House of the Dragon better than Game of Thrones

Victoria McGinty, Managing editor

***SPOILER ALERTS***That’s it. I said it. HBO’s new “House of the Dragon” far outweighs its predecessor “Game of Thrones.”Don’t get me wrong, “Game of Thrones” was great. I even liked the last season, which everyone else seemed to hate. The thing about “Game of Thrones” is that there is so much gore, sex, incest and other nonsense, but no real context for any of that other than “those were the times.”But those “times” were literally made up. Neither “Game of Thrones” nor “House of the Dragon” are historical non-fiction works, so they are presuming what this made up time was like, and all of their presumptions are a little messed up when it comes to these topics. While “Game of Thrones” has so many strong, amazing female characters, it also perpetuates constant violence against those characters, often with literally no reason other than because he could, and because it seems like something he would have done at the time. Think of Sansa and Joffery, and Sansa and Ramsey, and literally poor Sansa. The violence perpetuated on her had no purpose or political gain, it was just for the sake of violence. “House of the Dragon” is also not for the faint of heart or sensitive soul. The first season starts immediately into the realm of gore with an un-anesthetized ceasarean-section, which obviously in those times was not survivable. And this show contains a lot of the same “ickiness” as “Thrones,” such as your classic George R.R. Martin incestual relationships. One thing that “Dragons” has that is lacking in “Game of Thrones” is more context of the political dynamic of some decisions and the purpose of certain… interactions. While the c-section performed on the queen in “House of the Dragon” was violent, it did have a larger political purpose and there was intense remorse for the decision. Aside from that, she would have died anyway without any possibility of saving the child, who was hoped to be male to make an heir to the throne. In “Game of Thrones,” there is constant violence against women but it there is no evidence of remorse or context for why it had any weight in the storyline.Where in “Game of Thrones,” the twins Cersei and Jamie have an inappropriate relationship with one another, this relationship has no purpose. It’s literally just there for the shock value. It makes no political sense in the grand scheme of things. Martin is just trying to gross us out and put us in this weird fantasy world of his. “House of the Dragon” shares the presence of an incestual relationship as a plot point in its first episodes, however, it is clearer why this encounter occurs. Daemon, the presumed heir to the throne, when usurped by his niece, Rhaenyra as the named heir, attempts to “spoil” her as an asset to her father’s kingdom, if you know what I mean.While still gross and obviously wrong, it has purpose and makes sense in the plotline. By doing this, Daemon makes a move to regain his, as he thinks, rightful place as heir. He offers to marry Rhaenyra and “make things right” while making a move for the throne. It is the prequel to “Game of Thrones” afterall and it is all a strategic chess game of that coveted, though extremely uncomfortable looking, Iron Throne. Not the chair I’d choose personally. Overall, “House of the Dragon” expresses better the storyline purpose for those less than desirable scenes, while “Game of Thrones” seemed to just throw them in as filler for a less than exciting episode.