Why the argument that House of the Dragon can change things because it’s adapting a “history book” doesn’t work

As a long-time reader of George R.R. Martin’s works and a dedicated viewer of both “Game of Thrones” and “House of the Dragon,” I find myself torn between the joy of seeing these rich narratives unfold on screen and the frustration that comes with deviations from the source material. I understand that adaptations need to make changes, but they should still make sense within the context of the story.

A disagreement about the direction for the prequel series ‘House of the Dragon’, based on George R.R. Martin’s work ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’, has arisen between him and HBO. In a recent blog post, Martin delved into the well-known Blood and Cheese incident, where assassins secretly murdered Queen Helaena and King Aegon’s son Jaehaerys Targaryen in the Red Keep. The TV show omitted some crucial aspects of this scene from the book, such as Helaena’s other son Maelor, which Martin believes might lead to a chain reaction of more significant departures from the original storyline in upcoming seasons.

It appeared that Maelor was just the start of the author’s worries. Martin suggested that “there are bigger and more harmful butterflies to follow, if HOUSE OF THE DRAGON continues with certain changes being considered for seasons 3 and 4.” A short while after posting this, he removed it from his blog, but you can still find a preserved version of the post on the internet.

In a surprising move, HBO’s official House of the Dragon podcast dropped an extra episode recently. During this bonus chat, showrunner Ryan Condal discussed the complexities of transforming books into screenplays, even touching upon the reasons behind Maelor’s absence and George R.R. Martin’s part in the series. Later on, HBO publicly endorsed the House of the Dragon team, expressing that they are among the most passionate fans of George R.R. Martin and his book ‘Fire & Blood’. They acknowledged that adapting a book for television often necessitates tough decisions by the showrunner about which characters and stories to feature. They believe that Ryan Condal and his crew have done an exceptional job, and the massive fanbase that the series has gained over its first two seasons will continue to be captivated by it.

The events unfolded approximately over a span of four hours, making things rather complicated. In fact, we found ourselves needing to keep tabs on developments in real time during our weekly live show, Take the Black.

What is happening with George R.R. Martin and House of the Dragon?

Considering there might be a multitude of events happening unseen, if we take things as they appear, I find myself siding with Martin. For some time now, he has been suggesting concerns about season 2 of House of the Dragon, and the HBO podcast episode seemed to me like quite open damage control. It seems likely that the studio detected Martin’s intention to reveal his issues publicly, which made headlines recently, and acted swiftly to counter it. However, Martin was already fired up and published his blog post quickly enough, preventing HBO from getting ahead of him. This has led to the confusion we have all witnessed lately.

The reason suggested for Martin publishing this post is that the creators of “House of the Dragon” have disregarded his suggestions to such an extent that the series seems to be veering off course as an adaptation of his book “Fire & Blood.” This theory has been proposed by author Xiran Jay Zhao, who met with Martin last month at Worldcon in Glasgow, Scotland, and has been supported by Elio García Jr., co-founder of the fansite Westeros.org and co-author of books like “The World of Ice and Fire” and “The Rise of the Dragon.” Both spent time with Martin in Glasgow, and they both seem to share Zhao’s view that Martin’s blog post is a call for HBO and “House of the Dragon” to correct their course before they make significant departures from the source material in future seasons. Martin didn’t reveal his deepest concerns, but he demonstrated that he could if needed, which would be damaging to HBO’s public image.

Apart from interacting with Martin and his crew in Glasgow, I didn’t touch upon the matters concerning ‘House of the Dragon’ during our conversations. However, I find that the analysis presented by García and Zhao regarding the situation holds some validity. It wasn’t a hasty decision on Martin’s part to address these issues; he had expressed his intention to write about the controversies surrounding ‘Blood and Cheese… and Maelor the Missing’ as early as July. I believe that he carefully articulated what he intended to say, in the manner he did, for a particular reason. With a television career spanning back to the late 1980s, Martin is well-versed in the industry; in my view, it’s highly unlikely that his recent blog post was merely a venting of steam. Interestingly, HBO’s response aligns with this theory, as it appears unusually reactive for a large corporation responding to an individual author’s blog post, regardless of their fame.

Fire & Blood as a “history book” and the slippery slope of adapting it

There’s a section of the House of the Dragon podcast that I think shines a light on a major problem that has been plaguing the show, and is likely serving as a driver of this schism with Martin: the idea that since Fire & Blood is a fake “history book,” it means that the events described in it are all up for interpretation, which gives House of the Dragon leeway to make up its own versions. Let’s let Ryan Condal explain it: “Unlike A Song of Ice and Fire or A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, Fire & Blood is a history book. It’s not a narrative. It’s not written in point of view. It is a history described by three unreliable narrators. There are intentional holes in this historical fabric. That’s part of the fun in the way that it was written.”

“And I think the other thing to highlight too is that there aren’t characters in this text, per se, but rather historical figures. Now of course, Daemon and Alicent and Rhaenyra are all characters because they are people who occupy a fictional world, but the way that they are covered in the historical text is the way that any historical figure would be covered in a history book… So, as dramatists, I think we have to approach this history, though it is fictional, as anyone would do as trying to adapt a chapter from real history.”

In many conversations about ‘House of the Dragon’, a recurring point is made, and on certain aspects, it holds some truth. However, it’s important to remember that ‘Fire & Blood’ is a fictional account of the Targaryen dynasty, presented as a historical book. This maester-authored text is based on various historical records, which he uses to craft an account that deliberately includes ambiguity to mimic the frequently vague nature of real-world historical documents.

While the events in the book may appear ambiguous at times, author Martin tends to favor one version over another, suggesting that he leans towards a specific truth. However, there are instances where the ambiguity vanishes completely, such as when an event is well-documented and widely known, like the murder of Laenor Velaryon in the marketplace on Driftmark. The motive behind Laenor’s death and the person who ordered it remain unclear, but his death itself is not contested. In contrast to the book, the show portrays Laenor faking his own death to live beyond the Narrow Sea, creating unnecessary complications with his dragonriding bond in the process.

As a devoted reader, I can’t help but marvel at the unparalleled transparency of George R.R. Martin’s narrative in “Blood and Cheese,” an event that echoes ominously during the Dance of the Dragons. Unlike other scenes narrated by the trio mentioned by Condal, this one stands out for its unadulterated, no-nonsense portrayal, leaving little room for ambiguity.

There’s an even better example of this which really proves the point: the ultimate fate of Helaena Targaryen. To discuss it we have to get into SPOILERS from Fire & Blood and House of the Dragon season 3. These will be the same spoilers which cropped up in Martin’s blog post, so if you’ve already read that you can proceed without fear.

George R.R. Martin just confirmed the cause of Helaena Targaryen’s death in Fire & Blood

In Martin’s post about Maelor, he delved into the far-reaching consequences that followed the removal of the young prince. This encompassed the tragic death of Helaena Targaryen, who leaped from a tower in the Red Keep, shortly after her son Maelor was brutally killed by a mob in Bitterbridge. The novel, however, is vague about what led Helaena to take such a drastic step. Three distinct theories are presented, each coming from one of the three sources our resourceful maester is studying.

• Helaena was driven to end her suffering because after Rhaenyra captured her she was “sold for a common whore” as the “Brothel Queen,” and got pregnant from one of her traumatic encounters. Fire & Blood dismisses this theory outright in the text.
• Helaena took her life after enduring the “horror” of watching Rhaenyra order the execution of two of Team Black’s own knights after they rebelled against the queen’s orders. While more credible than the Brothel Queen story, Fire & Blood states that this still seems unlikely, since Helaena hardly knew those knights in the first place.
• Mysaria told Helaena about the death of Maelor, including the “grisly manner of his passing,” and that finally broke Helaena’s will to live. The book questions why Mysaria would tell Helaena this painful information at this juncture, saying “what motive she would have had for doing so, beyond simple malice, is hard to fathom.”
• And then, there’s the rumor that all the people of King’s Landing believe: that Queen Helaena Targaryen was murdered by Rhaenyra and the Blacks. Regardless of the actual truth, this is the story that drives the plot forward and sparks the beginnings of the unrest that eventually leads to the Storming of the Dragonpit, which Martin mentioned in his blog.

The uncertainty surrounding Helaena’s death, as Condal pointed out, is evident; the book doesn’t directly explain what happened to her. However, Martin clarifies the reason for Helaena’s death in his blog post: “The news of Prince Maelor’s demise and the gruesome circumstances of his passing (pages 505) reaches the Red Keep, triggering Queen Helaena’s suicide. She found it unbearable to look at Maelor after choosing him for the ‘Sophie’s Choice’ scene in Blood and Cheese… and now he is truly dead, her words having come true. The grief and guilt were too much for her to endure.

Martin offers significantly deeper insights into the factors leading to Helaena’s suicide compared to what’s explicitly stated in the text, thereby reinforcing the notion I previously mentioned: despite Fire & Blood being presented as a historical account filled with uncertainty, Martin had a clear and defined vision of these events when he wrote it. It’s not to say that every detail was planned out – there are certainly instances where it’s acknowledged that “no one knows what was said” or similar statements, such as the farewell between Daemon Targaryen and Nettles – but generally speaking, this account of Helaena’s demise bolsters the belief that the ambiguity serves to engage readers rather than mask a lack of definitive explanation in Martin’s own narrative.

And that matters, because the team behind House of the Dragon has access to Martin and could presumably get clarity on events fairly easily; official HOTD podcast co-host Jason Concepcion even said as much in the episode with Condal. So the idea that the series has to interpret this ambiguous “history” and carve its own path through it without knowing the truth of things doesn’t completely pass muster. Or more accurately, it’s an excuse that’s being used to weave an entirely different tale than the one Martin told in Fire & Blood, often to the show’s detriment.

Changes from source material are natural in adaptations, but should still make sense

As a devoted fan, I want to clarify that I’m not advocating for House of the Dragon to blindly follow every detail from the source material, Fire & Blood. There are instances where the show skillfully captures the ambiguity of history, like when Aemond Targaryen burned his brother Aegon over Rook’s Rest. While the book provides a vivid account of the dragon battle, it’s understandable that certain aerial events weren’t witnessed by the narrators, opening up opportunities for dramatic expansion and embellishment. And in this case, House of the Dragon truly excelled at weaving such additional drama into the narrative.

In an alternate phrasing: However, there’s a pile of alterations piling up in the show that seems to leverage the book’s vagueness to make choices that don’t quite align with logic. The dynamic between Rhaenyra Targaryen and Alicent Hightower is one such instance where this occurs. In the novel “Fire & Blood,” their relationship is marked by intense hostility, leading to significant conflict. Yet, in the series, they are portrayed as estranged friends who could potentially coexist peacefully if not for the meddling of the men surrounding them. Instead of the power-hungry and entitled nobles they are depicted as in Martin’s book, Rhaenyra accuses Alicent of being a villain grasping for power during a secret meeting on Dragonstone in the season 2 finale. Ironically, Alicent is indeed portrayed as such in the novel, which adds depth to her character that seems to be missing from the television adaptation.

When an adaptation deviates significantly from the original source material, it can quickly become problematic. Using the “it’s a historical account” excuse to defend these changes becomes less convincing over time. As Condal points out, Rhaenyra and Alicent are more historical figures than fully-fleshed characters with distinct motivations in Fire & Blood. However, it’s crucial to keep in mind that the characters portrayed in the book are the ones Martin chose to depict. If Alicent and Rhaenyra had secretly been friends aiming to prevent the war, Martin would have undoubtedly hinted at this in the novel.

As a dedicated game enthusiast, I’ve got to say, after countless hours immersed in “House of the Dragon”, it’s apparent that interpreting the series as a literal historical account instead of a creative simulation of one, might be causing some issues. The recent public squabble we witnessed serves as a stark reminder that these troubles could run deeper than we initially thought when the season was airing.

It would be great if a resolution for this issue arises, enabling ‘House of the Dragon’ to conclude its remaining seasons with success, making George R.R. Martin proud of the adaptation of his story. We eagerly await updates on the show’s development.

Read More

• EUR UAH PREDICTION
• UNI PREDICTION. UNI cryptocurrency
• EUR ILS PREDICTION
• Love Island couple call time on their romance in shock split just weeks after packing on the PDA on romantic date
• QANX PREDICTION. QANX cryptocurrency
• Baywatch vet Erika Eleniak, 54, reveals FULLY tattooed arms in rare sighting at Los Angeles event
• RVN PREDICTION. RVN cryptocurrency
• EUR MXN PREDICTION
• Matthew Fox joins Michelle Pfeiffer in the upcoming present-day Yellowstone spin-off The Madison
• Amid global turmoil, the Telluride Film Festival returns with a politically charged lineup

2024-09-07 15:42