#f&b

The theory that Aemond's Harrenhal arc "humanises" him because he found his only love there doesn't sound convincing to me. Funnily enough, alysmonds often hate the Rhaegar and Lyanna arc. But when it comes to alysmond, they repeat the "love is the death of duty" like a broken record. Plus, I am not a fan of "humanizing" villains by making them terrible to everybody but their love interest because she's not like the other girls. Makes me think of real life monsters of war criminals, put on trial in Nuremberg. Many of them were loving fathers and decent husbands. They used to have positive feelings for their close ones, because they were people and not creatures of the dark from outer space. Idk how reminding me that shitty ass fictional people are still people is even supposed to make me like them.

Most of GRRM’s characters are written with the capacity for both cruelty and tenderness. That is not some unique romantic revelation. A person can love one individual and still remain arrogant, violent, selfish, or monstrous toward everyone else.

Giving a villain a woman he treats differently does not automatically humanize him in any meaningful way. Terrible people are still capable of attachment. That does not erase what they are or make their victims matter less.

Maybe, though I prefer the idea that Cannibal was never a Valyrian dragon at all.

There are hints that dragons, or at least one ancient strain of them, may have originated in the Shadow Lands.

I’ve been reading the books for about twenty years now, anon. 🙂

I don’t have especially strong opinions on them, anon.

Ormund explicitly calls the Targaryens “a savage race,” which is embarrassingly sloppy writing.

Targaryen is a noble House, not a race. Valyrians are the ethnic and cultural group, while the Targaryens and Velaryons are separate families of Valyrian descent. Condal presenting himself as some great ASOIAF scholar makes that mistake even more fucking ridiculous. 😑

But even after correcting the terminology, the argument itself is still racist. He is assigning an allegedly violent nature to Daeron based on his ancestry and blood, then using religion to shame and control him. Those elements are not mutually exclusive. The scene can involve religious abuse while also relying on racialized rhetoric.

I at first thought that after Nettles got cut for Daemyra shippers Daemon might have got better end of the stick because he is now a dad looking out for his daughter instead of a cheat but then Rhaenyra cheated on him with Mysaria so he ends up being a flop cuck anyway.

C&H can't help but tarnish men for women's actions. Since all women are girlboss victims there has to be villainous flop men to even the scale. Enter Ormund Hightower and Daemon Targaryen.

Only the difference is Daemon was already a morally greyish character in the book but Ormund was an empty slate that HotD villainised to whitewash Alicent.

Ormund is absolutely collateral damage, anon, and another convenient vessel for C&H to import their religious-abuse obsession while sanitizing Alicent.

But I disagree that his book counterpart was an empty slate.

Fire & Blood does not give him a full internal monologue, yet his choices still establish a recognizable character. He was the ruling lord of one of the most powerful houses in Westeros, carried Vigilance, commanded a massive army through a hostile and divided Reach, and showed enough caution to take a defensive position when surrounded rather than recklessly sacrifice his forces. He remained loyal to Aegon, knighted Daeron personally after the Honeywine, spared Lady Merryweather following Longtable, and retained enough authority that his death left the entire Green host divided and directionless.

That gives the writers plenty to work with: a politically powerful, pragmatic, cautious, family-minded military leader whose presence held a difficult coalition together.