Ron322

I finally finished Fire & Blood by George R.R. Martin. I now understand why House of the Dragon exists the way it does. I don’t see it as an adaptation but rather an interpretation. When the writer is an archmaester trying to tell the accounts of two maesters and a jester and all 3 at times have conflicting reports or have “beyond the scope of this tale” written in some accounts, the reader is left to decide what likely did or didn’t happen. As a result, while Martin tells people that, moving forward, the show isn’t his story anymore — he’s partially right. On the surface, it seems like a bad things because a lot of people like seeing faithful adaptations but in this case, I’ve been very forgiving of Ryan Condal’s direction with the story of the Dance of the Dragons. In retrospect, Martin did this to himself and large because unlike A Song of Ice and Fire, everything is written in a historical fiction style and as it has been said, “History is written by the victors” and even then, victors sometimes omit or fabricate parts of the story to make themselves look better. I also understand that, when a show is forced to do 4 seasons (3 of which fixed to 8 episodes each), cuts will have to be made, things will have to be contextualized differently and when the company you’re doing it for also want you to give it context to a prior established show, that’s a lot of pressure.

As for the message that George R.R. Martin is trying to tell in the F&B book itself, there is far more than people want to admit or more than what is seen at the surface. It’s not only a critique on the revealing nature of power but also the critiquing (and arguably condemnation) of patriarchy, incest (especially monarchy), monarchy and…racial supremacy. The way you pronounce Targaryen (targ-Ar-yee-an) isn’t far from the word Aryan; I think most of us know what is to be said about Aryan supremacy sympathizers. The conversations on how the Realm would rather watch everything burn before a woman takes the Iron Throne and the obsession with keeping the Valyrian blood strong (especially among Targaryens) reveals how Martin demonstrates that, if you can dress it nicely and package it in an attractive manner, the masses will romanticize what we otherwise see as unacceptable. This is why, whenever I see people root for Targaryens so damn hard, it’s hard for me to side eye them. Yes, some of the characters are charming, has some aspects we both despise or adore but when stepping back and look at the full context of who they are…you’ll feel differently. Of all the houses, the ones that had the potential to just overrun the Realm from the Iron Throne…were the Starks. Even the book itself showed how Cregan could’ve stayed as hand or arguably overthrow Westeros and become king (he was that intense unlike Ned or Jon Snow) but he did what Starks do — he prefers Winterfell and care for his side of the fence. He valued his family and the care of his people over absolute power of an entire realm. The Greyjoys? While the show hasn’t given us Dalton at all (yes, that’s my biggest critique), they could’ve gone all out and taken not only all of Lannisport and Casterly Rock (which would’ve meant taken the riches of the Iron Throne) but could’ve fought to take the Iron Throne but alas…Greyjoys prefer the pirate’s life. They enjoy the idea of raiding, pillaging and scaring people more than actually dominating. I find it humorous, if you ask me.

This brings me back to how, as a writer, I like to also look at my work as a reader. I often will sit back and put my reader hat on when reading my work and ask questions that I normally would when reading a novel, comic book or manga. Between asking what’s the message the author is trying to convey, the underlying themes intended or implemented in the work, how the author’s personal background may bleed into their writing. All of this plays into my reading experience and in turn influences how I engage my writing because as Renoir Dessandre from Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 said, “True art is both a window and a mirror“. George R.R. Martin says usually there are 2 kinds of writers — the Gardener and the Architect. The former plants stuff and just hopes for the best. Some things will grow, some will just be there and other things can spiral to beyond our control; someday even end up at a dead end and thus you’ll need to cut, remake or repackage. The latter has an established framework, where things will have to fit, where they start and where things will finish. Martin claims to be 97% gardener and I can see it. F&B and A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms shows what he is like when he pushes as an architect but ASOIAF is very much a gardening experience. If we were to look at Kentaro Miura, the creator of Berserk, he was likely 75% architect but 25% gardener. According to Koji Mori (his best friend and the one that is directing the rest of Berserk alongside Studio Gaga/Animal House), the story was already done from start to finish and Miura revealed to him and left him notes of all the story beats and description of the start to finish of the story; it just comes down to bringing it to life. That being said, Mori and his team are doing a stellar job in bringing the rest of Miura’s story to life instead of leaving it hanging. That says a lot about Mori — let’s also remember that Mori himself is a mangaka and thus understands what’s at stake and what needs to be done.

If I had to describe myself as a writer, I’m more Miura than Martin in the sense that I garden more than I architect but once the garden starts revealing certain elements, the gardener in me switches out with the architect and then build on that thing I wrote that has potential or legs to run on.