With George R.R. Martin himself coming onboard to helm House of the Dragon alongside Ryan Condal, fans are assuming that the series will be relatively faithful to the events of Fire & Blood, but here’s what most of us are missing apparently; that novel isn’t really a story, and nor is it a matter-of-fact recounting of the events as they happened in Westeros. The book deals with history, as told from the viewpoint of an Archmaester and his numerous, and many a time dubious, sources.
The implication behind that idea highlights all the unreliable narrators who have inherited the legacy of history from the olden days until now. As many facts and truths are distorted in the world we live in today, so were they when the monarchs of yore used an iron fist to keep the people in line, and a steel hammer to beat their enemies senseless.
That approach is also what Condal has used with House of the Dragon. Discussing this issue in an interview with IGN, here’s what the TV producer had to say about the show’s faithfulness to the source material.
“Most of those historical accounts that [Fire & Blood‘s fictional writer] Archmaester Gyldayn was sifting through, at least two of them weren’t really around at the time. Or at least weren’t present as the events were happening. [Court jester] Mushroom was, if you believe Mushroom, but one was written after the fact. And then, Gyldayn certainly lived long after [the Targaryens] did.
“We’re taking the approach that history in its telling changes the story. Because the historian only ever knows so much about what happened, which is why primary sources and eyewitness accounts are so important. But we didn’t have all of that in this.”
The executive producer also said that some things will be similar to the book, and some things will be different, though the “events are the same.” As far as excuses for taking creative freedom in adaptations go, this might just be the best one we’ve heard.
House of the Dragon is debuting in exactly two weeks on HBO.
