Is there evidence of Mushroom's presence in "House of the Dragon" even if he doesn't appear on screen?

Question

House of the Dragon, HBO's prequel to Game of Thrones, is based on George R.R. Martin's Fire & Blood. In the book, this historical account is written by Archmaester Gyldayn, who draws from various sources, including Mushroom—a dwarf jester who served several Targaryen monarchs, including Queen Rhaenyra Targaryen.

I understand why Mushroom wasn't directly portrayed in the show. Including a ribald jester character with dwarfism could be problematic on modern television. Unlike Tyrion Lannister, Mushroom's character doesn't have the same depth or complexity.

What I'm curious about is Mushroom's status within the show's universe. Could he be existing off-camera? I'm looking for evidence (in or out-of-universe) confirming or denying Mushroom's existence in the TV show.

In Fire & Blood, Mushroom's testimony is full of salacious claims about the Dance of the Dragons, generally favoring the Blacks (Rhaenyra's faction). Archmaester Gyldayn cites Mushroom's version of events and contrasts them with accounts from Septon Eustace and Grand Maester Munkun (both of whom have appeared in the TV show).

Interestingly, some events in House of the Dragon seem to align more with Mushroom's testimony than with the other sources. This made me wonder about the implications for the show's universe. If Mushroom doesn't exist in the TV show universe, this might affect Archmaester Gyldayn's eventual writing of Fire & Blood. Without Mushroom's perspective, the book might lean more towards the Greens. Or Gyldayn's account could be significantly different, perhaps not even resulting in Fire & Blood.

Answer 1

The main point of Mushroom's character is to give some light humour to the events of the story but also give another contrasting narrator to Septon Eustace and Grand Maester Munkun. It is within the middle of all the accounts that the truth probably lies and sometimes closer to one interpretation than another. This story telling method chosen in Fire & Blood is not present in the show and so Mushroom is not really a character we are going to have much focus on, if at all. The show itself seems to be more focusing on telling the "true" events of the book.

“As fun as that Rashomon style of storytelling is, we kind of left that to the book, and decided to, instead, try to define what we thought the objective truth of this actual history was, as we saw it,” Condal said in an interview with Polygon. “Certain historians are right, and certain historians are wrong. Sometimes they all get it right. Sometimes they all get it wrong — sometimes Mushroom’s even right, by chance. And I think that was the fun of the adaptation is getting to really interplay with the book as a companion piece.”

_{Polygon, House of the Dragon is missing its source material’s most fun character}

Ryan Condal has also done another interview where he states pretty much the same thing and then is specifically asked about any nods to Mushroom in the show where he says yes. I think it's clear then that Mushroom exists in Fire & Blood, it's just that he doesn't necessarily fit into the narrative of the events the show is trying to tell and the method in which it is telling them.

Ryan Condal: I think the fun of this story is getting to pick your narrative path through all the conflicting accounts that have gone on and I think often you'll see that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of what they've all talked about. I mean we sort of took the approach that Fire & Blood was written much like the Bible was written, particularly the gospels where you know many years after the death of Christ everybody's going back and trying to piece together this incredible story that happened but they're relying themselves on accounts drawn from the period. I mean Mushroom says he was there but was he really there? We don't know. So, I mean I think that's the fun of it and I've said whereas most adaptations are in natural conflict with their source material because it's like well you have Lord of the Rings and you have Tom Bombadil and then you have the adaptation and it's like well how are you faithful to Lord of the Rings and still do you put Tom Bombadil in. This I think they're companion pieces so I think the book Fire & Blood exists as a companion to the show, the show exists as a companion to Fire & Blood. If you've read the book the show enriches your experience of the book, if you've seen the show first and you go back and read the book it enhances your experience of watching the show and I think that's an exciting place to be because I think people can go into this sort of saying oh one enriches the other instead of saying they're you know they're in conflict with one another.

‪@javimgol‬: Last question on a similar theme we had that the chroniclers of Fire & Blood of the death of the dragonsn Eustace and the Mushroom that you mentioned. I know we're not cast properly but we're gonna be any nods, Dwarven Jester passing in the background or anything like that?

Ryan Condal: Yes.

_{YouTube, @WesterosTV, Westeros.org Interviews Ryan Condal: House of the Dragon Red Carpet}