A+J=T v. 4

[RumHam]

Those are better than claiming that the GoHH got it wrong ;-)

Is she wrong though? If Jon, Daenerys and Tyrion are collectively the Prince That was Promised and two of them (or even one of them, though we know it's two) are born of Aerys and Rhaella's line then I think she was correct. Even if Tyrion is not from that line.

[Weirdo]

I don't think GoHH got anything wrong. I just don't think she ever stated that all three heads of the dragon would be of the line of Aerys and Rhaella -- I think GoHH said that the PTWP would be of that line -- and I think she also said that the dragon must have three heads. Jon (or Dany) is of the line of Aerys and Rhaella as grandson (or daughter) of both and therefore qualifies to be the PTWP, and Tyrion is "of the dragon" if his biological father is Aerys and thus qualifies to be one of the dragon heads.

As you smiled at LV -- prophecies are tricky things. We don't even have access to the exact words of this prophecy, and interpretation is always difficult. Only after the prophecy comes true can the accurate interpretation be confirmed. From what we know, either theory -- yours, that one character is the three-headed dragon as a singular/trinity force -- or mine that Jon is TPTWP and Dany and Tyrion are the other two heads -- can potentially be consistent with the prophecy. We won't know for sure until GRRM confirms it. And then we will be able to know, in retrospect, what the prophecy meant.

We may not get the Prince at all - we may be left with a child of Daenarys, and the belief that her line will eventually produce the Prince. This is the sort of mythology that could help to prop up the Targaryen dynasty: the notion that the Golden Age is just around the corner, always, and in the mean time, the Game must continue, Fire and Blood. Bittersweet ending.

'The Worm Ouroboros' ends with a wonderful example of this trope (and is the main reason for the book's title; the eternal return and all that). The Big Bad has been vanquished, his army destroyed, and all the suffering of the people rationalized. But the heroes despair, like Alexander, because they have no more foes to conquer. Suddenly, an enemy army appears, out of thin air, as if they were never defeated, and the heroes rejoice. The End. It's a heavy thing, because it implies that the Game is part and parcel of the culture and perhaps even of life itself.

Defeating the Others would certainly be a great victory, and would herald a new age. But it wouldn't mean that human nature had essentially changed, and the people could expect an end to war and suffering. Maybe the Prince That Was Promised is meant to remain always and only a promise.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Mithras,

if you actually believe that the the story does not have room for more than one hero you clearly lack imagination. What about Bran, Arya, and Sansa? They are not likely to become dragon heads yet they are still important protagonists and possible 'hero material'. If Jon Snow is going to save the day George could easily have dropped this clichéd hidden prince trope in favour of merging Jon Snow and Dany into a Targaryen prince who was given to the NW after the Rebellion. Problem solved. He could have found some dragon eggs beyond the Wall or in his basement, and save the world. End of story.

Oh, and if you know the actual texts of the prophecies care to share them with us? Not characters paraphrasing them, the actual prophecies.

I did not say the Ghost was wrong - she would be right but not have been able to see the whole truth. That is a subtle difference. My guess is - but this is, of course, speculation - that the Ghost either gave Jaehaerys some fortune-telling like prophecy (as Maggy gave Cersei) or that she had some vague, symbolic, and unclear dreams about the general importance of the Aerys-Rhaella match and deduced from those that the promised prince would be born from their line. Her prophecies in ASoS are all dream-based but dreams usually do not use writing to mark infants or people as 'the promised prince'.

Suzanna,

I brought the skinchanger thing up because George was actually repeatedly asked about the possibility of controlling dragons via skinchanging, and there are SSMs in which he appears to be reacting to this question in a way that could indicate that this plot point will come up. We have some strong skinchangers in the remaining Stark children, and it is thus a possibility that not only Jon Snow but also Arya or Bran will try to control a dragon via their skinchanging abilities.

If Jon Snow's Targaryen-Stark heritage is going to become important in a 'magical sense' then my best present-day guess is that this may have something to do with his ability to control dragon(s) via skinchanging - especially if it turned out that normal skinchangers (i.e. those without dragonlord blood) cannot do that. A hint in that direction is that there are claims that dragons once lived in Westeros, but nothing suggests that the Children or the First Men ever subdued the dragons of Westeros via skinchanging and subsequently rode them (which is what Varamyr did with his snow bear, so it is pretty evident that a skinchanger subduing a dragon could also ride that dragon).

What we know about the connection between the Targaryens and their dragons suggests that their magical bond has nothing to do with skinchanging - dragonriders aren't (partially) merging the souls with their dragons. They merely mount them and somehow establish a lasting connection between themselves and the dragons simply through that fact. But there seems to be sort of subconscious magical connections that sort of resembles the connection between skinchanger and animal as dragons are apparently mimicking the feelings of love and hate of their riders (while Daemon and Laena love each other, Caraxes and Vhagar like each other, too; when Daemon and Aemond hate each other, the attitude of their mounts changes accordingly - and we know from the way Dany's dragons react to her enemies/people she doesn't like that this is not a invention of Gyldayn/the historians)

You lost me after you said Mithras lacks immagination.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Suzanna,

I brought the skinchanger thing up because George was actually repeatedly asked about the possibility of controlling dragons via skinchanging, and there are SSMs in which he appears to be reacting to this question in a way that could indicate that this plot point will come up. We have some strong skinchangers in the remaining Stark children, and it is thus a possibility that not only Jon Snow but also Arya or Bran will try to control a dragon via their skinchanging abilities.

If Jon Snow's Targaryen-Stark heritage is going to become important in a 'magical sense' then my best present-day guess is that this may have something to do with his ability to control dragon(s) via skinchanging - especially if it turned out that normal skinchangers (i.e. those without dragonlord blood) cannot do that. A hint in that direction is that there are claims that dragons once lived in Westeros, but nothing suggests that the Children or the First Men ever subdued the dragons of Westeros via skinchanging and subsequently rode them (which is what Varamyr did with his snow bear, so it is pretty evident that a skinchanger subduing a dragon could also ride that dragon).

What we know about the connection between the Targaryens and their dragons suggests that their magical bond has nothing to do with skinchanging - dragonriders aren't (partially) merging the souls with their dragons. They merely mount them and somehow establish a lasting connection between themselves and the dragons simply through that fact. But there seems to be sort of subconscious magical connections that sort of resembles the connection between skinchanger and animal as dragons are apparently mimicking the feelings of love and hate of their riders (while Daemon and Laena love each other, Caraxes and Vhagar like each other, too; when Daemon and Aemond hate each other, the attitude of their mounts changes accordingly - and we know from the way Dany's dragons react to her enemies/people she doesn't like that this is not a invention of Gyldayn/the historians)

Ah! I see what you mean now. Do you have a link to the SSM's about skinchanging dragons?

Is she wrong though? If Jon, Daenerys and Tyrion are collectively the Prince That was Promised and two of them (or even one of them, though we know it's two) are born of Aerys and Rhaella's line then I think she was correct. Even if Tyrion is not from that line.

Just to clarify, Jon and Dany are the only people alive from the line of Aerys and Rhaella correct?

Which means that no matter who the third person is they wont come from that line, so Tyrion is the closest thing there is really. Assuming it is about 3 different people and the only character in the books is not Jon Snow.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Ah! I see what you mean now. Do you have a link to the SSM's about skinchanging dragons?

Just to clarify, Jon and Dany are the only people alive from the line of Aerys and Rhaella correct?

Which means that no matter who the third person is they wont come from that line, so Tyrion is the closest thing there is really. Assuming it is about 3 different people and the only character in the books is not Jon Snow.

You have to at least allow the possibility that Aegon is of the line of Aerys and Rhaella, and unless you're saying RLJ is confirmed we can't say that Jon is of the line of Aerys and Rhaella with absolute confidence--at least not in support of strict deductive reasoning.

[RumHam]

Ah! I see what you mean now. Do you have a link to the SSM's about skinchanging dragons?

Just to clarify, Jon and Dany are the only people alive from the line of Aerys and Rhaella correct?

Which means that no matter who the third person is they wont come from that line, so Tyrion is the closest thing there is really. Assuming it is about 3 different people and the only character in the books is not Jon Snow.

Assuming Aegon is a fake and that Rhaegar and Viserys had no bastards (other than possibly Jon) then yes they are the last of that line. Theoretically it could continue through Jon and/or Daenerys if she's not actually barren. But it's hard to imagine a child of theirs being old enough to play a role.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

We may not get the Prince at all - we may be left with a child of Daenarys, and the belief that her line will eventually produce the Prince. This is the sort of mythology that could help to prop up the Targaryen dynasty: the notion that the Golden Age is just around the corner, always, and in the mean time, the Game must continue, Fire and Blood. Bittersweet ending.

'The Worm Ouroboros' ends with a wonderful example of this trope (and is the main reason for the book's title; the eternal return and all that). The Big Bad has been vanquished, his army destroyed, and all the suffering of the people rationalized. But the heroes despair, like Alexander, because they have no more foes to conquer. Suddenly, an enemy army appears, out of thin air, as if they were never defeated, and the heroes rejoice. The End. It's a heavy thing, because it implies that the Game is part and parcel of the culture and perhaps even of life itself.

Defeating the Others would certainly be a great victory, and would herald a new age. But it wouldn't mean that human nature had essentially changed, and the people could expect an end to war and suffering. Maybe the Prince That Was Promised is meant to remain always and only a promise.

Much like 'The Once and Future King'.

Arthur was always a promise of peace, and idea of Britain that could never really happen. There will always be people and those people will always find something to fight about.

The best anyone can hope for is a dynasty of non-corrupt excellent humans that lasts for a few hundred years, and always make the right choices, but even that is far-fetched.

JRRT had the right idea, 'Now Aragorn is king, with his Elf-wife and they will rule in nothing but peace for 200 more years (cuz they lived to be 250).

[UnmaskedLurker]

We may not get the Prince at all - we may be left with a child of Daenarys, and the belief that her line will eventually produce the Prince. This is the sort of mythology that could help to prop up the Targaryen dynasty: the notion that the Golden Age is just around the corner, always, and in the mean time, the Game must continue, Fire and Blood. Bittersweet ending.

'The Worm Ouroboros' ends with a wonderful example of this trope (and is the main reason for the book's title; the eternal return and all that). The Big Bad has been vanquished, his army destroyed, and all the suffering of the people rationalized. But the heroes despair, like Alexander, because they have no more foes to conquer. Suddenly, an enemy army appears, out of thin air, as if they were never defeated, and the heroes rejoice. The End. It's a heavy thing, because it implies that the Game is part and parcel of the culture and perhaps even of life itself.

Defeating the Others would certainly be a great victory, and would herald a new age. But it wouldn't mean that human nature had essentially changed, and the people could expect an end to war and suffering. Maybe the Prince That Was Promised is meant to remain always and only a promise.

I certainly hope that is not the way GRRM is going. I don't consider that ending a "bittersweet ending" but rather a cop-out -- suggesting that the events of the book are just an endless cycle to be repeated over and over again so nothing changes at all and the exact events just repeat themselves. That is almost as bad as an ending where the readers find out the entire story is just a dream -- because those sorts of ending result in nothing that happening in the books really mattering at all.

D&D indicated that the ending is satisfying. If an ending anything similar to what you described is viewed by D&D as satisfying, then they have a dramatically different notion of what is satisfying than I do -- which is a distinct possibility (and one I worry about).

I agree that GRRM may not give the readers an ending that ties everything in a nice, neat bow. But for the "sweet" part of "bittersweet" to be realized, I would think that some genuine hope for a better future (rather than a repeat of the same destructive events) would be implied in the end. And some notion that all of this loss was not for nothing also seems central to a bittersweet ending.

[RumHam]

JRRT had the right idea, 'Now Aragorn is king, with his Elf-wife and they will rule in nothing but peace for 200 more years (cuz they lived to be 250).

Yeah but we never got to hear about Aragorn's tax policy! :)

[Suzanna Stormborn]

You have to at least allow the possibility that Aegon is of the line of Aerys and Rhaella, and unless you're saying RLJ is confirmed we can't say that Jon is of the line of Aerys and Rhaella with absolute confidence--at least not in support of strict deductive reasoning.

oh well Objectively sure. But I am 100% that RLJ and that fAegon.

HBO basically confirmed RLJ last week when they cut to Jon after Aemon's little speech. I mean, me personally, totally convinced before that, but now it's like.... no question. And the fact that Aegon is left off the show in all forms also is a form of confirmation for me, I understand if everyone doesnt feel this way....but same scenario....I was already 100% convinced he is fake, so this just confirmed it for me.

Assuming Aegon is a fake and that Rhaegar and Viserys had no bastards (other than possibly Jon) then yes they are the last of that line. Theoretically it could continue through Jon and/or Daenerys if she's not actually barren. But it's hard to imagine a child of theirs being old enough to play a role.

right exactly, that's what I think as well. yes I find it hard to believe a child not yet born will play any part in the Song. At most it will be a glance to the future at the end of the novels, and we can be assured that the Targ dynasty will live on.

[Stonehearted Snake]

Re skinchanging dragons - I thought GRRM said they can't be skinchanged? Or maybe I am misremembering and he just said that the Targ-dragon connection was not skinchanging but didn't rule out that possibility that they could be. Does anyone have links to that info? (I wouldn't really even know where to start researching as I'm sure I just stumbled across that somewhere...)

[RumHam]

Re skinchanging dragons - I thought GRRM said they can't be skinchanged? Or maybe I am misremembering and he just said that the Targ-dragon connection was not skinchanging but didn't rule out that possibility that they could be. Does anyone have links to that info? (I wouldn't really even know where to start researching as I'm sure I just stumbled across that somewhere...)

Think you're talking about this description of a question and answer session at Con-Carolinas:

Q: What can you tell us about a warg dragon rider?

A: There is no history/precedent for someone warging a dragon. There is a rich history of the mythical bond between dragon and rider. There have been instances of dragons responding to their riders even from very far away (hmm) which shows it is a true and very strong bond. We will learn more about this. Keep reading

http://www.staceysimms.com/george-r-r-martin-qa/

Sadly it's not a direct quote. By no history/precedent does he mean it's never been done or just that there is no record of it?

[Weirdo]

Much like 'The Once and Future King'.

Arthur was always a promise of peace, and idea of Britain that could never really happen. There will always be people and those people will always find something to fight about.

The best anyone can hope for is a dynasty of non-corrupt excellent humans that lasts for a few hundred years, and always make the right choices, but even that is far-fetched.

JRRT had the right idea, 'Now Aragorn is king, with his Elf-wife and they will rule in nothing but peace for 200 more years (cuz they lived to be 250).

I certainly hope that is not the way GRRM is going. I don't consider that ending a "bittersweet ending" but rather a cop-out -- suggesting that the events of the book are just an endless cycle to be repeated over and over again so nothing changes at all and the exact events just repeat themselves. That is almost as bad as an ending where the readers find out the entire story is just a dream -- because those sorts of ending result in nothing that happening in the books really mattering at all.

D&D indicated that the ending is satisfying. If an ending anything similar to what you described is viewed by D&D as satisfying, then they have a dramatically different notion of what is satisfying than I do -- which is a distinct possibility (and one I worry about).

I agree that GRRM may not give the readers an ending that ties everything in a nice, neat bow. But for the "sweet" part of "bittersweet" to be realized, I would think that some genuine hope for a better future (rather than a repeat of the same destructive events) would be implied in the end. And some notion that all of this loss was not for nothing also seems central to a bittersweet ending.

I think we would see a modest amount of progress from any government run by Daenarys, Jon, or Tyrion. All three of them have a human touch. Jon recognized the humanity of the Wildlings, Dany of the slaves, and Tyrion the Hill Tribes of the Vale (also, Tyrion is sensitive to women's issues, despite his own shortcomings in that department). All three of them have reason to mistrust the pure succession model of government, and they all have seen the limitations of absolute power and understand their vulnerabilities. Most importantly, all three of them have shown that they favor alliance building over dominance. It has cost Dany and Jon dearly, of course, but they have stuck with it nonetheless (we'll have to wait and see if that changes, after what they've been through recently). I'm optimistic that any combination of those three could move Westeros a step in the right direction, at least while they rule. And who knows, defeating whatever force that drives the Others might actually bring about fundamental changes on a deep level.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I think we would see a modest amount of progress from any government run by Daenarys, Jon, or Tyrion. All three of them have a human touch. Jon recognized the humanity of the Wildlings, Dany of the slaves, and Tyrion the Hill Tribes of the Vale (also, Tyrion is sensitive to women's issues, despite his own shortcomings in that department). All three of them have reason to mistrust the pure succession model of government, and they all have seen the limitations of absolute power and understand their vulnerabilities. Most importantly, all three of them have shown that they favor alliance building over dominance. It has cost Dany and Jon dearly, of course, but they have stuck with it nonetheless (we'll have to wait and see if that changes, after what they've been through recently). I'm optimistic that any combination of those three could move Westeros a step in the right direction, at least while they rule. And who knows, defeating whatever force that drives the Others might actually bring about fundamental changes on a deep level.

I basically agree with that analysis -- so how does such an ending result in the readers concluding that TPTWP remains only a future promise?

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I think we would see a modest amount of progress from any government run by Daenarys, Jon, or Tyrion. All three of them have a human touch. Jon recognized the humanity of the Wildlings, Dany of the slaves, and Tyrion the Hill Tribes of the Vale (also, Tyrion is sensitive to women's issues, despite his own shortcomings in that department). All three of them have reason to mistrust the pure succession model of government, and they all have seen the limitations of absolute power and understand their vulnerabilities. Most importantly, all three of them have shown that they favor alliance building over dominance. It has cost Dany and Jon dearly, of course, but they have stuck with it nonetheless (we'll have to wait and see if that changes, after what they've been through recently). I'm optimistic that any combination of those three could move Westeros a step in the right direction, at least while they rule. And who knows, defeating whatever force that drives the Others might actually bring about fundamental changes on a deep level.

:bowdown:

[Lost Melnibonean]

oh well Objectively sure. But I am 100% that RLJ and that fAegon.

HBO basically confirmed RLJ last week when they cut to Jon after Aemon's little speech. I mean, me personally, totally convinced before that, but now it's like.... no question. And the fact that Aegon is left off the show in all forms also is a form of confirmation for me, I understand if everyone doesnt feel this way....but same scenario....I was already 100% convinced he is fake, so this just confirmed it for me.

I tend to agree. We just have to remember that we are making an assumption, no matter how solid our assumption is.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Think you're talking about this description of a question and answer session at Con-Carolinas:

http://www.staceysimms.com/george-r-r-martin-qa/

Sadly it's not a direct quote. By no history/precedent does he mean it's never been done or just that there is no record of it?

It means, "Dude, I'm not headed in that direction, but you'll have to read the rest of the tale to find out," and then off-mike, "Warging a dragon... what a cockamamie theory! Doesn't he realize that if I was going to have Bran skinchange into a dragon I would have foreshadowed that, or at least given them an instance of it in the past? Don't these clowns get what I wrote about the arms of House Toland? Jeez Louise..."

[Lost Melnibonean]

Yeah but we never got to hear about Aragorn's tax policy! :)

Yeah that woulda been a climatic ending! It'd be akin to perfoming the fade out at the end of a song on a rock & roll record live.

I seriously doubt the adninistration of government in Westeros following the War for the Dawn will be spelled out for the reader. The George's criticism of Tolkein showed how Tolkein neglected that development of Aragorn. But we see those details in the development of Jon, Daenerys, Petyr, and others (that's just "others" Lucifer means Lightbringer, not "Others"). So there's no need for him to go on and on. I could see him ending with special snowflake being crowned or dying of a mortal wound after defeating the Others, or maybe an epilogue with Bran recalling how things ended up. But I don't think we're going to get a post-history.

[Weirdo]

I basically agree with that analysis -- so how does such an ending result in the readers concluding that TPTWP remains only a future promise?

I don't know that it would, and I don't think I'm well-informed enough to know. Because I don't feel like I know what TPTWP (or Azor Ahai Reborn) really represents for the people waiting for his/her arrival. In-story, probably, anyone who defeats the others ends up a pretty exulted figure.

Assuming for argument that the end of the story doesn't produce a ruler that satisfies the expectations of TPTWP, at least not for everyone - or if the candidates for such a role are all killed off in the struggle, and the people don't know the full extent of their exploits - then those who wait in-story might continue waiting.

The readers, however, would ultimately see through it, hopefully, as a chimera, a smokescreen, and maybe even take it as a lesson for our world. Even very laudable goals, such as democracy and equality, can be used to promote bad policy (I'd list examples, but then we'd get bogged down in details coughIRAQcough). That would be George reminding us that all ideology needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Weirdo]

:bowdown:

How do you make these little guys appear? I feel like such a noob (well I am a noob).

Loving this thread, guys, thanks for all your knowledge.