Pace. I'm told - constantly - that pace is the key to anything. No more so than in narrative. It has to shift, increasing and decreasing as appropriate. The conventional wisdom is to start slow and to build up to a rapid conclusion. John Le Carré was the master of this; just see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for confirmation.
House of the Dragon, Sky and HBO's Game of Thrones prequel, needs to learn a lesson when it comes to pacing. And, for that matter, focus. This isn't to criticise too strongly; there are so many elements of House of the Dragon deserving of praise that there are times it is possible to forget issues of pacing, timing, and narrative focus. The problem isn't those times; it's the blank spaces in between. Game of Thrones was more narratively daring, while based on A Song of Ice and Fire, than many other TV series. It was one of the reasons it was successful. The cut and thrust of faux-medieval politics didn't lend itself to a single-thread narrative, and so the ensemble came into its own. Add to that, nobody was safe. There was no guaranteed 'point' to a character or a narrative thread. They could be snuffed out in an instant while having little bearing on the overall plot. Key characters could reach stupid endings, even without bearing the finale in mind. And this was a strength. Unpredictability, a refusal to conform to norms, and a glorious pacing - interspersing realpolitik with action-adventure - led to a compelling watch.
This was the great strength of George R.R. Martin. For those of us who have read more than just A Song of Ice and Fire, we're aware that he doesn't do 'normal'. Fevre Dream, an earlier work of Vampires on the Mississippi, had similar pacing. It wasn't an instant hook, that's true, but it maintained attention, had moments of dread, of fear, and of action that meant it never got dull.
Now compare to House of the Dragon.
King Viserys reigns. Not the hot-headed, borderline insane brother of Daenerys, Mother of Dragons, but his ancestor. A man who had the good fortune to inherit a peaceful kingdom from his predecessor, but who equally inherits the seeds of the dynastic conflict that became known as the Dance of the Dragons. His inheritance over the Princess Rhaenys set a precedent; women cannot inherit the iron throne, so when he bestows the throne upon his daughter, the realm's delight Princess Rhaenyra, he sets up the struggle between his later-born son Aegon and his eldest child.
So far, so good. The initial set-up may be slow, but it creates the intrigue we like, especially with characters like Otto Hightower and his daughter, Alicent. Alicent marries Viserys when his first wife, Aemma, dies in childbirth. Here we see the setting up on factions and the development of relationships and rivalries. We see the fall-out of this internal politicking as it affects the court of Viserys. We see, crucially, how ineffective the good man Viserys is as king.
I'd be lying if I said early episodes weren't interesting. I'd be lying just as much if I said later ones weren't either. The drama is interesting, it's just... glacial. And after the finale of the first series, who can blame the showrunners for wanting to go slow? It's a welcome return to gradual building and plotting, it just lasts too long. Add to that one of the series' biggest flaws: what happens off-screen. We're told of war in the Stepstones. We even get to see a glimpse of it when Viserys' brother, the scene-stealing Daemon (played by Matt Smith, so that shouldn't be a surprise) pitches up alongside Corlys Velaryon - better known as the Seasnake - to produce a rare early action scene. But we're kept in the dark about its significance and most of the action surrounding it. We never really see the Seasnake's power in action; we're told of it, but when push comes to shove we only see Daemon Targaryen doing things based on the rule of cool. Later we're told of deaths and injuries, but we don't see them. The significance is hidden from us.
To a point this makes sense. The narrative is intended to focus on the court of Viserys and the two rival factions for the throne after he passes, but the overall effect is to render the pacing consistently glacial. Very little feels like it happens. Characters are established, yes, but their wider significance to the Seven Kingdoms isn't made clear. Beyond the central cast, too, characters come and go almost without introductions. Outside Viserys, his wife, his eldest child, his brother and his Hand, everyone feels transitory, entering a tiny world and leaving it again without explanation.
Then there are the jumps in time. The series takes place over the better part of 20 years. We see half a decade skip past at times between episodes. Changes of actors are necessary - and for the most part the newcomer fills the previous incumbent's shoes without a hitch. While fidelity to the source material is laudable, I'm of the view that this has created an unnecessarily jarring situation for a more casual viewer. It's impossible to simply pick up a thread and run with it.
Put all of these issues together, and House of the Dragon is almost disappointing. Almost, but not quite. In and among the criticisms, there are some real nuggets of gold. The narrative direction is, in general, bold. Action, when it does come, is satisfying and serves real purpose; the flip side of keeping the narrative slow and character driven is that when the pace is increased, along with the stakes, it really matters. The showrunners have also learned from some of the big mistakes of Game of Thrones, most notably in the toned-down sex and language.
But at no point is House of the Dragon a comfortable watch. The issues of misogyny from Game of Thrones still exist. No matter the justification that some seem to believe - that misogyny was a medieval staple - there's still no excuse for some of it; if we can believe in dragons, we can tone down some of the dialogue to cancel some of the needless comments of 'whore' and such. Equally, there was a big problem with childbirth in the series; again, I understand the need for fidelity to the source material, and that childbirth was particularly hazardous for women in medieval (or pseudomedieval) society, but was there really a need to show multiple deaths in childbirth and stillbirths? So much went on off-screen that surely some of that could have been moved off-screen. It seemed to be there for a shock factor that was unnecessary. Had the darkness been leavened by humour at some points - something the Tyrion Lannisters of the original series provided - maybe it could have been more bearable, but House of the Dragon made itself almost unrelentingly dark.
Will I return for season two? Yes. For all its failings, House of the Dragon offered a return to form for the Game of Thrones universe and created enough in terms of compelling characters and storylines to keep me engaged. But would I like to see some changes? Absolutely yes. There was little by way of relief, and by the end the pacing was starting to really drag. Thankfully, with the advent of the Dance of the Dragons, more pace is promised next time around.
