Why Doesn't 'House of the Dragon' Need To Be Loyal To 'Fire & Blood'?

Why Doesn't 'House of the Dragon' Need To Be Loyal To 'Fire & Blood'? ...

Editor's Note: The following article contains spoilers for Episodes 1-5 of House of the Dragon. This is usually a given because to the wide wide spectrum of artistic freedom given to the creators. However, fans of the fandom often overlook the source material; adopt a selfish attitude toward the story; or worse, a half-hearted endeavor that is completely uninteresting.

House of the Dragon is thus facing an untraversed path that doesn't promise stardom in theory, given how dead-set book loyalists are against adaptations that take too many liberties with the source material. Nonetheless, the transition from the page to the streaming screen enhances the original narrative of the insanely popular dystopian world, rather than detracts from it.

How Far Does House of the Dragon Survive Fire & Blood?

Fire and Blood may be useful as a background story on Game of Thrones, but it isn't suitable for an on-screen adaptation for a number of reasons. House of the Dragon would have been a catastrophic failure if the Game of Thrones creators had adhered to the book's principles, particularly after its world-renowned predecessor. The book, therefore, does not fit the bill as a guideline for on-screen adaptations.

Why Does House of the Dragon Not Respect Its Source Material?

House of the Dragon, based on George R. R. Martin's book Fire & Blood, illustrates that adaptations don't always have to follow the books they're based on. The show's legitimacy is often questioned because of its variety of narrations, and the author's ability to produce a perfect marriage between the authentic and the artistic.

Fire and Blood is a fictional character that takes readers into the vast Westeros landscape by treating the book as a historical document. Many of the stories in the show are extremely conflicting and unreliable, with some going too far than others.

House of the Dragon gets to experiment with the fictional narrative, enriching some scenes with emotional, often depressing, and keeping House of the Dragon as unpredictable as possible.

House of the Dragon Fills in the Gaps with Emotional Bonds

The friendship between Rhaenyra (Milly Alcock) and Alicent (Emily Carey) is a major component of the show, which draws on the book in every way, being childhood friends who are torn apart by ambition and the desire to claim the Iron Throne. Although not being close works for the characters in Fire & Blood, because of their shared history, it would have rendered things duller on screen.

The split between the two has become much more tense and personal, making it difficult for fans to choose a side, and not root for their friendship instead. Exploring on dysfunctional family dynamics and an unquenchable hunger for power and recognition, one can only expect the plot to take an emotional ride as far as these extraordinarily independent women.

Alicents' character is shown sleeping with everyone she can in order to win a seat on the Iron Throne, or at least is rumored to. In the show, she is forced to comfort the King by her own father, something she is clearly not very comfortable with but follows through anyways out of obedience. More intellectually stimulating and less emotionally charged events await the reader.

Is it really necessary that an adaptation remain true to its original content?

Sometimes it works. Sometimes it does not. In the case of House of the Dragon, it's a no-brainer. The program improves upon the original material in the context of entertainment, but it also makes the transition from the text to the screen enjoyable. It's no less a treat for those who are unfamiliar with the TV version of the world.