[TV] House of the Dragon

[Redwyrm]

Anybody else wanting a pre-Doom Valyria show. And do we know how far after the Doom this show is currently set?

[Mehrunes]

Anybody else wanting a pre-Doom Valyria show. And do we know how far after the Doom this show is currently set?

Viserys I died 129 years after Aegon's conquest and Doom of Valyria happened 102 years before the conquest, so the current story takes place 231 years afterward the Doom.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Anybody else wanting a pre-Doom Valyria show. And do we know how far after the Doom this show is currently set?

~200 years at the beginning of the series.

https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_of_Valyria

The Doom occurred in exactly the year 114 BC, 112 years before the Targaryen conquest of Westeros began in 2 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_...yen%20Conquest.

the series is set about 200 years before the events of Game of Thrones, 172 years before the birth of Daenerys Targaryen, descendant of the eponymous royal house, and 100 years after the Seven Kingdoms is united by the Targaryen Conquest.

[Syegfryed]

Wow that's a huge pic. Still leaving it up as it adds insight into the character, at least from the actor's perspective.

It's hard for me to like a character like i did with Viserys and his actor, they truly brought something different from all the shows we had lately.

[PACOX]

Anybody else wanting a pre-Doom Valyria show. And do we know how far after the Doom this show is currently set?

It would have to be a different style of show for me, a departure from politics or a different political issue other than fighting over a throne.

[Jastall]

Did anyone ever say Team Black is blameless?

Yeah, it feels like a strawman. People sympathizing with the Blacks (or Greens) more for whatever reason doesn't necessarily mean they find them to be morally pure good guys. Just perhaps cooler or less bad than the other side.

Personally I tend to stick to liking/disliking characters. And there's none I dislike more than Otto and Aegon the Elder so kinda hard for me to want them to run the show even if Rheanyra and Daemon aren't great either. Viserys definitely has no small blame in what will come admittedly, but I do get the idea that things really wouldn't have become so bad had the people in his court not been so awful.

I do think the perception people have of the "sides" will shift as the war goes. This was but the prologue to the sheer shitstorm of assholery that will follow.

[Linkedblade]

It would have to be a different style of show for me, a departure from politics or a different political issue other than fighting over a throne.

Would be interesting. It's similar though. If what we know of Valyria is true then it'll be a bunch of rival clans, plenty of dragons and blood magic on a volcano. Plenty of red, lots of red.

[Redwyrm]

It would be different because both Got and HoD seems to be set in a period of decline or the sunset years of Westeros and Essos. I want to see the world at the height of its strength.

[Syegfryed]

Yeah, it feels like a strawman. People sympathizing with the Blacks (or Greens) more for whatever reason doesn't necessarily mean they find them to be morally pure good guys. Just perhaps cooler or less bad than the other side.

Personally I tend to stick to liking/disliking characters. And there's none I dislike more than Otto and Aegon the Elder so kinda hard for me to want them to run the show even if Rheanyra and Daemon aren't great either. Viserys definitely has no small blame in what will come admittedly, but I do get the idea that things really wouldn't have become so bad had the people in his court not been so awful.

I do think the perception people have of the "sides" will shift as the war goes. This was but the prologue to the sheer shitstorm of assholery that will follow.

The worst human beings atm from both sides are Daemon and Aegon, the show making sure to put Aegon worse. So obviously more people would side black as a deliberate decision from the writers, if things will change later? i doubt

But i don't know why Otto would be much worse than said Rhaenys who slaughter countless of peasants for show, everyone there is a schemer too

[PACOX]

The worst human beings atm from both sides are Daemon and Aegon, the show making sure to put Aegon worse. So obviously more people would side black as a deliberate decision from the writers, if things will change later? i doubt

But i don't know why Otto would be much worse than said Rhaenys who slaughter countless of peasants for show, everyone there is a schemer too

Otto is bad as an insurrectionist. He only doesn't have blood on his hands because he has Cole and guards to do it for him. Many of the house lords only bent the knee because they know they wouldn't have been allowed to make it home alive.

Otto was planning to steal the throne regardless of what Alicent said, and he could only accomplish that through force. That's why Otto is bad.

[Jinnobi]

Yet Viserys showed that the Hand of the King couldn't even resign without the king's consent.

Ned Stark resigned as Hand of the King when he refused to participate in the assassination of Daenerys.

Tywin Lannister resigned (in rage, no less) as Hand of the King when Aenys decided to (presumably) rape Joanna and comment on how perky her tits were.

Again, Westeros is not an absolute monarchy.

The fact that the lords of the seven kingdoms had to become rebels to depose Aerys completely contradicts your line of argumentation here. If there was an actual position of authority to keep the king in check if needs be they wouldn't have needed to rebel to do something about their grievances with the Mad King's antics. Likewise, Rhaegar wouldn't have needed to conspire behind Aerys' back either.

There's a difference between being a ruler for life, and having absolute power while ruling for life. There not being a "system" for removing a king from power
doesn't imply the monarch has the level of authority you think it implies.

But there was an alternative heir. Daemon was Viserys' claim before he named Rhaenyra to be the heir apparent. Yet they swore fealty to Rhaenyra all the same.

At the time, there was no male alternative to Daemon. And as Lady Mormont illustrates, when there is no male heir to inherit, the inheritance defaults to the closest female relative to the current head of house (or king).

The fact that there even had to be a council in the first place proves @Evil Midnight Bomber's point. If the realm followed a strict primogeniture like you're pretending, the issue would have been settled and Rhaenys would have no claim whatsoever. But instead the council had to gather and only then rejected her claim. Kinda straightforward.

Jaehaerys had no male heirs or female heirs to inherit, so he allowed claimants to petition for the role. This was a special case; it did not imply that the kingdom of Westeros wasn't normally male primogeniture.

The reason they called Jaehaerys "wise" to let a council of nobles to decide is because, technically, Rhaenys being the eldest niece would make her the inheritor - but Viserys was the eldest male nephew and it would endanger the stability of the realm if he just up and decided that his niece should be heir simply because she was older than Viserys, who was the eldest male nephew.

So he just let the nobles decide instead of himself.

This is about Jaehaerys not having any children to inherit, and letting the realm chose between two claimants instead of picking one himself. It has nothing to do with whether Westeros is or is not dictated by male primogeniture; it is. That much is clear as day. But primogeniture literally means firstborn child, and Jaehaerys had no children to choose from.

And yet everyone with actual reason to question their parentage that wouldn't seem as a blatant powergrab, i.e. Viserys, Laenor, Corlys and Rhaenys not only did not question it, they repeatedly reaffirmed Rhaenyra's sons to be true-born Velaryons. Which does not leave a lot of room for maneuvering for Alicent and her children.

Notice that Corlys, Rhaenys, and Laenor are all the same family - and also related to Viserys. They're denying what everyone can see plainly.

With Viserys and Laenor no longer in the picture, the parentage of the Strong children could be challenged by anyone at any point in the future. And they will.

Weren't you basing some of your arguments on death of the authors just one page ago? Why do you suddenly care about what GRMM explained?

I won't try to answer a question posed to someone else, but...

I will say that there is a difference between
A) an author deliberately clarifying their story in the context of commentary
and
B) what people interpret the author meant when giving an interview to a reporter or magazine

One is a careful, deliberate attempt to elucidate in-universe events; the other is helping a journalist get a damn paycheck. It's not even close to the same level of canonicity.

The worst human beings atm from both sides are Daemon and Aegon, the show making sure to put Aegon worse.

While I agree with some of your last post, I cannot agree that Daemon and Aegon are equally evil.

Raping a maid is very bad, watching kids essentially beat the shit out of each other is very bad

Raping your niece is very bad, inciting a night of gleeful violence based on hearsay is very bad

Murdering your wife by caving her head in, as she helplessly watches you pick out the rock... to continue beating her as she begs for mercy until her neck snaps... this is more than just "very bad." It's pure evil.

[Syegfryed]

Otto is bad as an insurrectionist. He only doesn't have blood on his hands because he has Cole and guards to do it for him. Many of the house lords only bent the knee because they know they wouldn't have been allowed to make it home alive.

Otto was planning to steal the throne regardless of what Alicent said, and he could only accomplish that through force. That's why Otto is bad.

Right, im not saying he is good, but he is just your average schemer who wants power in the setting

- - - Updated - - -

While I agree with some of your last post, I cannot agree that Daemon and Aegon are equally evil.

I was mostly saying the show makes Aegon to be more evil, and since the stuff with Daemon was first, most people forgot.

[Tojara]

The worst characters as far as being actually evil or just bad?

Aegon raping a maid is awful by modern standards, but what else has he really done besides be a complete degenerate?

Daemon never actually raped Rhaenyra (as far as the show goes). That night he took her out certainly didn't look like rape to me. One could argue he was essentially 'grooming' her since she was a teenager, but when I'm watching fantasy such as GoT I try to put myself in the mindset of that universe. It wasn't uncommon to marry women of higher standing off for strategy, nor was it out of line for Targaryen's especially to marry within their family.

What Daemon did with the Night's Watch was overstepping, but the show also points to pretty much half of the council being pitted against Daemon at every turn. Otto clearly is making power plays right from the beginning of the series and his whole angle is dismiss/discredit Daemon. Whether that be for the 'realm' or for his own sake is up to your interpretation.

Daemon killing paralyzing his wife then killing her with a rock is pretty fucked up, but pretty much necessary by him to free himself of his obligations.

Aegon as far as we know from his degenerate activity raped somebody. Fucked up. Yes, but good lord people were just mindlessly killing each other in the jousting pit when Viserys went to see to Aemma almost immediately.

Larys to me is the most obvious example of 'evil', but that's because he has a fucking foot fetish, cuts out peoples tongues and burns people alive at mere suggestions. I still wouldn't call him necessarily evil either, just like I wouldn't call littlefinger in GoT 'evil'.

As far as regular mortal characters go, the only characters I've picked up as being actually evil is Ramsey, Joffrey and probably the Mountain. Everybody else is somewhere in the middle of that bell curve.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The worst characters as far as being actually evil or just bad?

Aegon raping a maid is awful by modern standards, but what else has he really done besides be a complete degenerate?

Daemon never actually raped Rhaenyra (as far as the show goes). That night he took her out certainly didn't look like rape to me. One could argue he was essentially 'grooming' her since she was a teenager, but when I'm watching fantasy such as GoT I try to put myself in the mindset of that universe. It wasn't uncommon to marry women of higher standing off for strategy, nor was it out of line for Targaryen's especially to marry within their family.

What Daemon did with the Night's Watch was overstepping, but the show also points to pretty much half of the council being pitted against Daemon at every turn. Otto clearly is making power plays right from the beginning of the series and his whole angle is dismiss/discredit Daemon. Whether that be for the 'realm' or for his own sake is up to your interpretation.

Daemon killing paralyzing his wife then killing her with a rock is pretty fucked up, but pretty much necessary by him to free himself of his obligations.

Aegon as far as we know from his degenerate activity raped somebody. Fucked up. Yes, but good lord people were just mindlessly killing each other in the jousting pit when Viserys went to see to Aemma almost immediately.

Larys to me is the most obvious example of 'evil', but that's because he has a fucking foot fetish, cuts out peoples tongues and burns people alive at mere suggestions. I still wouldn't call him necessarily evil either, just like I wouldn't call littlefinger in GoT 'evil'.

As far as regular mortal characters go, the only characters I've picked up as being actually evil is Ramsey, Joffrey and probably the Mountain. Everybody else is somewhere in the middle of that bell curve.

I would say that the GOT-verse, has more characters with an Evil Alignment than ones with a Good Alignment. Not very many Chaotic Evil Characters (because most societies generally won't tolerate CE people)...but a lot of Lawful and Neutral Evil people.

[RobertoCarlos]

Forgive my ignorance, I dont have HBO so Can't actually watch the show without fear of a dodgy virus.

Just curious as to why more people didnt speak up against the "Strong" boys. Like its pretty clear they are bastards and only one character speaks up and is quickly killed for it.

I get people wanna stay alive and speaking up is rather pointless. But the targaryen look is so obvious with the silver hair and then you have these baratheon esque lads running around

The hair color twist in game of thrones made more sense because it wasnt so dramatic of a difference with Joffrey

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Forgive my ignorance, I dont have HBO so Can't actually watch the show without fear of a dodgy virus.

Just curious as to why more people didnt speak up against the "Strong" boys. Like its pretty clear they are bastards and only one character speaks up and is quickly killed for it.

I get people wanna stay alive and speaking up is rather pointless. But the targaryen look is so obvious with the silver hair and then you have these baratheon esque lads running around

You answered your own question.

1) people want to stay alive.
2) speaking up is rather pointless.

But other people do speak about it...in private... or they phrase things more carefully than "Her Children are Bastards and she is a whore".

[RobertoCarlos]

You answered your own question.

1) people want to stay alive.
2) speaking up is rather pointless.

But other people do speak about it...in private... or they phrase things more carefully than "Her Children are Bastards and she is a whore".

Yeah I get that but if Barack Obama had a white ginger kid. People would not be cool with it

[Varodoc]

That's not a law. THat's a tradition.

Call it however you want, it's not something a head of state can change overnight.

In no world can a head of state just change a tradition that has been established for centuries on a whim.

It doesn't...because if it did Rhaenyra could never have been named heir over her uncle. But she was.

You keep bringing this up without realizing that it's a pointless observation.

Yes, Viserys named a woman the heir, that's exactly the problem, it's not an argument in your favour at all. It's literally the problem we are addressing and the crux of the whole conflict.

And don't expect for a moment that Otto and his council could pull that shit if Rhaenyra was a man. Clearly Viserys did something he couldn't actually do, if so many people conspired against him in revolt.

Here's the thing about that... who would be the challenger to the throne? Aegon didn't want to be King

What Aegon wanted is irrelevant, people don't care about what he wants, people only care about his existence. So long as he lived, rebellions could be raised in his name to put him on the throne, on the basis that traditional succession demands the firstborn son to be king, not a woman.

It's the entire reason why Daenerys' world crumbled to dust when she learned about Jon's identity. As she realized that Jon Snow, a male Targaryen, had a better claim to the Iron Throne. Arya even warned Jon that, so long as he lived, Daenerys would always see him as a threat; despite knowing very well that Jon had bent the knee and reaffirmed his loyalty to her several times. Neither Daenerys nor Arya nor anyone else cared about the fact that Jon didn't want the throne, they all knew that he was a threat to Daenerys simply by existing.

The personal motivations of these people are worthless and no one cares about them, people care about their existence and the fact that their name can be used to raise a rebellion and discredit the claim of the reigning monarch.

so if house Targaryen stands uniteed behind Rhaenyra...who would challenge them?

Very clearly the men of the realm would, given Rhaenys' statement.

It's the crux of your problem...because it literally shows that the King can decide who is and who is not the heir...tradition be damned.

Definitely Not. No head of state ever is allowed to just change centuries of established tradition overnight. Traditions take many years, if not many decades, to be changed. Look at all the vocal warrior on twitter who have your logic "tradition be damned!", and look at how many traditions are still in place.

Because Rhaenyra could still; decide to challenge it.

She's a woman in a world that discriminates women outside of Dorne, so she would never get as much support as Aegon did.

Except he did...when he named Rhaenyra his heir.

And he couldn't do that.

That's the point and why a civil war ensued. If he could do that, no civil war would have happened.

The issue that started the whole war was Otto installing his grandson as King over the rightful heir.

Nope. The issue that started the whole war was Viserys defying tradition by keeping Rhaenyra as heir. The head of state can't disregard traditions without repercussions.

Maybe they would... but that still doesn't prove your point. And I doubt very much tthey would go to war without a legitimate challenger to the throne. Aegon didn't want it.

Except that it proves my point perfectly. My point is that Otto is not the main culprit and I proved this by explaining why the war would have started even if he was removed completely.

What Aegon wants is irrelevant, the nobles don't care. We literally saw how Otto and Alicent didn't give a shit about Aegon's personal intentions. All they care about is that they can use Aegon's name to push a claim.

And if Aegon didn't want the throne then Aemond would still be there to pose a threat, and Aemond definitely looks like someone who wants more power.

They said he needed an heir. The assumption was that his heir should be a son. There is no law demanding that to be the case.

These people wanted a male heir. If Aemma had another daughter, no one would have given a shit. In fact, they probably would have started getting angry/disappointed/desperate. That's why Aemma was so pressurd and concerned about having failed Viserys, due not having given him a male son. They didn't just want *any* heir, they wanted a male heir. It was not just an "assumption", it was literally pressure put by the whole council on the king to have a male heir, because tradition demands it and no head of state is above it.

I mean, they even brought this up right after Aemma's death, while Viserys was still mourning.

They can be changed overnight actually. Literally that's what Otto did when he decided that Aegon was to be made King. Rhaenyra was named heir. The lords of the Seven Kingdoms swore an oath to that.

The king's word is not law. Viserys didn't create a law just because he named Rhaenyra heir. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a position called "Master of Laws". That already implies that the king alone can't just make up laws as he pleases.

Also, many of those lords who swore an oath had died, which is a technicality that Otto and his council used to gather support.

The fact that she was considered at all means that there is no law stating a woman can not take the Iron Throne over a man

She was considered because all the king's sons died, nothing more. At that point, anything was open.

Cersei was prevented from inheiriting it because she was already Queen.

She was not the Queen. She was Queen Regent/Dowager Queen. And this post you just provided is not backed by anything in the source material.

"And I would let myself be consumed by maggots before mocking the house and naming you heir to Casterly Rock"

He doesn't say that Tyrion is wrong, that's my point. I don't care about Tywin's wishes, I care about showing you that Tyrion looked at the law of the Seven Kingdoms and concluded that he was the legal heir. That Tywin then wanted to ignore the law is irrelevant to me and IC for Tywin, the dude who literally broke guest rights.

"but neither gods nor men will ever compel me to let you turn Casterly Rock into your whore house"

This literally proves my point. The men of the realm and the Gods (who are believed to be real entities) would compel Tywin to follow the law and give Tyrion what he owns by right. Just like they would compel to ensure the safety of your guests. Tywin being Tywin doesn't give a shit about what other people want. This doesn't prove anything you are trying to argue.

And if, as you said, Tywin could do anything, then he could have just made Cersei the heiress of Casterly Rock. He can do anything he wants, after all. Yet he didn't, and in fact he always felt a lot of pressure because Jaime, his favoured and firstborn son, refused his birthright.

Tywin decides who is heir. It would have been Jaime, if he had not taken the Whitecloak, it would have been Cersei, if she weren't already Queen. It would never have been Tyrion. Tywin would name Lancel heir before letting that happen. It doesn't prove your case...it proves mine.

You don't have a point. You keep contradicting yourself. In one sentence you'll say that Tywin can choose whoever he wants as his heir and that there are no laws on inheritance. On the next sentence you'll say that Cersei is forbidden from inheritance because she is the queen (which she is not btw, that's Margaery), thus implying that there is a certain system that decides who can and cannot inherit, a system that even Tywin cannot defy.

Once again, you havce provided examples as to why Aegon should have been named the heir

That's literally my point from the start so I'll take it as a compliment on my debating skills.

On the contrary, you have yet to provide the examples I asked about female noble heads who were chosen over their male siblings. I certainly would expect you to find a lot of them, since you claimed that there is no law, no order, no system, nothing, that everyone can choose whoever they want. Surely Viserys wouldn't be the only one in history who chose a woman over a man, No?

- - - Updated - - -

Forgive my ignorance, I dont have HBO so Can't actually watch the show without fear of a dodgy virus.

Just curious as to why more people didnt speak up against the "Strong" boys. Like its pretty clear they are bastards and only one character speaks up and is quickly killed for it.

I get people wanna stay alive and speaking up is rather pointless. But the targaryen look is so obvious with the silver hair and then you have these baratheon esque lads running around

The hair color twist in game of thrones made more sense because it wasnt so dramatic of a difference with Joffrey

Because anyone who speaks up gets butchered like Vaemond. It's pretty much the same thing that happened with Joffrey and Eddard Stark. Eddard pointed out that Joffrey was a bastard, he simply spoke the truth, and Joffrey in retalation had him decapitated.

The same thing happened here, simply replace Eddard with Vaemon and Joffrey with Rhaenyra/Daemon. And the hilarious thing is that the fandom condemned Joffrey for having Ned killed for speaking the truth, while simultaneously stanning for Daemon in spite of doing the same thing (which is why the lead writer had to come out and say that she was surprised the fandom idolized Daemon so much).

In the end, no one can safely state in public that Rhaenyra's children are illegitimate bastards; because, if they do, and if Rhaenyra/Daemon found out, they'd be dead.

[Jinnobi]

They said he needed an heir. The assumption was that his heir should be a son. There is no law demanding that to be the case.

Vaemond: You break law - and centuries of tradition - to install your daughter as heir. Yet your dare tell me who deserves to inherit the name 'Velaryon?' No. I will not allow it.

Viserys: "Allow it?" Do not forget yourself, Vaemond.

Vaemond, turning toward Lucerys and pointing: That is no true Velaryon... and certainly no nephew of mine.

Viserys: Lucerys is my true-born grandson. And you are no more than the second son of Driftmark.

Vaemond: You...may run your House as you see fit...but you will not decide the future of mine. My House survived the Doom, and a thousand tribulations besides. And gods be damned, I will not see it ended on this account of this --

Daemon: Say it.

Pause. Staredown.

Vaemond: Her children...are BASTARDS!
Vaemond, turning to Viserys: And she...is...a whore.

Viserys: I... will have your tongue for that.

Daemon, after slicing Vaemond's head in half: Let him keep his tongue.

***

So if male primogeniture wasn't law, why did absolutely no one contest Vaemond when he literally started his (technically completely correct) rant? He could have instantly been shut down by saying, "It isn't a law." Simple as that, and yet no one did.

This is basic logic, not something hard to grasp. I don't intend to insult or belittle any individual by saying that, rather the arguments being made.

[Varodoc]

Vaemond: You break law - and centuries of tradition - to install your daughter as heir. Yet your dare tell me who deserves to inherit the name 'Velaryon?' No. I will not allow it.

Viserys: "Allow it?" Do not forget yourself, Vaemond.

Vaemond, turning toward Lucerys and pointing: That is no true Velaryon... and certainly no nephew of mine.

Viserys: Lucerys is my true-born grandson. And you are no more than the second son of Driftmark.

Vaemond: You...may run your House as you see fit...but you will not decide the future of mine. My House survived the Doom, and a thousand tribulations besides. And gods be damned, I will not see it ended on this account of this --

Daemon: Say it.

Pause. Staredown.

Vaemond: Her children...are BASTARDS!
Vaemond, turning to Viserys: And she...is...a whore.

Viserys: I... will have your tongue for that.

Daemon, after slicing Vaemond's head in half: Let him keep his tongue.

***

So if male primogeniture wasn't law, why did absolutely no one contest Vaemond when he literally started his (technically completely correct) rant? He could have instantly been shut down by saying, "It isn't a law." Simple as that, and yet no one did.

This is basic logic, not something hard to grasp. I don't intend to insult or belittle any individual by saying that, rather the arguments being made.

Yes... in the same dialogue, he also tells Viserys that, though he is the Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, he has no right to decide the fate of House Velaryon. So it's interesting how Vaemond believes that Viserys can't just do whatever he wants just because he's king.

Another interesting thing I remembered, regarding the authority of the king over his vassals; in GoT, Catelyn tells Ned that he doesn't have to be Hand of the King, even though King Robert explicitly demanded it. So not only the king doesn't have the authority to influence the internal politics of his vassal houses (as per Vaemond's declaration in front of the entire court), but he also dosen't have the authority to demand a vassal lord to join the Small Council.

GRRM himself said that the king can't just do anything he wants, explicitly calling out Joffrey on his delusions.

So, in the end, you could try to argue that maybe Viserys was justified in his choice. You could argue for anything you want really. There's people literally arguing that Daemon is a good husband material.

But if you want to justify Viserys' decision, you most certainly cannot use the argument "because he was king". Since, as has been established many times in the story, the Iron Throne does not grant the king the ability to do "whatever they want". And the importance of traditions, of the "order of things", as Rhaenys put it, of the "law", as Vaemond put it, are brought up many times in the story.

The point of this scene is exactly this:

(technically completely correct)

Vaemond was absolutely correct. He died for the same cause Ned Stark and Stannis died for. And like Joffrey, Rhaenyra and Daemon knew that their opponent was right. That's why they had him killed.

And the bottom line of the entire story is this: Otto and his friends wouldn't have pulled that shit if Viserys didn't defy tradition in the first place. Their whole casus belli, their reasoning, their cause, the arguments they use to bring other lords to their cause, are precisely this: tradition demands that Aegon be king, not Rhaenyra. And Viserys lacked wisdom, as he failed to realize this fact.