Does Game of Thrones still Care about its Dragons?
By: John Tobben
Tags: Game of Thrones, TV Series, Dragon, TV Shows, Television

From the moment Daenerys Targaryen emerged from the ashes of Khal Drogo’s funeral pyre to Ramin Djawdi’s swelling score, Game of Thrones has been defined by the three dragons that accompanied her. While the White Walkers might have represented the existential fantasy threat to our protagonists, it was the dragons that came to define Game of Thrones.

In a show that despite it’s fantasy setting has been overwhelmingly character driven, Daenerys’s three dragons uniquely captured the audience’s fascination. Part of that fascination likely stemmed from seining the fantastical beasts so well rendered on a television show. Sure we’d seen the winged fire breathers before on the silver screen — from Hungarian Horntails to Smaug. But there was something different about watching Drogon, Rhaegal, and Viserion grow larger, more majestic and more deadly season by season in the comfort of our living rooms.

Perhaps as importantly, the dragons felt aspirational in a world weighed down by backstabbing and betrayal. Through the first several seasons, the Dragons became intricately linked to Daenerys’s mission to liberate Slaver’s Bay. Her emancipation conflagration of Astapor remains one of the show’s most exciting moments — and the first real taste of how powerful her dragons truly were.

Since venturing across the narrow sea though, the dragons have suffered a crisis of purpose that parallels their mother’s circuitous path to the Iron Throne. Aside from her attack on the Lannister convoy returning from Highgarden, Daenerys hasn’t deployed her Dragons against Cersei — largely on the advice of her nascent small council.

Fortunately, her dragons have gotten to breathe (fire) a bit more in the North, fighting the army of the dead, though at significant cost. The death (and reanimation) of Viserion wasn’t completely shocking — the pale dragon was the only of the three without an obvious rider. Furthermore as a ice dragon wight, Viserion served a tangible purpose, providing the Night King with the means to bring down the wall. Moreover it allowed for the possibility of dragon vs dragon aerial combat — which even if poorly lit was enthralling to watch unfold.

In contradistinction to Viserion’s fate, the death of Rhaegal last episode was perplexing. Putting aside the conflicting book and show canon regarding the ease of slaying one of the beasts — which Jason Concepcion detailed fantastically in his “Ask The Maester” column this week — the narrative purpose of Rhaegal’s death seems little more than posturing our heroes as underdogs.

The implications of Rhaegal’s death are fascinating as well. While dragon gender and reproduction is not well understood and a matter of debate for Maesters, on the surface the possibility of more dragons seems less likely now. While rumors from Fire and Blood suggest a possible clutch of eggs at Winterfell— left by the dragon Vermax hundreds of years before — the show would seem more likely to depend on Drogon laying eggs before the show’s end.

The possibility of Drogon as the last Targaryen, begs the question of the future of the Targaryens in Westeros. Both the show and books have made a point to emphasize that the first Targaryen dynasty declined following the dying of their dragons — most of whom were killed in the civil war known as the “Dance of Dragons.” Could the deaths of Viserion and Rhaegal tip Benioff and Weiss’s hand regarding the possibility, or lack thereof, of a re-established Targaryen dynasty. Daenerys may be able to rule with Drogon at her side, but without dragon spawn to accompany her progeny it’s hard to bet on the long term prosperity of her descendants.

Speaking of Daenerys, while Rhaegal’s death may have crushed her soul, the Mother or Dragons may suddenly have less to fear about the security of her claim to the throne. Dragons are known to be fiercely loyal to their riders, and given that Jon Snow appeared to have bonded Rhaegal the Mother of Dragons likely would have commanded the loyalty of only one of her “children” in a theoretical clash between the two Targaryen heirs. While Jon may still have the stronger claim by Westerosi precedent, without Rhaegal perhaps the scales tip back in the favor of Daenerys. Power resides where men believe it resides — and it doesn’t take much convincing to believe in Daenerys’s power with Drogon by her side.

Yet all of this presupposes that the show is still interested in the dragons that helped Game of Thrones become a global phenomenon. Thrones has always been at its best when pitting the ambitions and machinations of humans against other humans — part of why I’m willing to roll with what felt like a slightly premature end to the White Walker threat. However, the Dragons have been more than just a simple fantasy device. They may be deadly, fire breathing beasts but Drogon, Viserion, and Rheagal have always represented the hope of a better Westeros in some ways — one ruled by Targaryen heirs who had been raised free of their ancestors’ hubris and truly cared for the good of the realm.

Zaldrīzes buzdari iksos daor — A dragon is not a slave… nor hopefully is it just a plot device.