Aemond Targaryen: A Hater's Analysis - Part 2

Of Stupid Evil, worldbuilding issues, and school shooterism.

In Part 1, I discussed some questionable aspects of Aemond’s characterisation, noting that:

• he is heavily implied to have an Oedipus complex

• this makes little/no sense, serving only to make him ‘icky’ in the eyes of the audience

• it’s also part of a pattern, whereby the showrunners pathologise the Greens while lionising the Blacks

• Aemond’s betrayal of his brother is underdeveloped

Here, I will look at the wider implications of Aemond’s betrayal, and how this is connected to deeper issues with the show as a whole.

---

Impulsivity and Stupid Evil

As touched on at the end of Part 1, Aemond's attack on his brother was not only weakly justified emotionally, but also insane in pragmatic terms, in that it unequivocally (and very predictably) did more damage to the Green cause than the Black. Together, the two brothers could have seen off Meleys, taken the castle, and burned the blockading fleet as a victory lap, in which case the Greens would be very close to winning the war (and Corlys would never financially recover).

Instead, Aemond gained control of the Green faction, but doesn't have much of a faction left as a result, having in the space of a few minutes maimed his brother, killed their only other active dragon, lost the trust of his main general (Cole), and lost his mother and sister's loyalty (said sister controls the Greens’ only other dragon). He also then took it upon himself to dismiss and humiliate Larys Strong, the only competent person left on his Council, who has now made off with the king and all the money.

(To be fair, he did also bring back Otto, which was a more sensible call, although Otto is not always a great politician: he treated his intended king like dirt for about twenty years, and was then surprised when the king didn’t want to cooperate with him.)

If he hadn't attacked Aegon, Aemond wouldn't have had to try to force Helaena to use her dragon, and therefore Alicent wouldn't have betrayed him. As of right now, Aemond has one dragon (pretty good dragon to be fair) vs the seven on the Black side, and that’s only going to change because Rhaenyra has something structurally wrong with her brain, and apparently can’t predict that shutting commoners in with berserk dragons is not likely to turn them into loyal dragon-riders. So, if the Blacks were even slightly capable of coordinating, Aemond would be pretty much defeated already.

Essentially, Aemond has succumbed to Stupid Evil, and the bullying we saw during his childhood simply doesn't seem systematic, extreme, or ongoing enough to explain his actions.¹ Clearly, the throne is also a factor for him, but a) he can't keep the throne without his brother's dragon,² and b) this motivation simply doesn't seem compelling enough to justify such an incredibly risky and taboo act, which has already backfired in a huge (and entirely predictable) way.

He’s also very lucky that Criston Cole is as depressed as he is. If not, Cole could be rallying to Aegon and openly accusing Aemond of regicide, which would be a massive obstacle to Aemond’s claim to the regency.³ Even with Cole being an apathetic wreck, it still backfired, because Cole told Alicent what he saw, or heavily implied it, with huge consequences for Aemond (i.e. the loss of Alicent, Helaena, and Helaena’s dragon).

Aemond’s roots, and the Daemon analogue

Looking at the source material, in which Aemond did not betray his brother, but did boast afterwards that the king's regalia looked better on him than it ever did on Aegon, it would have been entirely feasible to have the brothers as a direct parallel to Daemon and Viserys: Daemon did have designs on the throne, and even mocked the death of his brother's son, but he didn't kill the baby himself, nor was he able to go through with his seduction of Rhaenyra later on. The fact that Daemon has this tiny shred of decency, and on some level genuinely wants to be loved by the family he antagonises, is what makes (or made) him an interesting character. He is a villain 90% of the time, but that shrivelled 10% still counts for something in terms of dramatic tension⁴ - we never 100% know what he will do next, and that makes him interesting to watch.

In the same way, it would be entirely feasible to have Aemond be the villain the writers want him to be, by showing him revelling in his own success while his brother lies in agony, without having him straight-up betray and try to murder Aegon over a slight. This version of Aemond could be even more entertaining, as the element of unpredictability would be heightened, and he would also work better as the reflection of Daemon that he is supposed to be (i.e. the same guy one generation and one letter removed).

The version of Aemond that is malicious yet also on some level likeable and intriguing was certainly present earlier in the show, with his iconic 'I may have lost an eye, but I gained a dragon' line and the events leading up to it. It was still possible for the viewer to root for the younger Aemond here, as he was assaulted by multiple others and accused of 'stealing' Vhagar, and was afterwards blamed and threatened with torture for a) defending himself, and b) repeating something which everyone present knew to be true. This was a great premise for a character who was dangerous but who the viewer could still empathise with to a point. Unfortunately, the writers (and Aemond's child actor, who was fantastic) seem to have set the bar a bit too high in Season 1.

Aemond as a worldbuilding issue

As things stand, Aemond is teetering on the verge of falling into the Game of Thrones tradition of 'characters who are so antisocial it's a worldbuilding issue.' A few notable GoT characters fitting into this category are Rickard Karstark,⁵ Renly Baratheon,⁶ Walder Frey, and of course the Boltons.⁷ All of these characters behave like they can get away with anything, but they are all doomed to get their come-uppance, because it turns out there's a social contract and you can't just do whatever you want all the time.

In the same way, Aemond really should know better than to act the way he does. I don't know why he thought he could get away with attacking his brother and trying to force his sister to fight. He’s just lucky that Rhaenyra hasn’t made any good decisions as a leader, and is therefore not in a position to capitalise on his fumbling.

Aemond’s villainy as misdirection

Aemond's malice also serves as a diversion from Alicent's (more interesting) role in Aegon's fate, allowing the writers to focus on her reaction to Aemond's behaviour afterwards, instead of having her recognise her own role in pushing Aegon into harm's way. She should feel responsible, but does she? I don’t know. Maybe this will be addressed in Season 3 - as of now, however, it’s far from clear.

Undoubtedly, part of this is the show’s awkward self-diagnosed feminism - Season 2 had numerous female characters verbally explaining to the audience that women are innately peaceful and men are innately brutes, so of course Aegon’s sad fate has to be presented as primarily a man’s (Aemond’s) fault, though a woman (Alicent) was also deeply implicated, having shamed her son into rushing recklessly into battle.

I don’t think HotD’s version of feminism is satisfactory to many intelligent people.

It’s noteable that in the source, Aemond’s attack on Luke was also egged on by a woman, one of Lord Baratheon’s daughters, who in the book goaded Aemond into action by questioning whether Luke had taken Aemond’s balls as well as his eye. However, this interaction was entirely absent from the show, in which Aemond threatens Luke completely unprompted, and looks unhinged as a result.

This is a pity, because the idea that (some) women in patriarchal societies enforce patriarchal norms, here by shaming men and egging on aggression, is very much present in both seasons.⁸ It would have been interesting - though potentially provocative - if both the honour-killing of Luke that started the war, and Aegon’s disastrous injury at Rook’s Rest, had been spurred on by women shaming men into action. This would also match the spirit of GRRM’s books, which often show men who suffer under pressures to define themselves as warriors (Tyrion, Jaime, Samwell), and women who are both enforcers and victims of societal norms (Cersei, Dany, Catelyn). Done well, this could convey the point that harmful attitudes are something we are all complicit in and responsible for.

But HotD is not a daring show, and it seems to me that the writers don’t think the audience can handle this kind of messaging, so they would rather externalise social evils in the form of mean bearded men such as Sexist Councillor A (in Dragonstone) and Sexist Councillor B (in King’s Landing). Therefore, they removed one such instance of shaming, and effaced the one they themselves added by making Aemond’s villainy the focus, rather than Alicent’s poor treatment of the grieving son who she put up to this in the first place. The latter scene struck me as far more impactful than what followed at Rook’s Rest, because it was so uncomfortably domestic and true to life,⁹ whereas Aemond’s treachery was standard TV melodrama. Again, this is an issue with much of what this show does with dragons - the scenes involving dragon fights are often too far removed from the actual politics and family dynamics that have always been the main driving force of this setting.

GRRM is 100% guilty of this, too. Dragons have always been a bit silly in these books.

Aemond and school shooterism

The relationship between Aemond's status as a victim of bullying and his presentation as a) dangerous and b) sexually abnormal is also unfortunate. He is less of a bad boy and more of a 'school shooter' archetype. The fact that the showrunners have leaned into this image is disappointing to me, for a couple of reasons: firstly, I wonder if it isn’t stigmatising to real victims of bullying,¹⁰ and secondly, it’s clear we can't really expect any surprises from Aemond in the future. He is now just a mean, scary guy in a show full of mean, scary guys.

They even put him in a black trenchcoat…

If they are still following the source, he is supposed to shack up with Alys Rivers in the future, which given her interactions with Daemon suggests that he will be lectured about being a misogynist and also for his various war crimes.¹¹ This prospect doesn't really have me excited about Aemond's direction in Season 3.

Closing thoughts

Aemond’s instability speaks to a wider issue in HotD - he is one of many characters who may be considered overly dynamic, lacking a stable foundation. This is also very obvious with his counterpart Daemon, who underwent a U-turn via magical lobotomy in Season 2, going from a selfish, impulsive sociopath to Rhaenyra’s devoted, contrite, and unquestioning malewife consort, because that’s what the plot requires him to be (and because this show is confusingly pro-monarchy except when it isn’t).

Alicent and Rhaenyra have also undergone unexplained changes at various times, with Alicent going from a primary driver of conflict to a naive peacemaker towards the end of Season 1, and Rhaenyra following suit between seasons. Alicent did yet another U-turn towards the end of Season 2, defecting from Aegon to Rhaenyra, and also embracing Helaena as her most beloved child when their relationship appeared distant at best in Season 1. Otto also completely changed direction with his massive, unprecedented breakdown over the ratcatchers, in which Otto (a prudent, patient schemer) impulsively threw away decades of work in a few minutes, for reasons I do not understand, nor would in-character Otto.

In short, many of HotD’s characters simply don’t develop in a logical or believable way, based on a realistic core personality. Instead, they tend to do whatever the story needs them to do at any given moment, in a way that reveals the hand of the author and erodes the viewer’s immersion in the story. Nothing shakes belief in a drama more than characters who act like they are in a drama, and unfortunately Aemond is such a character.

1. We know that Aegon took part in the ‘Pink Dread’ prank, and was told off by Alicent, and also that he considered Aemond to be ‘a twat’ (to be fair…). However, the fact that we see Aegon supporting his brother elsewhere indicates that he wasn't consistently or systematically a bully, especially not after the incident with Aemond's eye.

2. Or some deus ex machina Dragonseeds. In which case, Aemond only survives because Rhaenyra is even dumber than he.

3. Imagine the alternate scenario in which Cole is actually worthy of the title of ‘Kingmaker,’ and is the decisive, resolute warrior described in the source, who was a hero to Jaime Lannister, and could actually credibly be named Hand of the King. Consider that this was GRRM’s vision of a Green faction leader, then look at what the show gave us.

4. (though in Melisandre’s terms, he’s still a rotten onion)

5. I still don’t know why Lord Karstark seems to think that murdering noble prisoners of war is normative behaviour, or why he thinks that Robb somehow isn’t obligated to punish him. Is the North really that barbarous and chaotic? If so, how has the Stark family existed as a stable institution for up to 8000 years? This is one of those areas where GRRM’s appeals to realism ring false - he criticises Tolkien for being too idealistic, yet his own worldbuilding is unrealistic in the opposite direction. People are even more lawless than they were in real life, yet society remains more stable than it has ever been in the real world.

6. No, Renly, you simply cannot spit on the rule of law when it’s already tenuous after Robert’s Rebellion, and expect to get away with it. What was Stannis supposed to do?

7. Again, there’s a realism issue. No-one as cartoonishly evil as the Boltons would be able to maintain a dynasty for more than a few generations, let alone the millennia the Boltons have been trucking for. I am fond of the crackpot ‘Bolt-on’ theory, according to which Roose is basically a vampire who possesses his heirs; but this is probably just an attempt by fans to square the circle of the Boltons surviving as an institution at all; it must be magic!

8. Alicent being the primary culprit.

9. (and played out between two of the show’s best actors)

10. I definitely remember unpopular boys being referred to as ‘school shooters’ when they got angry.

11. If the Mysaria and Corlys filler taught us anything, it’s that this show loves to repeat the same dialogue.