(42): Aegon's Dream.

MA Iliasu.

It was in the middle of the night that Princess Rhaenyra, the heir to the Iron Throne, follows the thunderous noise of the heavy downpour to check on her sick father, King Viserys. He could hardly recognize her. "Alicent" Viserys called. "It's Rhaenyra" the princess answered. "Rhaenyra" Viserys called once again. "The son of Ice and Fire...." Rhaenyra remarked, "...do you believe it to be true?" The princess asked. "You told me..." Rhaenyra added, "...it was our duty to hold the realm united against a common foe....” Rhaenyra finished.

That was a dialogue from "The Lord of the Tides" episode of the House of the Dragon, which once again laid the basis to reopen another round of discussion on the concluding merits of "The Song of Ice and Fire" which was depicted in a television series as Game of Thrones.

About three years ago the TV series finished airing and the conclusion didn't sit well with a majority of watchers. The most frequently asked question is why should Bran be king and not Jon Snow. Thus, as a prequel that is based on "Fire and Blood" which covers hundreds of years before "The Song of Ice and Fire", whenever The House of The Dragon mentions the prince that was promised, the so-called dream of Aegon, knowing that it would be Jon Snow who wouldn't become king, the disappointment of watchers grows even more. "Oh, all this foresight and preparations only for Aegon's dream to be Jon Snow - what a loss!" But are watchers correct on this?

Yet again I perceive it as another situation of spectators not being able to differentiate imaginative assumptions from fictitious realities and inclinations. And to properly understand the rationale of Jon Snow's fate being what it was in the "Game of Thrones" we need to properly identify what was Aegon's Dream as often mentioned in "The House of The Dragon" to see if the two have matched. Only that way we can determine whether we're critiquing the story base on its fluidity and the trend it sets or based on our peculiar imaginations that naturally would never align with the story's nature.

I attempt this because oftentimes we judge stories thinking we understand them when in fact we don't, thanks to our forgetful, speculative nature that usually gets carried away by fantasies rather than literary or even rational comprehensiveness.

What was Aegon's Dream?

The keywords in Rhaenyra's dialogue with Viserys were: "Duty", "Common foe", "Unity" and "Realm". To recall the dialogue she said: "It is our duty to hold the realm united against the common foe". And Aegon himself is called the conqueror for no deed other than uniting the Seven Kingdoms. Going through the vivid shreds of evidence and so far, by revisiting some important events in both television series, we'll be able to see the actual notion of the story rather than our conception of it.

Any regular fan of the Game of Thrones can recall when Yoren, a brother of the night's watch, narrated when Willem killed his brother which obliged him to wait for his return to Kingslandin before he buried an axe in his skull. He took revenge, but what he committed was also a crime. So what did he do next? He ran to the wall at first light in the dawn to pay his due. 

Robb Stark, the king in the north, executed Lord Karstark despite him being one of his strongest banners with a massive army because he executed Lannister's hostages unlawfully. Nedd Stark, the hand of the king, attempted to install Stannis because he was the rightful heir, even though it was otherwise treasonous. Stannis Baratheon, the Lord of Stormends, cut off Ser Davos's fingers as a punishment for smuggling despite the onions he smuggled rescuing the castle from starvation during a siege.

These are instances of duty, and we can pick each to help define how duty is the necessary fulfilment or a commitment to the responsibility that an entity is tasked with or it tasked itself with.

Then we look at the "common foe". Who is the common foe? House Targaryen? House Valeryon? House Lannister? House Strong? House Baratheon? House Stark? Which of them befits the term? None! Westeros has always been a diverse society peculiar across class, racial, geographical, and lineage struggles. Allegiances were determined by proximity in the relevant social ladders mentioned, and them too pending a political circumstance. It's on record how several houses switch allegiances to where it suits them. By which standard we may have a definite stand on commonness being anything other than the Houses of the realm. And what is the realm if not the individual population of the major houses? And what's the purpose of preaching unity if not to them, so they can overcome their division and face what is to come; which logically means a group outside of themselves?

By this, the common foe in Aegon's Dream was anything other than the people of Westeros, which we already know to be The Army of the Dead. And the prince that was promised was anyone that could unite the realm against that common foe, which we already know to be Jon Snow, rather than someone that would ascend to the throne or restore the influence of House Targaryen.

Unity After Conquest But for Which Reason Exactly?

It's common knowledge that Aegon unified the realm after the conquest. And political motives might've already suggested it was to enjoy a vast jurisdiction of influence. But his dream, his fear of the common foe, and his insistence on unity even after his demise warrant thinking beyond the motives of politics. Aegon certainly unified the realm so that when the common foe arrive they'll meet a strong, united army, rather than disjointed kingdoms. And if such was his principal motive, of what use is the unity after the common foe is defeated?

That's to say since the Targaryens have served their purpose of leading the war against the common foe and defeating them, Jon Snow shall have no further inspiration to ascend the throne. In fact, not becoming a king was the actual detail that matters the most in his qualification as The Prince that was Promised apart from his Targaryen blood, because it'll show that the dream of his ancestor, which was the goal of uniting the seven kingdoms, was fulfilled.

Aegon The Conqueror met Westeros as scattered kingdoms and unite them to save them, so it's only his descendants, after completing the task, restore it to its actual setting. And accurately the northern dominion was declared to Sansa who would rule as the Queen of the North. While the Iron Throne, after it was destroyed by Drogon, is ended. The ruling aristocracy was appointed by carefully studying the pattern of the new order.

It's important to notice that in The House of The Dragon, Targaryens are the rulers which they've been since Aegon's conquest. But in The Game of Thrones, Barratheons were the rulers after the eventful Robert's Rebellion that overthrew the Targaryens. Likewise, after the death of Joffrey and Tommen, Lannisters ascended to the throne. And there goes the saying that whatever happens once is an outlier, twice a mistake, and three times nothing but a pattern. The whole story of Game of Thrones was laying bare the ground basis of the emergence of a new order from the very day Robert Baratheon rose in rebellion. And by allowing Robert to succeed, the storyteller was telling us that the new order would allow another House different from the Targaryens to rule. And by enabling Cercie to ascend the throne, a pattern of succession shows that ascension is now more determined by the power of a House rather than any specific lineage line. Therefore when Bran ascends to the throne, the storyteller was merely fulfilling the pattern and reminding us about the call of duty. Because House stark, after the fall of Daenerys, became the most powerful house in Westeros, and therefore the next in line to lead.

To deviate from this will be indifferent to betraying the pattern of the storyline. And popular opinion can critique anything other than the prolificacy with which the fluidity of the story abided. Though it may be asked if they could have done better, to which the answer will always be yes. But then it'll be like a stuttering preacher carrying the message of truth; just because he can't convey it eloquently doesn't make it less true. But it'll be better if he can.

The storytellers, I suppose, were so carried away by the legitimacy of their pattern that they forget how to convey it. And this is what the watchers if they can open their critical eyes to see, aren't willing to neither forgive nor forget. And also what opens the door for the over-flogging of the merits of Jon Snow as Aegon's Dream.

Interestingly, failure to acknowledge and bear in mind the pattern of stories and judge them by it, or, if needful, critiquing the pattern rather than the content that delivers it, is quite popular among television watchers. And it's one of the reasons stories that retain their foundational logic often failed to be seen as such, for which reason they get castigated. While stories that may not have followed, or even have, patterns, may be applauded just because they satisfy the militant desire of popular opinion.

Take the popular television series Breaking Bad, for example, it tells a story of an underpaid chemistry teacher who was diagnosed with cancer, who for the sake of treatment and to live gloriously his remaining days, embarks on cooking methamphetamine with his former student an accomplice. The endeavor bring him into contact with the establishment of the criminal enterprise that exposes him to the ruthless, inhumane, and unforgiving nature of the criminal world, which he challenged, mastered, and succeeded. His wife later finds out and leaves him before they reunite once again. And all these took place without getting caught, despite his brother-in-law being the principal detective in charge of most of the crime scenes.

The series has the highest rating of all time in mainstream opinion. And for nothing other than the fact that the leading character entered the criminal world and came out unscratched in the most entertaining and exhilarating way possible. Meanwhile, what was the actual story about? What pattern of storytelling did it show? And if had one did it abide by it? Maybe it had and may it had not, who cares? After all, the dopamine rush was ensured, which honestly is the aim of the entertainment industry. And to which standard the series can't come under question.

But "The Game of Thrones" or "House of the Dragon" is different. And to judge them fairly it'll take a different study. Perspective has to be applied because it's a perceptive story being told by one of the most perceptive storytellers around. And to see like other shows are being seen is tantamount to condemning oneself to the simplistic trap of viewing things without scratching the surface.

10th October 2022.