That Aemond and Vhagar Change From the Books is a Recipe for Disaster
House of the Dragon Episode 10 has moved us closer to the edge of the Targaryen Civil War, which is to break out in Season 2.
The last episode's chain of events when Prince Aemond's dragon Vhagar deals with young dragon Arrax and its rider Lucerys in just one bite would be the last straw for Rhaenyra. But what about the source material, i.e. George R.R. Martin's book Fire & Blood? Did the author mean exactly what the writers' room prepared for us?
Some fans believe the showrunners have intentionally shifted the emphasis in the last episode making the Aemond's killing of Lucerys look like a bullying game gone very wrong. As if it was a terrible mistake that prompted the civil war.
In Martin's book things went down quite differently; after Lucerys dies, Aemond lands his own dragon and cuts out both of Lucerys eyes from his dead body.
Indeed, this does not look like the killing happened by accident. But why did the House of the Dragon creative team frame the dragon chase as a teenagers' dangerous game – as opposed to a cold, well-calculated and premediated murder? Here's an interesting take on that by one of the fans.
"It's almost a certainty that Aemond is going to lean into the incident and most likely deny that it was an accident at all just to save face… so it'll essentially amount to the same thing narratively, but adds character depth that just isn't there if he killed Luc on purpose." (via Deenofgeeks)
But there's also another opinion, which may be interesting to take into account especially if one would treat the source material as a proper history book. The way House of the Dragon deliberately contradicts the book actually mirrors the way the book often contradicts itself, and there's irony right there – Martin once again reminding us just how unreliable the official version of history often is. After all, history has always been written down by people who tend to take sides.
Still, the question is how this kind of spinning the narrative will influence the development of the plot in Season 2. Contradicting canon in an attempt to make a character somewhat softer, more morally ambiguous is a recipe for a disaster in some way: it definitely may result in adding confusion to the motivations of the characters and the cause of the war.
So, hopefully the showrunners know what they are doing. No one wants to find themselves in a situation when a change from the book – no matter how subtle – ruin the whole franchise.
"Having two of the most pivotal actions in the first season – the choice to usurp and the murder that truly starts the war – be revised as "accidents" soft-pedals the characters, their choices, and their motivations in hopes of keeping them more likable. These changes rang false to me," one of the show's fans admitted.
On a lighter note take a look at GoT. The writers' room diverged from the source material in later seasons and so what? Can one say the series was a flop?