legal, cultural, and religious principle for Rhaenyra especially when she had brothers, male heirs, and bastards whose paternity everyone whispered about? Let’s not forget: Rhaenyra wasn’t even politically active. She spent most of her adult life on Dragonstone, surrounded by sycophants and out of touch with the power centers of King’s Landing. By contrast, Alicent and Otto had years of direct influence, support from the Faith, and the literal apparatus of government behind them. Rhaenyra? A distant claimant with questionable heirs and a reputation for arrogance. So yes it’s baffling that half the realm supposedly rallied behind her. Nobles in Westeros, like their medieval counterparts, don’t die for principles; they fight for self-interest. And “my queen has three illegitimate kids and wants to rewrite succession law for herself” is not exactly a great rallying cry. The only real answer? Dragons. The Dance only makes sense if we accept that everyone in this world is operating under “dragon logic,” where political realism goes out the window because both sides think their nukes (dragons) will guarantee victory. But if you strip the dragons out and treat this like a real medieval civil war? Yeah. No one would have ever backed Rhaenyra and the only reason I don’t support her claim is because it’s fundamentally unrealistic. From a medieval and Westerosi political standpoint, it could never have worked.

Alicent Is the Only Character Acting Realistically, While Viserys and Rhaenyra’s Choices Make Zero Sense. if you look at it w// historical logic and medieval style politics, Alicent is the only character acting realistically. Rhaenyra makes choices that make no sense in a patriarchal, feudal society, like openly having three bastards and expecting the court to back her. Viserys is indecisive and contradictory, naming her heir but doing nothing to secure her position once he remarries and has sons. None of them act like people living in a real feudal monarchy except Alicent, who’s the only one behaving in a historically realistic way. The rest act like modern characters trapped in a medieval setting, where personal emotions somehow outweigh political logic. It’s this clash between medieval-style fantasy and modern storytelling that makes the whole conflict feel inconsistent as if the world’s rules and the characters’ behavior don’t belong to the same era.

In the first place, did we ever have a king in medieval Europe who named his daughter heir to replace his brother bc of the insult thing, then remarried, then had three sons, then kept her as heir, then spat on the Great Council of 101 and never summoned a new one to back his daughter w// fresh legitimacy after having three sons? Not to mention Viserys never required ALL the lords to swear oaths of loyalty to Rhaenyra, he made only HALF the lords swear oaths 24 years ago when Rhaenyra was just a child and named it a day, then he never renewed or reinforced those oaths again. If you compare it to the real-life historical basis, the succession crisis between Empress Matilda and Stephen falls apart. In reality, even w// oaths sworn multiple times to Matilda, Stephen still took the throne. That’s much closer to how it should have played out w// Aegon II. Monarchs “appointing” successors doesn’t hold much weight in a feudal system. Historically, rulers like Roman emperors crowned their heirs before death to avoid this exact problem. GRRM could’ve leaned into that complexity, but instead he framed it as a straightforward son vs. daughter conflict, which oversimplifies the real dynamics and makes it hard to buy why so many would risk everything for Rhaenyra’s claim.

If Martin truly wanted to reflect the reality and the patriarchy of The Anarchy, the opposition should not have been a younger legitimate son, which makes Rhaenyra’s claim challenged by another stronger claim, but a cousin, uncle, or other collateral male line, which would have forced the misogyny front and center, as in Matilda’s case. By making Rhaenyra the elder sibling, the narrative implies her claim is better bc she came first, but in any REAL medieval monarchy w// male-preference succession, she would be naturally displaced by a later-born male.

Not only did no real-world monarchy practice absolute primogeniture before the 1980s, but even male-preference primogeniture was fraught and inconsistent. In England, women could inherit only when no legitimate male remained:

“There are many different inheritance codes and traditions. In Kent the dominant inheritance code was ‘gavelkind,’ by which all sons inherited equally. However, the predominant inheritance rule throughout the rest of England in the medieval period and afterwards was male-preference primogeniture, whereby estates passed in total to the eldest son. In both these codes women could inherit, but only if they had no brothers. Since 1925, modern inheritance law in the United Kingdom has treated daughters the same as sons. Despite this, male-preference primogeniture was still in use by our own Royal Family to govern who inherited the throne until the early 21st century. The daughters of a prince would take the throne ahead of the children of a princess, even if the princess was older. Complete exclusion of females from succession is a well-known part of the ‘Salic Law,’ but is not part of the British law code. Indeed, England had a female ruler in 1141 when Matilda (1102-1167), the only surviving child of King Henry I, briefly deposed her cousin Stephen of Blois. He had taken the throne despite having sworn to uphold her succession.”

Also are we supposed to believe that Rhaenyra a woman in a rigidly patriarchal society could have three openly illegitimate children and not only face no punishment, but still expect everyone to support her claim to the throne? In any real feudal system, that would have been political suicide. A woman’s sexual reputation directly affected her political legitimacy, because her children were the future heirs. If the children were suspected to be illegitimate, then her entire bloodline became questionable. That meant instability, wars, and succession crises exactly the thing feudal lords wanted to avoid. Look at what happened to Jaehaerys’s daughters: They were punished for having extramarital sex. And none of them were heirs to the throne. They were just royal princesses yet even they couldn’t get away with anything. So imagine how much worse it would be for the heir to have three children who look nothing like her husband.

In a real medieval setting:

• Her marriage would be annulled.

• Her children would be declared illegitimate.

• Her claim would collapse instantly.

• The lords would abandon her because her line would appear “unsafe.”

• And yes she would probably be removed, imprisoned, or quietly killed, because the threat to the succession would be seen as too dangerous.

The idea that Rhaenyra could do this openly, for years, with no consequences, and still expect everyone to support her claim, is... unrealistic. Even in-universe, Fire & Blood shows how ridiculous it is everyone knew, everyone whispered, and half the realm doubted her sons’ right to inherit. But if Westeros operated anything like real feudal Europe? Rhaenyra’s claim would never have survived three illegitimate heirs. It would’ve been over before the Dance even began.

One of the most frustrating things about Rhaenyra is how often she acts in denial about the very real threats around her. She’s supposed to be the heir to the Iron Throne, a trained political player who has ruled Dragonstone and sat in her father Viserys’s council. Shes supposed to be smart, experienced, and deeply aware of court politics so why, suddenly, does she behave like the dangers posed by her half-brothers don’t even exist??? From the moment Aegon and his siblings are born, any reasonable person in her position would immediately recognize the threat. In a feudal, patriarchal society, male heirs automatically overshadow a female claimant. Yet Rhaenyra seems to act as if her claim is untouchable. She doesn’t reinforce her position or secure the loyalty of her allies. In real medieval-style politics or even in realistic character logic this is insanity. Ignoring such obvious risks is not clever strategy; it’s a plot convenience.

This denial makes her decisions feel disconnected from her world. The reader knows that threats exist, the lords are fickle, and her claim is inherently vulnerable, but Rhaenyra acts as if none of that matters. It isn’t just frustrating it’s unrealistic. Even someone with limited political savvy would take steps to secure their position. Contrast this with Alicent Hightower. From the moment her sons are born, she recognizes their potential to threaten Rhaenyra. She acts strategically, plans ahead, and behaves consistently with the rules of her world. Even if readers dislike her, her behavior is believable. She understands the stakes, and she navigates them logically. That’s why, in terms of realistic writing, Alicent is far stronger as a character than Rhaenyra.

You see the same realism in Catelyn Stark. The moment Catelyn realizes Jon Snow could undermine her children’s legitimacy and inheritance, she becomes wary and resentful. Whether readers agree with her or not, this reaction fits the rules of a medieval world where bastards create political instability. She understands the stakes and behaves accordingly.

Even Cersei Lannister understood the danger of rumors about her children’s parentage, and she handled the bastardy issue far better than Rhaenyra ever did. Rhaenyra acted almost as if none of the rules applied to her. Harwin Strong was constantly around her children, everyone at court openly whispered about their real father, and Rhaenyra still expected no consequences.

Rhaenyra’s denial doesn’t make her tragic it makes her unbelievable. GRRM could have shown her as cautious, calculating, or at least partially aware of the risks. Instead, she often acts as if the political world she’s part of doesn’t exist. Even in a world full of epic stuff, characters need to act like real humans. They need consistent motives, reactions that make sense, and awareness of the world they live in. When they don’t, all the tension in the dragons, wars, and politics gets wiped out bc the reader is just thinking, “why tf isn’t she doing the obvious thing?”

Rhaenyra is written UNREALISTICALLY having BASTARDS so openly and facing basically NO REAL CONSEQUENCES. In a world where women get KILLED or CAST OUT for less, she gets PROTECTED and PRAISED. It doesn’t fit the LOGIC of Westeros, bc even w// her Targaryen blood and her father’s love, no woman could’ve gotten away w// that. She’s written like a MODERN idea of female freedom dropped into a MEDIEVAL world and that’s why she feels so out of place next to someone like Alicent, who actually acts the way a woman would in that system.

Alicent feels TOO REAL, and ppl HATE in fiction what they recognize as PAINFULLY HUMAN. They HATE seeing how MEDIEVAL women actually acted how our HISTORY really was, how women’s lives were shaped by DUTY, FEAR, and SURVIVAL rather than FREEDOM. people prefer the ILLUSION of EMPOWERMENT and MODERN ideals projected onto the past bc it’s more COMFORTABLE. They LOVE to ROMANTICIZE history, not CONFRONT it. Alicent reminds them of the REALITY they’d rather IGNORE.

Corlys saying “history remembers names, not blood” is BULLSHIT. Everything in their society is built on bloodlines inheritance, marriage, legitimacy, claims to land, claims to titles, even claims to the Iron Throne.

Cersei killed Robert’s bastards because they have his blood in a way that pose a threat to her children’s claim since they don’t have his blood. Any child with Robert’s blood could challenge her kids, so she acted ruthlessly to protect their position. Robert Baratheon did claim the Iron Throne in part because he had Targaryen blood, so bloodlines absolutely mattered. The Targaryens and Velaryons were obsessed with “pure blood,” breeding within the family to maintain their Valyrian heritage.

If blood truly didn’t matter in Westeros, then:

The Targaryens would never have married brother to sister.

Robert Baratheon couldn’t use his Targaryen blood to justify taking the throne.

Cersei killing Robert’s bastards would be pointless.

The entire debate over bastardy, legitimacy, and inheritance wouldn’t exist. But all of Westeros is built on bloodlines. Saying “blood doesn’t matter” in this world is like saying “water isn’t wet” it goes against the whole structure of their society.

The characters behave like modern people stuck in a medieval setting.

[eternoct-void]

Hot take: Only reason why Rhaenyra's character is so "boring" is because Ryan Condal took what was meant for Rhaenyra and gave it to Alicent. That green dress scene was specifically meant for Rhaenyra Targaryen. That was a moment meant to show that Rhaenyra was standing up for herself in the books. I'm only putting this out there because I got an inbox from a anti-rhaenicent ranting about how Ryan Condal hates Rhaenyra's character.

The king's marriage to Queen Alicent: "At the opening feast, the queen wore a green gown, whilst the princess dressed dramatically in Targaryen red and black. Note was taken, and thereafter it became the custom to refer to "greens" and "blacks" when talking of the queen's party and the party of the princess respectively."

I get where they are coming from because they could've made Alicent's character interesting without stealing from the events of other characters.

[xshimaax77]

With all these spoilers for the play, and the absolutely terrible way literally every female character is being handled, it’s getting impossible to defend. if these reveals are indeed coming straight from grrm’s own hints and input, then honestly he’s just proving every single misogyny allegation that’s been made against him over the years. it shows such a blatant pattern of throwing women under the bus, stripping them of genuine agency or turning them into convenient plot devices just to absolve the men of their actions. when an author would rather rewrite a woman's trauma and flatten her character just to make a prince look tragic and misunderstood, it’s not complex or realistic writing anymore. it’s just relying on the same old misogynistic tropes under the guise of "historical realism."