How ‘House Of The Dragon’ Successfully Revives The World Of ‘Game Of Thrones’
Riding the success of Game of Thrones (GOT), the spin-off series has reached similar levels of popularity among long-time and newer fans. House of the Dragon (HOTD) season 2 is about halfway complete, so as a checkpoint, let’s compare what the shows tell us about their shared universe.
House of the Dragon is based on George R.R. Martin’s novel Fire and Blood, a historical account of the Targaryen dynasty. Set over a century before the end of this dynasty, HOTD follows the civil war known as the “Dance of the Dragons,” a succession crisis between Rhaenyra Targaryen and her half-brother Aegon.
The House and the Game
Despite existing in the same universe, the original show and its spin-off are functionally dissimilar. Some of these differences are clear. GOT followed hundreds of characters through multiple plotlines interwoven by the overarching “War of the Five Kings.” HOTD, on the other hand, follows essentially one plotline with significantly fewer characters. GOT was temporally consistent for the most part, while HOTD underwent multiple time jumps to explore generational changes.
Both explore friendship and betrayal, clashing ethical codes, and the extremes royals will resort to when defending their power. These shows are ultimately about the rise and fall of monarchical structures. Which, in today’s day and age, can easily fall into tired tropes. George R.R. Martin’s universe seems antiquated at first glance; what’s the point of a story set in the Dark Ages? Why should we care about a system that is historically oppressive and destined for failure? Why go back in time to when this fictional world was even more antiquated?
Somehow, House of Dragon manages to address these questions with a surprisingly poignant commentary on its own narrative. But before that, let’s discuss the elephant in the room.
Where Did Game of Thrones Go Wrong?
Everyone’s first instinct is to point fingers at the laughably bad final season. Maybe even the final two. Extra perceptive viewers will dip their accusing toes in the quality gap between the two halves of the show. The general consensus is that once the showrunners lost the guidance of George R.R. Martin, they had no idea what to do.
I cannot and will not refute these points. The first four seasons are genuine good television. Near perfect in terms of plot intrigue. But there was a glaring issue from all the way at the beginning: gratuitous, exploitative violence.
I don’t mean swordfights and bloodshed. While even these become too much at times, I am referring to the sheer amount of rape peppered into otherwise incredible episodes.
One of the most controversial scenes in the show involved a 15-year-old Sansa Stark’s forced marriage and rape at the hands of the sadistic Ramsay Bolton. While the rape is framed with appropriate magnitude, I stress that this has not happened and will not happen in the books. The show-runners invented this plot point to develop Sansa’s character, going as far as to give her dialogue that attributes her growth to this abuse. As if she wasn’t strong on her own.
Actresses have also opened up about the difficulties of acting out horrific scenes at a young age. Emilia Clarke, who played Daenerys, knew nothing of nudity contracts and sex scenes. Her co-star, Jason Momoa, often had to protect her dignity when she was left naked and shivering after difficult scenes.
Additionally, much of the humor in the show, especially later on, concerns sex, genitalia, nudity, etc. When the most popular, critically acclaimed show of the time occasionally feels like a middle-school boy’s wet dream, there’s a problem.
Learning From Your Mistakes
It should be noted that the showrunners of Game of Thrones are not involved in the making of the spin-off. David Benioff and Dan Weiss, dubbed “D&D,” actually declined producer credits to distance themselves from the new show.
Which is for the best. Though I very much respect anyone for taking up the task of an adaptation like this (successfully, most of the time), D&D clearly lost interest by the end of GOT. New head writers can now take up the mantle and listen to earlier criticisms with a fresh perspective.
One of the major differences between GOT and HOTD is the way violence is presented. While Game of Thrones often oscillated between interesting pacing and sudden surges of gratuitous action, House of the Dragon seems much more controlled in the way it frames violent scenes.
Daemon Targaryen is the show’s most aggressive player. He fights, he acts without thinking, he yearns for power and glory, and seems to stop at nothing. One of his first scenes is incredibly gruesome, but it serves an ultimate purpose. There are few scenes like that in House of the Dragon, making its composition and overall presence much more deliberate. In fact, the most impactful part of the scene is a drawn-out shot that slowly zeroes in on his expression while the action unfolds around him.
Also, female characters in House of the Dragon don’t have to suffer life-altering trauma to develop. More importantly, the audience doesn’t have to witness this life-altering trauma in sequences that only serve to make spectacles of the actresses’ bodies. And there’s an intimacy coordinator on set, which makes all the difference.
While Game of Thrones constantly punished its women, House of the Dragon embraces its women’s strengths and severe flaws.
Princesses, Pain, and Patriarchy
Game of Thrones often explored the consequences of patriarchy, but House of the Dragon is ultimately about patriarchy. The first five minutes of the show witness Rhaenys Targaryen being passed over for the crown for her younger cousin. Later in that episode, Viserys sacrificed his wife just for the possibility of a male descendant.
Though the civil war starts with Aegon’s usurping of Rhaenyra’s throne, House of the Dragon places a strong emphasis on the friendship-turned-rivalry between Rhaenyra and Alicent. This tumultuous relationship forms the nexus around which every tangential conflict functions.
Once childhood best friends, the two experienced a massive rift when Alicent’s father made her marry Viserys. Alicent now Rhaenyra’s stepmother, she disapproves of (and envies) Rhaenyra’s willingness to break the rules of womanhood that Alicent had to follow. Rhaenyra sleeps with Ser Criston, bears illegitimate children, and generally demonstrates a sense of entitlement. While we know that Rhaenyra’s actions stem from her own frustrations, Alicent’s lack of sympathy drives her to help install her son Aegon onto the throne instead of Rhaenyra.
On the other side of things, Rhaenyra begins to see how hesitant her husband (and uncle) Daemon is to kneel. From his perspective, she stole his birthright. While he is not entirely heartless, part of him is simply using her as an avenue to the power Viserys deprived him of. Just like how Otto groomed Alicent to secure a powerful lineage.
While these women don’t interact much anymore, their arcs run parallel. They both represent a generational pattern of men using women for their own interests. This is what makes their rivalry all the more tragic. More than anyone, they should be able to understand each other. But Alicent has allowed herself to become slave to expectations, traditions, and misconceptions.
Are You Calling HOTD Feminist?
Eh.
It’s difficult to moralize fiction, especially fiction based on medieval England, by contemporary standards. I’ve seen viewers call Alicent a “pick-me” because she’s, in their eyes, tearing a fellow woman down to elevate the interests of men. While I understand that these are lighthearted comments, I believe they represent a fundamental misunderstanding of both her character and the show’s themes.
First of all, no one on this show is a good person. These are monarchists destroying each other for the most uncomfortable chair I’ve ever seen. You can’t compartmentalize the rights and wrongs by identifying with “Team Black” or “Team Green.” Sure, those are factually the opposing teams, but together they comprise a blood-purist family of war criminals (see: Blood and Cheese). The point of the Targaryen stories is to demonstrate how they helped set up and/or perpetuated a corrupt system.
Rhaenyra does not want to dismantle the patriarchy. She wants to be its exception. Alicent does not seek male validation. She can’t be the exception to anything, so she makes whatever moves she can within her limited space. She’s a more practical and naive Cersei Lannister.
What’s really important about the show’s discussion of patriarchy is how central it is. These two women get to be at the forefront of a setting that seeks to steal their agency. Characters and events themselves don’t have to meet present-day standards of feminism in order for a story to feel more in line with female empowerment. The narrative cares about Rhaenyra and Alicent even as the in-universe events cause them harm, while the narrative of Game of Thrones seems to enjoy breaking its women and giving them lazy endings.
Diversity in Westeros
Another, more visible way that HOTD updates the universe is through racial diversity. One of the other houses in the show is House Velaryon. In the books they are described with similar features to the Targaryens — pale skin, platinum hair, violet eyes. Fans expected an overall book-accurate depiction and were then surprised to see black actors and actresses portraying the Velaryons.
Many have called this performative and a prioritization of diversity over world-building. However, the creators aren’t completely ignoring the lore or George R.R. Martin’s intentions. According to writer Ryan J. Condal, “Martin toyed early on with the idea of depicting the Velaryons as Black conquerors who came to Westeros from the west.” This became the foundation for the Velaryons’ racial portrayal in the show.
With the inclusion comes a new interpretive layer. Corlys Velaryon often found his house underappreciated despite possessing the same Ancient Valyrian blood as the Targaryen monarchs. He felt a sort of righteousness on behalf of his wife — Rhaenys, or the “Queen Who Never Was” — given his own experiences, drawing an interesting parallel between gender and racial prejudice.
Additionally, Rhaenyra married Laenor Velaryon, the son of Corlys, who has darker skin and similar white hair as her. When her children were born with dark hair and pale skin, their legitimacy more easily came into question.
Game of Thrones was also not “culturally accurate.” The Dornishmen of southern Westeros are based on Spanish Moors, and yet Chilean Pedro Pascal and Indian-Swiss Indira Varma played the main Dornish characters. Apart from the racially ambiguous Dornishmen, people of color in GOT existed mainly to showcase the primitiveness and barbarism of the neighboring country of Essos.
History of the Dragon
There is one interpretation of the show as a whole that serves to warrant the many changes made from book to screen. Fire & Blood is a historical account with missing and inaccurate parts, and the show depicts the events as they actually happened. For example, Laenor Velaryon died in the books, but according to the show, Rhaenyra actually helped fake his death to nullify their marriage and allow him to be with the man he loved. Additionally, Alicent and Rhaenyra are not friends in the novel and are actually cruel and hateful characters overall.
The narrative pays careful attention to its main characters’ complexities and sympathizes with them without absolving them of their transgressions. Given this interpretation, we gain an understanding of history as evolving material based on perception. House of the Dragon not only updates Game of Thrones for today’s eyes but also the book it’s based on. Fire & Blood may have alluded to notions of misogyny and homophobia, but historians scrubbed it of nuance.
While this should not be a cop-out justification for every time a show changes its source material, this interpretation allows for a subversion of tropes and a more dedicated exploration of themes such as patriarchy, race relations, sexuality, etc.
Conclusion
House of the Dragon is not a perfect show. I’m not even sure if it’s actually better than Game of Thrones overall. The pacing can be inconsistent, the focus often drifts, and perhaps the racial diversity is not as earnest as the creators claim.
But the show understands what made GOT so interesting in the first place. Action, gore, and sexual assault are not the ways to keep a universe rich in history and political intrigue alive.
Because the thing is, people are still talking about Game of Thrones. People are still talking about A Song of Ice and Fire. The one thing everyone collectively enjoys is a set of complex characters interacting in a world that feels real and resonant with our world. House of the Dragon has us talking about how old, antiquated structures create reverberations that last for centuries. How one terrible parent sets a precedent for years of generational trauma. How women struggle to navigate a system made by men only to get discredited due to bad behavior.
Hopefully, the show continues to be this careful. I’d hate to see another great series end in fire and blood.
House of the Dragon Season 2 is streaming on Max now.
