editorialized torpedo

lampshading: purposely call attention to a cliché, illogical, or contrived element, often in characters' dialogue; "the writers' trick of dealing with any element of the story that seems too dubious to take at face value, whether a very implausible plot development or a particularly blatant use of a trope, by calling attention to it and simply moving on...The creators are using the tactic of self-deprecatingly pointing out their own flaws themselves, thus depriving critics and opponents of their ammunition"

I think that yes they realize that people would get angry at the scene of Alicent getting head shown right after Rhaenyra's misery; they wanted those conditions to be contrasted for Alicent's hypocrisy to be shown. But then they work to also make her seem more sympathetic by making her seemingly remorseful until they want to make her seem strong and self sacrificial again in that last meeting w/Rhaenyra. It all goes back to their reluctance to risk anyone but Daemon be perceived as evil or amoral or cruel, esp the women when they really had their women be too unrealistically inactive and wary to even press for violence. However, yes, I'd also say they are lampshading heavy and that they have little clue as to handle the original story they've rejected. Sucks for them, terrible to watch.

Most likely. there's just little cohesion in those rooms and perhaps they're snorting c*ke too, idk.

In 1x08, Alicent, after Rhaenyra gave one apology, immediately accepted her as the next queen wholeheartedly even thought she has been harassing both her and her sons for 10 years and impressed on all her kids that she needed to be ousted for them all to even survive. I already didn't like the writing for Alicent & kinda mentally checked out of all the drama in the "suspension of disbelief" way before, but this is when I really started to actively despise her writing. When all my latent thoughts about this show's absurdities & hypocrisies swelled up to be unignorable. There, too, Alicent seemd all too ready to pretend the past is the past bec apparently Rhaenyra acknowledging her as a queenly authority and being a good wife to Viserys proved she would make a good Queen AND not kill her kids...okay. Ironically, they decided to be consistent for this of all things AND that 1x08 switch up is itself an inconsistency of such different definition that it is just an irrationality rather than an inconsistency.

Yeah, it's a bit aggravating after a million times of hearing this, esp since the show is not devoted to actually adapting the actual, real facts of the original story anyway so why should any of those people care about how the writers will "adapt" Nettles-Daemon as if the writers' interpretations or decisions significantly reflect anything but their own desires of what the story "should" have been?

HotD fandom--esp those who read the books and still argue for HotD's value as an "interpretation" bc apparently everything in F&B is open to interpretation inclu ages and certain battles--leave F&B out of HotD challenege failed.

And no, I am not a fan of HotD. I watch sometimes bc of dragons, Jacela (fingers crossed for a damn kiss), and check in with the culture/ideas there.

You shouldn't be even worrying much about marketing to this degree when you're thinking of how to create your plot and storylines. how annoying that you thought to teach people a "lesson" when you can't even write real female protagonists and fumble them both so hard that they actually perpetuate sexist ideals of motherhood and womanhood. And where you bait people into believing them to be in a real relationship, or even capable of it. It's always been this condescending, missing the mark, & subpar, they've just:

so more people clock the show's shallow writing. I'm glad, too, that more people have cited wanting to or starting to read the book bc they were impatient for this story OR/AND curiosity.

I'm not sweating it, bc:

or

they clearly don't really care and we're already in a place where most new fans or HotD show-only watchers who never read the bks will take all this as fact. In the meantime, I wrote about this situation b/t Helaena, Jaehaera, and HotD's being more a marketing scheme than a creative project or an adaptation.

Anon speaks of this post.

Not sure why you think I misunderstood. I addressed your point about how "we can't know" that this legend explains or thematically explains the connection of misogyny to how we lose the dragons.

A)

Rhaenyra -- Amethyst Empress --- woman who lost her throne and life to an evil younger brother through force

Aegon II -- Bloodstone Emperor --- both usurp their elder, chosen sister

Daenerys/Amethyst Empress/Rhaenyra --- women of authority and power

Viserys (III)/Aegon II/Bloodstone Emperor --- brothers who have endangered, abused, or killed their sister and meant to displce them from their own rights, innate or sociopolitical, for their own power advancement.

As for Condal and Hess, they can't do pattern recognition, now? Condal especially said he was a "fan" of this series and world. He didn't read TWoIaF and he claims to be a AsoIaF "fan"?

It is similar here, with the Bloodstone Emporer/Amethyst Empress and that particular legend's explanation for the Long Night. This legend doesn't have to be totally real, and I mean that it doesn't have to be true that there was a 1000 year old emperor as the Yi Ti are told to believe abt some of the known Emperors. These are metaphorical in the first place.

All the legend is clueing us in on is that this betrayal, whatever it was, was one between relatives, a man undoing a woman's place, and thus speaking to how it threw off the balance of the world's magic. That women are a critical part of that balance. That's the central idea being conveyed, the purpose of this legend--everything points to Dany vs the Others (yes the others of the Big Five are still relevant, but they have no chance without her).

We don't need to know the actual details of who these particular people were and what they weren't when they loved or died, just that something like this usurpation definitely happened and there was a notable affect on magic in the realm those emperors ruled over, as Yi Tish people are also very active in magic wielding...most of Essos is, unlike Westeros.

I'm going to repeat myself in this post, but: this is not a real history book where we'll likely not know much of anything...GRRM provides more answers in his fictional history than real history books do.

All this is important to the theme of F&B: greedy men sideline, abuse, uproot women they are blood connected to for power (just as the Bloodstone emperor did), the women suffer for it/lose their political authority therefore their ability to as actively direct the direction of the House, and eventually the entire house and Westeros loses dragons to use against the Others and the world's magical & biological ecosystem is totally thrown off kilter until Dany literally sets it right again by bring the dragons back. The dragonglass candles at Oldtown, they light up again when she does this. The last of AGoT:

So again, why do you need "more" "confirmation" when there is so much evidence, when that's not how fiction works (that you need things totally spelled out for you to be true), etc?

Honestly, this seems a literacy and latent sexism issue that causes this cognitive dissonance in fans that makes them deny these types of connections as canon, real, whatever. Bc you have people caliming Jon is Azor Ahai up the wazzo simply because he's the son of a Targ and a Stark (fire and ice), male, the "sword" of the prophecy they take as literal, etc. etc. But "song" means "war" and Jon has done nothing/nothing has happened around him to predicate a connection the Azor Ahai prophecy in-text. Yet so many people ride for this stupid idea, this stupid unsupported idea!

This idea that has never been "confirmed" and never will be bc there is and has never been evidence to how Jon Snow, a Westerosi Stark through and through, relates to an Essosi prophecy when Dany--who grew up in Essos and was born in Westeros thus is a connector of the two continents; is actively dealing with dragons and having dragons dreams; in Essos where the Azor Ahai prophecy originates; comes from a dragonriding lienage ("fire"); the enemy of "fire" has always been "cold" and Jon is more Stark than Targ, so "cold" must be the ecological and magical threat that is the Others that even GoT has had us anticipate since its very 1st episode as THE enemy before that atrocious last season!!!; when we know "prince" is a gender neutral term form High Valyrian (Prince that was Promised)--has all the evidence of being Azor Ahai.

And why does it matter they they haven't read it when they could have asked GRRM or just read F&B to properly understand the point of the Dance?

Condal can't clock that this legend is narratively important just as much that the CotF/"those who sing the song of the earth's connection to Dany and Westeros' future? Just bc a thing is in Essos, doesn't mean it will not affect Westeros just as real life Ancient Asian societies have been able to make physical trade as well as intellectual "trade" or influence on stuff in the West. He can't clock Rhaena the BB and Elissa's connection to Daenerys? Condal read how Dany is connected to Braavos and how Dreamfyre's eggs went there and didn't put 2 and 2 together?

This is why you don't bring non-fantasy readers to write a fantasy show. who then, bc of said ignorance, want to somehow "make the story better" or different...the same story they don't even understand. Also why you don't bring a marketing guy to write any adaptive as intricate and rich as ASoIaF and to not understand the depth or the patterns of magical phenomenon that good faith fantasy readers have habitually done since their childhood (most readers anyway have read fantasy since childhood and religiously so to understand its conventions) when that's not what they look out for in the first place.

B)

The fact that Dany's eggs are Dreamfyre's also haven't been "confirmed" by GRRM or revealed in The Winds of Winter or A Dream of Spring. That doesn't make this any less true.

1- from his website

2- It's pretty much fact with how these are THREE eggs that petrified when they are away from Dragonstone; IIllyrio Mopatis had them to give to Dany and she eventually awakens them; F&B takes the time to painstakingly show Rhaena the BB's conversation w/Jaehaerys abt the consequences of THREE dragon eggs going missing. What other reason was there for F&B--a text that aims to contextualize Daenerys by telling the stories of her ancestors before the loss of the dragons and a little after--to do so hard abt 3 dragon eggs stolen during Rhaena's time, from her dragon's clutch, under her watch?! A text that traces the existence of dragons and their maintenance/use by the Targs? Then there is the fact that Elissa Farman--the egg thief--sold the eggs to the Sealord of Braavos, another thing necessary to Dany's arc. None of this is an accident or a red herring, esp since there is literally nothing as damning as evidence or suggestion for the argument of Syrax being the mother...at all. Nothing in the text.

Not everything in ASoIaF is a great and complex mystery; sometimes GRRM gives you clues to a simple "mystery" to deduce the truth of, esp when we already have much evidence of Danyxher dragons being necessary and critical for the coming Long Night against the "ice/cold" others. That she/her dragons are the "fire" in the Song of Ice and Fire, a coming magical war for the world. This is the type of chain of clues that are retrospective and not anticipatory. We already have the result (Dany and the eggs); you were tasked to recognized the line of causation pretty quickly. This is still a fiction series with correct answers.

All this is evidenced just in the main series, TWoIaF acts as a support piece...Condal is a fan, but he can make deductions? Sure.

I believe the sort of "trust" Sara Hess was trying to define and reveal in this scene is the faith that Daemon would not use his proximity and relationship to her to do stuff that she cannot fix or direct the effect on herself. But she makes it focus more on Daemon trying to rule through her and not him deciding things on his own/perhaps failing to do as he actually wishes which is to protect his family....as was canon and already hashed out even in this show's universe/writing.

Rhaenyra's reasoning is being put to question--for how she'd think to allow Daemon to be around her first 3 kids if she actually didn't trust his ambitions comes into question, and no Rhaenyra was not utterly stupid in canon. She marries the man knowing that he would support her and only her claim as well as be non-murderous or threatening to her and their eventual kids. The true story is that Daemon is a principal element to how Rhaenyra was able to garner support and in good time in critical spots of the realm--he was a good political partner as well and she espied that. So them being together at all or why she chose him (as the character she is now) is also called into question, just as Rhaenys and Corlys do not make sense together in the show.

The other issue is that even with Jaehaerys being a child, this isn't a world/society that will consider a child's death as reason enough for them to pull back support, or it's not an unconditional deal breaker. They may have some personal qualms, but many would see this as "blood for blood" for the death of Lucerys AND/OR keeping their oaths to Rhaenyra/Viserys. And especially what voluntary designation of heirs vs traditions over their ability to name an heir and that heir being able to keep their seats they way those lords intended. As rhaenin-time pointed out once, it's pretty dangerous to set the precedent that anyone could just accuse the heir of things and then carve out their way towards the seat not assigned to them. All this would rather motivate the lords over a child's death, esp when Aegon has another son to be his heir. Does that make them cruel and amoral, duh. But Hess and Condal are not actually being that true to the story/setting we got. They're acting like everyone is in this tightly interconnected, very tiny bubble of a community where the relationships between houses across the entire realm are very very personal and that their ethic system is similarly human-prioritized based as we try to make our own and it disrupts the logic of the story.

*EDIT* [7/13/24] This is not to say that child killing is wrong, I'm trying to point out that in the context of political support and Rhaenyra's ability to gather her own loyal vassals, that this wouldn't be the biggest turning factor for her to lose followers and potential ones, so the argument had to be about something else, which is was. *EDIT END*

It also contradicts how Ned rationalizes his treatment towards Cersei ("honor" over actual safety of vulnerable people) in the canon world, and don't get me started on how we make a double standard, as a fandom and reader, in how we praise Ned for how he tries to follow the line of honor or save his family by what he intended to allow to happen with Cersei--or risk happen--but suddenly Rhaenyra can't be the type of protagonist who marries Daemon for her own interests, love, to protect her family, etc.

Them and the rest do not really understand Daemon's character in relation to Rhaenyra nor the weight of all those social elements I described bc they didn't really bother to ponder over all these rules implications...they didn't even bother to really consider the effect of Aemond's kinslaying and the taboo around that (or some are just making this as immediately understandable to a 2024 audience, idk). Sure the court may not shame Aemond but there's the factor of them being in close proximity and immediate danger. And it still is in the back of their minds that this dude is too "crazy" to really follow sincerely....at least some of them. Which could affect the entire greens' standing and image.

Thus, while I do think that there's always a chance bk!Rhaenyra didn't trust Daemon to not mess up her own image in his own impulsivity (having some internal conflict of her own bc I don't think she'd be angry at the act to get blood for blood and still resent him for the outcome), show!Rhaenyra questions his hold on his ambitions instead of what he desires. We already went over his ambitions back in season 1 and he already proved that he wasn't with her or made a family with her to rule anything through her (so yes, his scene with Rhaenys in the first epi didn't make sense esp with how dumb it is to make him try to go to KL to kill Aemond...there's a reason why he sends B&C in canon instead!!!). The show should have really made Rhaenyra question his present desires and not past ambitions. Which is what Branwynwith of Twitter speaks to in their review of the episode.

But now, the team didn't think about how this would look to multiple different groups of people, thus, you know.

*7/14/24* I forgot to include that Daemon actually leaving for Harrenhal before getting their particulars and priorities in order, making any sort of plan as to how he's going to "make it up" or fulfill...not even him yelling out something along the lines of "watch me" concerning Harrenhal and his intent is insane even for him, this version. Again, does the show expect me to think Rhaenyra often has to plan around these events he causes whenever they fight and he crashes out?

My issue with the reactions to the greens and the greens themselves is their reactions to Aemond kinslaying...kinslaying is such a taboo....why is the ult religious Alicent at least not showing some trepidation before she tries to sweep it all under the rug? where is the whole religious fear? Where is the court trying to actively avoid Aemond? Why is Aemond and the rest except aegon so detached from the court and I don't mean in an introvert sort of way. I mean that Aemond is never ever seen to even observed or be observed by the court, as if he's some shadowy figure who exists as a name only. Again, they could have established his character and place at court, how he sees the court and vice versa in season 1, but we're in an age where people hate plot and character development and go for action in their fantasy dramas.

TGC does very well with Aegon, and the writing for Aegon is pretty good. the overall greens' denial or misconstruing events is fine and makes sense for them but it honestly feels like they are still rushing, which of course they are. All of what I said PLUS the writer's strike and the strange choice to film this show with less onsite writers. Money honey.

Pretty much what I said (feudal ethics, blood debts, & kinslaying) and you bring a great contrast/comparison. why is it that Rhaenyra's "claim" is "weakened" and not Aegon's when Aemond killed Luke....and was the one to kill an envoy/one of the other side/draw first blood? Once again, despite B&C (if you argue that the greens exaggerated and then managed to disperse the news), Rhaenyra/Daemon got many more ardent followers than the greens.

I rail against the fact that they didn't make Aegon throw the party for Aemond/himself after hearing of Lucerys' death or including his line of "a good beginning" to really bring in that context that would show another reason why many lords wouldn't feel that sympathetic towards the greens in this one aspect.

I heard that Sara Hess will be responsible for this episode's writing. That explains a lot, too.

The truth is that a lot of writers are like this in the industry and thus there's a lot of sexistly-written media that aren't overt or intentionally that way in the mainstream--has been for years--but my issue w/HotD is that:

Like, any story but this one....

Again, don't know which post of mine the asker refers to. So...okay?

But in general, yes...

When you have the material to show how/why you think the way you do and there is a line of reasoning, yes you will use it to criticize ANY person's work. Ryan and HotD are not sacred.

For example, how he justified diminishing Cregan Stark and Jace's relationship & diminishing Jace's diplomacy runs:

Why is this bad? We couldn't have had a conversation that leads to flashbacks, or just a conversation where Cregan explains his background and how it further motivates him to ensure Rhaenyra's rights ON TOP OF oath-keeping?!! This not only attaches Cregan more personally & politically to Rhaenyra/reaffirms her own cause's validity (the right of a past lord naming their own heir), bc Rhaenyra is Jace's mother, would it not endear Cregan & strenghen the bond they should have been written to have?! Compare what we see in epi 1 to the below pic:

And it effectively doesn't allow us to explore or see Jeyne Arryn, how explicitly says she will support Rhaenyra not just bc she swore an oath and they are related, but bec women need to stick together, basically. below pic:

Which further diminishes Rhaenyra's plight and cause being abt sexism as well.

Another example: the Velaryons as black = "paternity test" for Condal to use against Rhaenyra, how inherently racist and dehumanizing it is, not to mention sexist when the entire point of Rhaenyra's having these kids is not to highlight how "irresponsible" she is but how Viserys, Otto, Corlys, the patriarchal system ion general has continually failed her.

They have been since 2022. Them and the entire team of showrunners, producers, etc.

I agree I have mostly claimed that Daemon would feel a void where his mother should be more than have dominant issues with his father. And I have described why Daemon's protectorness both not only came from his Targ pride/history but seeing Viserys fall into a pattern of trying to please people in response to that void and the pressure of living up to Jaehaerys' model of kingship/leadership/masculinity (they are all wrapped up in each other) to preserve said legacy. "We have reason to believe that his upbringing was still loving and that he maybe thought himself his brother and father’s caretakers. If not in traditional sense, in that he is the one who will do “what it takes” to keep them afloat. In his mind"

I think Condal's misinterpreted and is now overblowing & extending the possible distance Baelon had maybe a few months after Alyssa died in his most immediate and sharpest period of grief. Or using that grief he always had & choose to focus less on how hands on he would have been more than most fathers both bc Alyssa wasn't there AND bc Baelon has already shown to be less machismo--thus there was a higher chance of him of all men being like "kid rearing are for for the wives and servants, I have kids just for legacy" type deal. which is all why you got some people not that bothered by it bc he ends up in a place where Daemon does try to do as canon Daemon does with Viserys and seek validation. He obviously can see something in their relationship coming from their parent's presence and roles in their lives, but he attributes that to fatherlessness and not motherlessness.

It gets exaggerated/misunderstood and is still affected by the misunderstanding of Baelon's relationships w/his kids. It's another example of sidelining a Targ woman, this time, Alyssa. Same as when people argue about Daemon possibly training his kids w/Rhaenyra to someday usurp the 3 Velaryon boys or kill them for the throne bc "Daemon is a Targ supremacist" even though this idea makes everyone around him a passive bystander or participant: Rhaenys and Corlys & Rhaenyra all don't somehow see Daemon try to do this in their own homes? Rhaenyra doesn't have that much influence over her kids despite being the head of the household, having had a strong will before anyone died, and her definitely noticing if Daemon had any designs on her first kids' demise? Her protectiveness over ALL her kids? The only explanation is sexism and the projection of a resentment against Rhaenyra for her having the masculinized/male-entitled authority that Daemon-as-their-self-insert "should" have bc he is male.

So, yeah, it seems Condal might be projecting just a little. Or just negligent bc he doesn't think abt Alyssa much. Daemon wasn't Rhaenyra "good boy", nor did she "tame" him, but he also actually never troubles her political authority in any meaningful way until he saved Nettles from her. We would have heard from it somehow from the greens or the writers/sources; GRRM makes it clear when we should know when domestic abuses or troubles as he does with the greens, who comparatively has much more textual evidence of such despite this entire book trying to villainize Rhaenyra, the Targs, and female rulership in general. Hmmm.....

Was about to write about that, still will, but it will just be me venting and linking. Yeah. And we don't think these people favor the patriarchal-upholding nature of them green? when Condal has gone on record saying that his fav Aegon of all the Aegons, both kings and princes, as the 2nd ruling one? When Hess has gone on record saying Aegon "didn't know what consent is"?