Three years later, we are back 
in Westeros. We’re not here to 
revisit the aftermath of the tragedy 
that was the original “Game 
of Thrones,” but rather to bear 
witness to another, earlier, clash 
for the Iron Throne. This time, it 
stays in the family — in more ways 
than one.
HBO Max’s “House of the 
Dragon” centers on the all-powerful 
Targaryen dynasty — ancestors 
of the now-infamous Daenerys 
Targaryen (Emilia Clarke, “Last 
Christmas”). Episode one, titled 
“The Heirs of the Dragon,” starts 
at the peak of the Targaryen’s 
reign over the Seven Kingdoms and 
sets us up for a bloody civil war, 
spurred, as always, by that ugly 
Iron Throne — which has now been 
updated with more swords to look 
even more menacing. In that vein, 
“House of the Dragon” stays true to 
its parent show. The Iron Throne 
causes the same bloodlust, anxiety 
and anger as it did in “GoT.” This, 
in conjunction with faces getting 
smashed in by axes, explicit brothel 
scenes 
and 
some 
incestuous 
tension, 
is 
a 
reminder 
from 
showrunners Miguel Sapochnik 

and Ryan Condal that yes, this is 
still the same world.
The plot of “House of the 
Dragon” is adapted from a section 
of George R.R. Martin’s “Fire 
and Blood,” a novel detailing the 
Targaryen family history written 
in the form of a history textbook. 
What this means is that the 
showrunners were tasked with 
reconciling objective history with 
emotion, taking the time to flesh 
out historical accounts with rich 
storytelling. The episode opens 
with a prologue scene detailing 
the ascension of Viserys Targaryen 
(Paddy Considine, “The Outsider”) 
to the Iron Throne over his elder 
cousin, Rhaenys (Eve Best, “Nurse 

Jackie”). The episode then cuts 
forward to Viserys’s eldest child, 
the 
young 
princess 
Rhaenyra 
Targaryen (Milly Alcock, “The 
Gloaming”), standing by as the 
lords of the small council discuss 
the matter of Viserys’s succession. 
In doing so, the show quickly 
establishes the strict patriarchal 
nature of the lords of Westeros, who 
refuse to put a woman on the Iron 
Throne (sound familiar?).
The cast does a wonderful job 
of establishing their characters’ 
motivations 
and 
personalities 
early 
on. 
Matt 
Smith 
(“The 
Crown”) shines as Prince Daemon 
Targaryen, the younger brother 
of the king with a propensity for 
violence befitting the genre. The 
conversations between Daemon 
and Rhaenyra in the High Valyrian 
language serve to establish both the 
strong bond that the Targaryens 
have with each other and the 
superiority they feel over others. 
Considine displays King Viserys’s 
anxious and fragile nature aptly, 
although the ill-fitting platinum 
blonde wig takes a while to get used 
to. Rhys Ifans (“The King’s Man”) 
plays Otto Hightower, the Hand of 
the King, with cunning and a drawl 
evocative of Tywin Lannister. 
Emily Carey (“Get Even”) plays 
Otto’s daughter, Alicent Hightower, 

and together with Alcock, the two 
establish Alicent and Rhaenyra’s 
tender and complex friendship — 
one that is bound for a major falling 
out as the story progresses. Steve 
Toussaint (“Judge Dredd”) and 
Fabien Frankel (“The Serpent”) 
leave a lasting impression as the 
commanding Lord Corlys Velaryon 
and the charming Ser Criston Cole, 
respectively. 
Cinematically, “House of the 
Dragon” doesn’t miss a beat. 
This era of Targaryen rule is 
demarcated by an abundance of 
dragons, paired with a new score by 
composer Ramin Djawadi, which 
incorporates 
familiar 
melodies 
from previous pieces like “The Iron 

Throne.” 
Director 
Sapochnik 
brings the same talent that he 
brought to past “GoT” episodes 
like “Hardhome” and “The Winds 
of Winter.” He cuts back and forth 
between scenes of the jousting 
tournament to the labor of Queen 
Aemma Arryn (Sian Brooke, 
“Sherlock”), both of which are 
incredibly violent and bloody.
The best moments of the pilot 
episode are near the end. We learn 
that both Queen Aemma and her 
newborn son Baelon die shortly 
after the birth, as evidenced 
by a funeral scene in which 
Rhaenyra unleashes her very 
first “Dracarys!” Viserys must 
now choose between allowing 
his reckless brother Daemon 
to remain his heir by default or 
breaking tradition and naming 
his daughter Rhaenyra as his 
successor. In a rapid turn of events 
involving a brothel, the king’s 
brother and the words “heir for a 
day,” Viserys names his daughter 
as his heir and banishes Daemon. 
In the dragon skull cellar, the king 
reveals to his daughter a prophecy 
that has been passed from ruler 
to ruler. He says that the first 
Targaryen conqueror, Aegon, had 
a dream of “the end of the world 
of men” brought forth by a great 
winter from the North — one that 

can only be stopped if Westeros is 
united under a Targaryen ruler. 
As Viserys tells his daughter 
about this “Song of Ice and Fire,” 
he places a firm hand on his 
dagger, which watchful viewers 
will recognize as the same dagger 
used to vanquish the Night King 
over a century later. This well-
placed information frames the 
last events of “GoT” in a new 
light and gives book readers more 
information regarding the still 
unfinished series.
In a universe as dense as “GoT,” 
the pilot episode of “House of 
the Dragon” does a stellar job of 

Desire is often ephemeral — it is 
confusing, fleeting and never fully 
known. Debut author Lillian Fish-
man knows this and uses desire’s 
fluidity as the basis of her novel 
“Acts of Service.” As one of the 
most anticipated books of 2022, 
her novel carefully navigates the 

entanglement of the sex lives of 
three New Yorkers of contrasting 
but highly complementary person-
alities.
As the novel is motivated pri-
marily by the first-person nar-
ration of the self-aware and 
self-critical introspections of the 
main character, Eve, the reader is 
required to attempt to empathize 
with her. In the beginning of her 
arc, Eve feels discontent within 
her relationship and senses she 
needs something more than the 
long-term dullness of her girl-
friend Romi. Romi lives outside of 
Eve’s sexual desire; she is doting, 
respectful and sexually consistent. 
Though Eve desires it, Romi refus-
es to shrink Eve into being just an 
object of desire. To combat this, 
Eve publishes her nude photos on 
an online forum, hoping for vali-
dation from self-objectification. 
As written in the closing sentence 
of the first chapter, against all her 
better rationales, Eve recognizes 
her sexuality — in spite of her ethi-
cal and moral dilemmas. This cre-
ates the first wave of dissonance 
between her external life and her 
internal abyss of sexual repres-
sion and presents the book’s cen-
tral fallacy: Rather than exploring 
the nuances of desire, Fishman 
instead depicts the oasis of illusory 
sexual power an allegedly emanci-
pated woman can have within the 
patriarchy.
To fall into her freedom, Eve 
resolves to cheat on her girl-
friend, messaging a local woman 
named Olivia on the nude forum. 
She becomes engulfed in the rela-
tionship between Olivia and her 
partner Nathan, which hinges 
upon pushing sexual taboos and 
enabling the freedom of their 

desires. The couple often explores 
power dynamics, whether it be 
physically degrading or verbal-
ly disparaging Olivia’s body, or 
Nathan bringing in another girl 
to sleep with in front of Olivia’s 
masochistically voyeuristic eye. 
Eve is brought in as a third girl, 
making her very role in the trio’s 
dynamic one of female competi-
tion and comparison. Among the 
triangulation of male attention, 
Eve repeatedly claims to long for 

the attention of Olivia. Olivia is 
the antithesis of Eve in role and 
personality, and their innate fight 
for male validation is a central 
motivation of their dysfunctional 
threesome. Olivia is aroused by 
this competition, whereas Eve 
both relishes it and wants to break 
them out into a different world of 
fantasy — one where only the two 
girls are together. 
Though the novel is nearly 
entirely confessional and intro-
spective, the reader’s empathy 
for Eve dissipates early. Due to 
her pressurized position in the 
dynamic, Eve follows the recent 
trend of harsh, unlikable female 
protagonists — and she may be 
among the most unlikable in this 
subgenre. But this is not to say that 
her character or thoughts were 
dull and predictable; rather, every 
single thought and action feels 
frustratingly 
razor-edged 
and 
seductive. In Eve’s truest fashion, 
she reflects that, “For the shine 
of life, I thought, immense teams 
of participants were required: 
Men were required, women were 
required, respect and disrespect 
were required, love and the lust of 
hatred were required.” She is not a 
character that can be limited — she 
reaches up to grasp every fruit of 
her desire.
Seductions are the materialized 
fruits of Eve’s desire: the luxuries 
given to a woman who is objecti-
fied by a man with financial and 
social power and the ease given to 
a woman who forgets herself with-
in dominant heterosexual scripts. 
Despite her constant cognizant 
whines and contemplations, Eve 
eats the fruit whenever the oppor-
tunity presents itself. To attract 
objectifying attention, she cheats 

4 — Wednesday, September 7, 2022 
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Lillian Fishman’s ‘Acts of Service’ is a 
sweetened bruise on the fruit of desire

Disney World transformed me into a toy and a rat all in one week

‘House of the Dragon’ is on its 
way to win back bitter fans

Design by Melia Kenny

AVA BURZYCKI
Daily Arts Writer

SWARA RAMASWAMY
Daily Arts Writer

LAURA MILLAR
Daily Arts Writer 

Cover art for “Acts of Service” owned by Hogarth.

This image is from episode one of “House of the Dragon,” distributed by HBO Max.

 Read more at MichiganDaily.com

on her girlfriend repeatedly; to 
get the elusive girl, she enters a 
competition of comparison that 
she was purposely set up to win 
from the start; to keep the luxu-
ries of being a hot woman on a 
powerful man’s arm, she inten-
tionally strays from her moral 
compass. The metaphor of fruit 
is used intentionally here, due to 
the unmistakable biblical allu-
sion of Eve’s name representing 
the original sin of desire.
As potentially the only “moral” 
redemption for Eve’s actions, she 
is in a constant internal struggle 
throughout the novel. She, much 
like the perceived target audi-
ence of young women, is being 
pushed and pulled by various 
power sources. Her societal pres-
sures, her sexual desire, Nathan’s 
seductive power and her desire 
to be morally “good” are perpet-
ually at odds. While standing on 
the cliff before jumping fully into 
the proposed sexual dynamic, 
Eve asks herself, “Was I still a 
person who would deny what I 
felt simply because I disliked it?” 
This constant dissonance cre-
ates tension between herself and 
every character within the novel, 
and potentially even more ten-
sion between Eve and the reader. 
As the final punch, Fishman 
wraps up her novel by includ-
ing a sexual misconduct lawsuit 
against Nathan — one where 
he clings to his claim of inno-
cence and which Eve treats with 
nonchalance and apathy. This 
alleged sexual misconduct feels 
distasteful in the rhetoric of the 
modern #MeToo landscape. Eve 
really only takes consideration of 
the allegations when she remem-
bers that Nathan is Olivia’s boss, 
which hangs over her head to 
further amplify their power 
dynamic. Additionally, the novel 
plays upon three harmful stereo-
types: the male-obsessed bisex-
ual, the cheating bisexual and a 
love triangle with two women in 
competition for a man. These ste-
reotypes build the unlikability of 
Eve’s character and ultimately 
destroy her merit. This is anoth-
er contributor to the overarching 
disparagement of feminist social 
and sexual standards. 
Despite the messy arcs and 
dependence upon post-feminist 
themes, the story contains syn-
apses and shimmers of genuine 
insight into gendered power, 
female sexuality and the tradi-
tionally marginalized experience 
of womanhood. Unfortunately, 
the poignant, memorable lines 
are overshadowed by the fact 
they are all in the context of a 
novel that is either a failed satire 
or a genuine story of barely any-
thing more than two privileged 
women idolizing an insufferably 
powerful man. 

I love living in a reality that 
is not my own; that’s why I read 
and write and watch movies. And 
that also happens to be why I go 
to Disney World.
As my last hoorah for the 
summer, I traveled to Orlando 
with some family and friends to 
explore the most magical place 
on Earth. For seven days straight, 
we arrived at the park at opening 
and left at closing, spending 
around 15 hours there each day 
and walking close to 70 miles by 
the end of our seven-day trip.
Much like how my feet are still 
aching as if I were walking down 
Main Street towards Cinderella’s 
Castle, my mind is still stuck 
on the level of immersion I felt 
wandering through the worlds of 
my favorite Pixar movies.
“Toy Story”
In Disney’s Hollywood Studios 
Theme Park, there is a section 
of land dedicated to the “Toy 
Story” series. Toy Story Land 
features 
attractions 
such 
as 
Slinky Dog, Toy Story Mania and 
Buzz Lightyear’s Space Ranger 
Spin. Whether or not you enjoy 
rides, it’s almost impossible not 
to smile as you slowly catch onto 
the details surrounding you.
Toy Story Land is built so that 
each guest feels as though they 
too are a toy. Cast members refer 
to the land as “Andy’s Backyard,” 
and the rides and restaurants 

surrounding you reflect that 
idea. If you look closely, there 
are larger-than-life footprints, 
created by none other than Andy 
himself. The outdoor dining spot 
is called “Woody’s Lunchbox.” To 
order, you line up behind a large 
lunchbox held up by a thermos 
about three times your size and 
sit on a piece of Babybel cheese 
large enough for two while you 
eat classic lunchtime meals, my 
favorite being the grilled cheese 
and tater tots.
The level of immersion in 
Toy Story Land is unmatched 
— I couldn’t help but feel like I 
really was among Woody and 
Buzz and the rest of Andy’s toys. 
Something I’ve always admired 
about the series is how well each 
movie portrays being a kid and 
growing up. “Toy Story” masters 
the portrayal of what every child 
wishes to see — their toys coming 
to life. The films also display the 
emotional bond a child can build 
with their toys, an attachment 
that comes to represent the 
hardships of growing up and 
letting go.
In the parks, we are so 
immersed in this world around us 
that we again become children, 
and it’s difficult not to replay 
in our minds what it was like to 
be so attached to an inanimate 
object. Watching the films, I am 
reminded of what it is like to let 
go and grow up. Walking through 
the park, I actually lived through 
that.
As someone who appreciates 

the art of Pixar storytelling and 
has rewatched the “Toy Story” 
series several times, there’s no 
better reward for a fan than 
being able to walk through the 
world that once existed only on 
screen.
“Ratatouille”
The 
“Ratatouille”-based 
attraction in Disney’s Epcot is 
less than a year old, meaning 
that even as a frequent Disney-
goer, I had yet to ride Remy’s 
Ratatouille 
Adventure. 
To 
prepare for the attraction and 
to make sure I would catch all 
the details, I sat down a few days 
before my Disney trip to rewatch 
Remy (Patton Oswalt, “Pets 2”) 
and Linguini (Lou Romano, 
“The Incredibles”) scheme in 
Gusteau’s kitchen.
As I approached the front of 
the line, I noticed that instead of 
a typical cart, each ride vehicle 
was a rat made to fit six guests. 
We 
followed 
Remy 
through 
Gusteau’s kitchen as if we were 
the size of one of his rat relatives. 
Like Toy Story Land, Remy’s 
Ratatouille 
Adventure’s 
main 
mission is immersion. But instead 
of being a toy, I became a rat. And 
it’s surprisingly pretty fun.
While following Remy through 
the kitchen on his adventure to 
become the best chef in France, 
I realized that I was becoming 
a part of his success. We helped 
Remy hide from Skinner (Ian 
Holm, “Alien”) and ran through 
the pipes of the restaurant to 
escape being caught. The main 

message of the film is that anyone 
can cook, and as inspiring as the 
idea that talent can come from 
anywhere is, it’s even more 
satisfying and encouraging to 
watch Remy prove it.
“Monsters, Inc.”
The Monsters, Inc. Laugh 
Floor has been a Magic Kingdom 
classic since I was a little kid. 
Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal, 
“When 
Harry 
Met 
Sally…”) 
announces 
that 
instead 
of 
collecting screams to power 
Monstropolis, the crew must 

collect laughter, a more powerful 
resource. Guests step into the 
theater, and the monsters we 
know and love appear on screen 
to perform stand-up and collect 
energy through our laughter.
Again, we, as guests, are put 
into the story. Just like in the 
movie, the monsters need to 
power Monstropolis. In this 
alternate story, we have become 
directly involved in their mission. 
That’s what Disney World seems 
to master — creating an alternate 
story (similar enough to the 

original plot of the movie that 
fans still understand the goal of 
the attraction), immersing the 
audience into that new story and 
referencing all the fan-favorite 
moments and lines of the films.
While at Disney, I learned 
that maybe I am a Disney Adult 
because of how much I love and 
appreciate Disney movies. These 
rides would mean nothing to me 
without what is at the foundation 
of each — a well-written story. 
And what’s better than truly 
jumping right in?

