Adaptation is a complicated beast. Shifting any work from one medium to another comes with countless unforeseen challenges. Every cut line, lost character, or abandoned subplot was someone's favorite. Every new detail ruins the experience for one fan or another. House of the Dragon faces the same challenges that its predecessors did in Game of Thrones. While any change could cause a ton of strife in the fanbase, House of the Dragon can rely on the biased nature of Fire & Blood's in-universe narrative to justify its alterations.
Game of Thrones has a contentious relationship with its canon. The writers and showrunners changed several aspects of the narrative throughout the series. Some of their creative choices created some of the best moments in the show. Unfortunately, the final seasons continued to work without source material. The project's tragic downfall and steep decline in quality soured fans against the idea of creators taking liberties with this franchise. Compared to the final season, the rest of the show is a perfect translation.
House of the Dragon Season 2, Episode 1 Recap
The Game of Thrones prequel returns with a vengeance, immediately launching into the backstabbing, manipulation, and death fans have come to expect.
House of the Dragon changes aspects of Fire & Blood
House of the Dragon changes several elements of the book it's adapting. It's about as faithful as Game of Thrones was, but the perception is radically different because of the show's drop in quality. The easiest examples are always minor character changes. Tons of characters don't look exactly like the books describe them. The show ages large portions of the cast up significantly, both for decency and convenience. Some characters are described as ugly or somehow physically unpleasant, but the show rarely enshrines that idea for its central figures. The timeline is notably different between adaptations, omitting around a decade. These minor alterations wouldn't offend most, though there are certainly exceptions. Fans can certainly catalog all the changes, big and small, but they rarely pay them much attention as long as the show's quality remains intact.
The latest complaint relates to the infamous Blood & Cheese plot. Fans were perversely looking forward to this horrific event, which many described as House of the Dragon's potential answer to the Red Wedding. To briefly summarize, the scene involves Daemon Targaryen hiring two goons to kill a very young child. In the book, they conduct that killing through a grim Sophie's Choice. The titular Blood and Cheese force their target's mother to choose a kid to kill, then mock her for her decision and kill the one she chose to spare. It's gross, unpleasant, and horrific. It's the moment of personal terror that dovetails perfectly into the start of the Dance of the Dragons.
The show sanitizes the event slightly. Daemon sends his assassins to kill Aemond, a teenager, instead of a kid. They kill the younger target by mistake. They also downplay the forced decision, pushing the mother to point out which of the two children is male and debating whether she's telling the truth. Many fans were evidently looking forward to the Blood & Cheese bit, seemingly in a sort of "you won't believe this" ritual to tease new viewers. The changes sparked outrage, but there is an explanation.
Fire & Blood is a historical novel
A Song of Ice and Fire tells its story through POV characters. Every chapter follows the perspective of one character's presence in the setting. Jon Snow, Tyrion Lannister, Daenerys Targaryen, Arya Stark, and countless other characters get to take control of the metaphorical camera for several chapters. The books sometimes take the perspective of a minor character, offering a new look at a familiar setting. Fire & Blood follows The World of Ice & Fire. It's a historical account from an in-universe scholar called Archmaester Gyldayn. He quotes a few primary sources. His two most notable accounts come from characters friendly to either side of the Dance of the Dragon. Gyldayn tries to find the truth in biased stories, but there's still plenty of room to imagine the story shifting and changing. To quote Gyldayn:
Who can know the heart of a dragon?
House of the Dragon can be an unbiased account
There is no expectation of subjectivity in a TV show like House of the Dragon. It seems to say "these are the events" to the audience. The book has an inarguable mark of curiosity. It's the tale of a historian piling over disputed information and trying to present the best possible account. Through this lens, something like the Blood & Cheese incident makes more sense. Imagine the rumors that would spread after two goons broke into the Red Keep and killed the king's young heir. Only a few people saw the event as it happened, so the rest would likely create rumors. Stories grow out of proportion and become legends. The same would be true in reverse. The book doesn't record Dowager Queen Allicent's secret tryst with Criston Cole, but it could have gone unnoticed enough that no one thought about writing it down. This is a huge gift to the showrunners that they could take advantage of.
There is no excuse that will stop fans from complaining when the showrunners change something. House of the Dragon has the unique attribute of being questionable in canon. This is a recurring element of Westeros's long, grim history. Fire & Blood is a story that could have taken countless unique twists and turns. House of the Dragon can establish itself as the true version of this tale.
What Are You Expecting to See in House of the Dragon Season 2?
The popular Game of Thrones spin off has received plenty of praise from critics, which has fans hoping it'll live up to expectations. How do you see this season playing out?
