Back in 2022, I was somewhat in love with House of the Dragon – I proudly declared my feelings with a poster hung in my flat. The writing for the show was nothing but stellar. The plot was strong, the characters complex, and the dialogue meaningful. I adored every moment spent in this carefully designed world filled with kings, queens, dragons, and knights.
Two years later, after watching the show’s second season, I instead feel like I have a bad hangover. What happened in House of the Dragon season 2 that almost made me regret watching it? Why did those eight episodes feel like a waste of time?
Here are six major mistakes that made House of the Dragon’s second instalment an unexpected disappointment for me.
Major spoilers below for House of the Dragon season 2
Mistake 1: Holding Rhaenyra back
During Game of Thrones, I witnessed many great characters ruined, but none lost their charm as quickly as Viserys’ daughter in the latest season of House of the Dragon.
In season 1, Rhaenyra was plucky and rebellious. She wasn’t a shining example of an heir to the throne, but her flaws made her even more likeable. Much of that was due to her young age, but as an adult, she still had a spark that made it easy to say that I was firmly Team Black.
But when for the Seven Gods did Rhaenyra become so passive, naive and annoying?
The creators want to portray her as responsible and noble. However, they’ve gone too far. Rhaenyra either doesn’t act at all or makes stupid decisions, like setting off for a dangerous meeting with Alicent in King’s Landing – who, as the Queen Dowager, has no political power or influence over her raging sons.
Of course, she has the right not to know how to fight a war. As she says, she wasn’t trained for that. But that’s what she has her council for. However, throughout season 2 Rhaenyra doesn’t listen to or even respect her advisors (except for Mysaria), making it difficult to watch, let alone support.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the creators considered Rhaenyra a weak queen with no vision – or at least acknowledged her flaws. However, they are convinced they are building a strong female character, and I firmly disagree.
As Elisa Guimarães points out in Collider, the characters in this season are based on the simple dichotomy of peaceful women vs. aggressive men. In that vision, nearly all of Rhaenyra’s male supporters must be vicious or wrong, while all the women are noble and reasonable, which is utterly dull and reinforces gender stereotypes.
As the writer Gillian Flynn, author of Gone Girl and Sharp Objects, said (quote via Vulture):
I particularly mourn the lack of female villains – good, potent female villains. (…) I’m talking violent, wicked women. (…) Women have spent so many years girl-powering ourselves – to the point of almost parodic encouragement – that we’ve left no room to acknowledge our dark side. Dark sides are important. They should be nurtured like nasty black orchids.
In season 3, I’m asking the writers to let Rhaenyra be the dragoness she’s meant to embody. We’ve already explored her good side – it’s time to give the Black Queen back her fire and blood, and common sense.
Mistake 2: Making Alicent weak
Alicent isn’t a particularly likeable character, but she is well-written. Her personality is built on the solid ground of duty, religion, and obedience, as well as grief and disappointment. She has inner strength and is the inverse of the rebellious Rhaenyra- making them exciting opponents.
Alicent’s personality crisis in the second half of season 2 is understandable – the death of little Jaehearys, war, conflict with her sons, and removal from power must have shaken her to the core. However, it would have been much more compelling if she went radically deeper into the turmoil she caused herself. Alicent trying to take her cards off the table during the season finale seems pathetic and cowardly, not noble.
In season 3, the writers need to find a way to incorporate Alicent into the plot as an essential and determined player. Otherwise, they risk the central conflict of House of the Dragon becoming thin.
Mistake 3: Daemon’s tedious Harrenhal visions
In the first season, the writers juggled Daemon’s dark and light sides, making him an ambiguous character who you don’t know whether to love or hate. In season 2, all that complexity is gone, replaced by madness and stupidity (as Tywin Lannister would say).
Don’t get me wrong – when it comes to magical visions and dream sequences, I’m all in. But they should be a side dish rather than the main course. I get that Daemon is torn between his loyalty to the crown and his thirst for power, but you don’t need to drag it out for six episodes in a row. Plus, there are so many more exciting topics on the table – raising armies, the defence of Harrenhal, and the political turmoil in Riverlands.
It’s unforgivable to keep Daemon (and poor Caraxes) on a leash for most of the season. What makes things worse is that all these endless hallucinations lead Daemon back to the starting point: bending the knee to Rhaenyra and calling her his queen.
I can’t stop thinking how much more enjoyable it would be if Daemon rebelled against his wife. But since we can’t count on that, let the writers at least bring him back as a man of action.
Mistake 4: Minimising the political games
The first season concluded with Jace and Luke setting off to bargain with House Baratheon, Stark and Arryn. The meeting with the Lord of Storm’s End didn’t go well, but the finale promised exciting negotiations with the rulers of Winterfell and the Vale.
None of that happened. The Starks were reduced to a cameo, and the Arryns had little to do. Bargaining with the Freys, the Lords of the Riverlands and the Triarchy is resolved in a few scenes without any tension. Sadly, the writers were more interested in ghosts and mud fights than politics – as if they didn’t remember what viewers loved Game of Thrones for.
While the first season was planned as an introduction to the civil war, in season 2 we were promised to see the actual war. And I don’t mean just dancing dragons and knights slaughtering each other. There was supposed to be a lot of strategy and building alliances across Westeros. All these things must be brought back in season 3, as otherwise, this series is going to turn into a soap opera.
Mistake 5: Neglecting the side characters
While the main characters in season 2 don’t get much development (with the glorious exception of Aemond), the side characters often struggle to justify their existence.
Baela and Rhaena have had nothing to do since season 1. Criston Cole is promising but quickly loses his fire, while Larys and Corlys’ potential as major players remains severely underused. Ulf, Hugh, and Adam’s scenes are bland, and their introductions as dragon riders are utterly predictable. Alyn of Hull doesn’t have a purpose yet. Of all the newcomers, only Cregan Stark and Oscar Tully seem to show authentic charm.
House of the Dragon has a severe problem with the side characters. In season 3, the writers need to be more thorough and inventive to breathe life into them, as right now they have little substance.
Mistake 6: Depending too much on Aegon’s Prophecy
When the creators decided to bring back the story of a Song of Ice and Fire in season 1, I immediately tensed up. Reminding viewers of the poorly received Game of Thrones finale was risky. Plus, the prophecy might have unnecessarily dominated the plot while being used to justify the character’s actions.
As I predicted, in season 2 the writers seem fixated on a Song of Ice and Fire, with the final episode as solid proof of that claim. If the creators wanted to weave prophecy into the Targaryen Civil War, they should use it as a sprinkle – not exploit it as much as possible.
George Martin’s universe is all about power, politics, survival, and human passions rather than magic. I’d rather see Daemon or Rhaenyra make decisions based on their political motivations rather than visions and omens. This is necessary, if the writers want to make them robust leaders for Westeros.
