• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About UnmaskedLurker

  • Rank
    A former Lurker in a Mask

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,720 profile views
  1. @Lord Friendzone-- I had a little trouble understanding your last post, but I will try my best to address what I think are your points (although I may end up just repeating some of what I said above). First, I don't think that the spoilers from the upcoming season eliminate Tyrion as a Targ. Tyrion as a Targ can be important even if there are never three Targs that ride three different dragons at the same time. Second, I simply don't agree that a late reveal of Tyrion as Targ in any way diminishes or loses the purpose of the Jon reveal. I am not sure there is much more to say than what I said above -- I simply don't agree and don't think that you have sufficient evidence to make this conclusion. This conclusion is based on your personal estimation of whether an additional reveal would undermine the prior reveal -- but I simply am going by the clues. I cannot get into GRRM's head to know whether he would consider the later reveal as losing the significance of the prior reveal -- so I simply cannot make such an assumption.And the clues tell me that Tyrion likely is a Targ. Third, I have conceded many times that a dragon can only bond to one person at a time. You don't need to keep making the point -- I agree with you. I think your assumption that both Jon and Dany survive to the end of the big battle is not based on anything other than your personal preference. I have no idea whether one might die, but one of them dying (seems more likely Dany) and then Tyrion riding the dead Targ's dragon is not implausible. GRRM has set up this eventuality in the way in which he has described the rules surrounding dragons. You simply assert that both Jon and Dany will survive -- without any evidence to support your theory. One surviving is enough for a Targ restoration (if that is the way the story is going, not 100% sure it is). I have no idea why you are so certain that both will survive to the end. Fourth, I agree that Bran will be critical to winning the war. I just don't see how he can be classified as a "head of the dragon" given that he has no Targ blood. Bran is "above the rest" I would think -- but not directly one of the heads of the dragon -- Bran's actions will be taken from more of a distance -- but I agree will be critical. Nevertheless, based on how the term "dragon" has been used in the series, Bran cannot be a head of the dragon. Finally, you indicated that you don't see that a Targ has something to do with winning the "War of Dawn" (as you put it). To me, I see no other way to understand the prophecy that Rhaegar described. The prophecy discusses TPTWP who will come from the Aerys/Rhaella line and that the dragon must have three heads (presumably TPTWP and two other Targs to work with TPTWP). Why must the dragon have three heads? The only answer I can see is that three people "of the dragon" (i.e., of Targ blood) must come together to defeat the forces that are threatening the world (i.e., the War for the Dawn 2.0 -- i.e., the Others or White Walkers). If you have a plausible alternative interpretation of the prophecy, I am eager to hear it. I have not heard of any plausible alternative explanations for the basic meaning of the prophecy.
  2. The idea that three people with Targ blood with be central to saving humanity is based on my interpretation of the statement by Rhaegar that the prophecy dealing with the Battle for the Dawn 2.0 includes the proposition that the Dragon must have Three Heads. I interpret that statement to mean that in order to win the war, three Targs must work together as a team to prevail. Of course others will assist (I think that Stark children will be more central than Jaime or Brienne, but whatever, the point remains that 3 Targs won't do everyone alone without any help from others -- and I never intended to suggest otherwise). Others are free to disagree with my interpretation of that part of the prophecy. I simply find it hard to make sense of that part of the prophecy any other way. And if three character of Targ ancestry are going to be central to the battle, Tyrion is the only realistic candidate for the third Targ. Your statement that somehow the show has precluded Tyrion a Targ because it would somehow diminish Jon's reveal as a Targ makes no sense to me. I see the opposite. The show has had a relatively long and slow build up to the reveal of Jon as Targ (at this point, anyone watching the show who has not figured out that Jon is Targ is not paying attention -- and the actual reveal to Jon will probably happen at the beginning of season 8 -- so another entire season will go by without Jon finding out, I think). So Jon's reveal will be long and tortuous. Whereas Tyrion's reveal -- if I am correct -- will be more sudden and unexpected. I don't see such a reveal, however, undermining the other. Such an approach is entirely consistent with the style of storytelling that D&D are using. They like "shock" reveals -- and Jon's won't be a shock by the time of its reveal -- Tyrion's reveal would. As to the assertion that if Dany dies, that Drogon must die as well -- there is no evidence for such an assertion. As to the supposition that one of Jon or Dany likely will live -- I agree -- and I suspect it is more likely to be Jon than Dany -- but it could go either way. But one surviving has nothing to do with the likelihood of Tyrion being revealed as being son of Aerys. FAegon not being on the show actually is not the biggest reason by any stretch for why I don't consider him to be a serious contended as a head of the dragon (it is a reason -- but not a main reason). The biggest reason is that YG simply is not a main character -- and the 3 heads I believe must end up all being main characters. I also think that YG seems to be pretty clearly inserted into the story as a "plot device" to be a source of struggle or adversary to main characters (mainly Dany, but also possibly Cersi and KL generally). Turning YG into a critical player in the endgame battle just does not fit based on my understanding of how GRRM is designing the structure of the story.
  3. Once again, I will try a point at a time. Unfair analysis. The pros and cons can only be evaluated from what they would have know before the mission -- not based on the outcome of the mission. Before the mission, they would not know they would suffer such serious losses. Capturing a wight would necessarily entail the NK throwing a spear at Viserion and killing him. That was really bad luck -- not an obvious con to the mission. Given what they knew, it probably was a close call whether the pros outweighed the cons. But presumably trying to get the Lannister army on their side would have two benefits -- increasing the forces against the WW and avoiding the risk of a two-front war if the Lannister army tried to re-take the North. I am not sure I follow this point. Cersei might think that -- but that is why the wight was corroborating evidence. And in fact, it appears that she does not end up thinking that the demonstration was merely a ploy to take over Westeros. Rather, she seems to think that let her enemies (Dany and Jon) fight against other potential enemies (WWs) in the foolish belief that the two sides will destroy each other and leave her to pick up the pieces. Given the nature of the WW threat, Dany and Jon would not think that Cersei would come to that decision. She might (and obviously did), but such a course of action is so reckless, that Dany and Jon would have assumed Cersei's desire for self-preservation would have limited the likelihood of such a decision on her part. Again, they would be wrong, but the analysis needs to be considered before knowing the outcome -- and before the outcome, such a decision seemed a low probability. And, again, I think they believed that the wight would convince Cersei that the stories were not just a ploy to trick her out of KL. Even if they knew about the Mountain, so what? So Cersei knows that undead people are possible. Cersei also knows they are not easy to produce. And the wights really are of a different nature than the Mountain. So even if Dany and Jon know about Mountain (not sure they do, but even if they do), that does not eliminate the fact that the wight still corroborates their story. As I noted above, probably a close call -- but not an unreasonable risk given the pro and cons that were knowable before the fact. As I noted above, two benefits would be additional fighters and avoiding risk of a two-front war. Given that potential benefit and the lack of reason to believe that a dragon would be killed by a WW, not an unreasonable risk. Not unreasonable to take the other course (ignoring Cersei), but the potential benefit was enough to entice them to take the risk.
  4. Just to be clear -- a wight is not a White Walker. Dany and Jon bring back a wight -- an "undead" person under the thrall of the While Walkers. The wight is intended as corroboration of the existence of the WW invasion, but Dany and Jon do not attempt to capture an actual WW. Nevertheless, I agree that Dany and Jon brought back the best evidence they reasonably believed they could get.
  5. Of course everyone knows that Cersei will betray allies. The point of the wight-hunt is to got corroboration to convince Cersei that a threat to all humankind exists. Even a ruthless and untrustworthy person generally can be relied upon to team up to defeat the bigger common threat before going after her one-time allies. I doubt that Dany and Jon thought Cersei could be trusted once the WW are defeated -- but if the WW are not defeated then nothing else matters. So dealing with Cersei would have to wait -- and getting support from her could have significant benefits.
  6. I will try to take your points one at a time. Here is where I think we have the biggest source of disagreement. The evidence is not just the existence of the wight. The evidence is their personal testimony. They are telling Cersei what they saw. What they saw is a bit hard to believe so the wight is the best evidence to back up their claims. But the wight in and of itself is not intended to be the "proof" of anything alone. The wight is supporting evidence to back up their claims that Jon as seen the WW and their wight army of dead people advancing against Westeros. While the wight is not absolute proof, it is strong evidence in support of this report. And why would Jon lie about it in any event. So based on Jon's testimony (and presumably others) with the existence of the wight (to prove that such an army of the dead is possible), Dany and Jon could reasonably believe that Cersei would be convinced of the true danger. This point is not really any different than your first point. As I explained, the belief that the wight -- together with personal testimony and the rationale that Jon would have no reason to lie to Cersei (and I don't think Cersei believes Jon is lying) -- is enough to convince Cersei of the danger. Once that conclusion is made, then the mission is "worth it" as it gives the supporting evidence to Jon's testimony to try to convince Cersei of the true danger and secure the Lannister army. They might know of the Mountain or they might not (not clear it is common knowledge that the Mountain is Gregor brought back from the dead). But, so what? So Cersei already knows of the possibility of the dead being brought back to life. That fact alone is not sufficient to prove to Cersei that someone other than her maester can perform such a feat. And the wight is not quite the same as Mountain, who seem to be more "human" than the wight. Mountain rapes the Septa -- I don't think a wight would be capable of anything quite so human. But even if a wight could -- the point is that the wight still serves as important corroborating evidence. Dany could not defeat Cersei without losses. And Dany does not really have the time to waste on such a mission when the WW are advancing and are the bigger threat. Such a plan might be advisable if conquering KL were Dany's primary goal. But at this point, defeating the WW has taken precedence. So after defeating Cersei, weakening both side's forces, how can Dany be sure that the Lannister army will "bend the knee" and help in the war against the WW. They more likely will just retreat to the westerlands. You suggest that the losses to get the wight were high -- but the losses in a war against Cersei likely would be much higher with less likelihood of a payoff. Even if such a calculation might be wrong, under the circumstances it would not be unreasonable. Perhaps, but I think Dany and Jon would have had plans to deal with that possibility. I think we need to see how it plays out on screen to see whether such a risk was real or not.
  7. Or to make the same point a slightly different way, why would Dany and Jon believe that spending time and resources on taking KL is more important or take precedence over using all of their resources to fight against the WW (with our without the support of Cersei and the Lannister army)? All humankind is at risk of dying if the WW are not defeated. I don't see how Dany and Jon would see it as making any sense to waste any meaningful resources on any mission other than the War for the Dawn 2.0. OK, now we are getting somewhere. Finally a well-reasoned answer to the question of what Dany and Jon had to lose by trying to get Cersei's support (i.e., the losses they suffered in the wight hunt). But while a reasonable argument, I still disagree with your conclusion. In retrospect, obviously the losses were high and the benefit nil (although Dany and Jon do not know that yet as they seem to come to believe Cersei will aid them even though apparently she will not). But such calculated risks are often taken if the potential benefit is strong enough (here the support of the Lannister army in the war against the WW). Only if Dany and Jon had no reasonable belief that Cersei would aid them if convinced of the true danger is the risk not worth taking (and they had no way to know they would lose a dragon in the effort). As noted by DitN, Cersei generally can be relied upon to do what is critical to her survival, so Dany and Jon had reason to believe that if convinced of the true danger, Cersei would come to their aid. The fact that the gamble failed does not make the gamble foolish or illogical. Some risks are worth taking, and while Dany and Jon clearly underestimated the price to be paid and overestimated their ability to convince Cersei of the true danger, such mistakes in judgment are commonplace in such situations and certainly not illogical. Unfair. You are analyzing only after the fact. Dany and Jon had to make the decision before knowing the extent of the losses they would likely suffer and the potential benefit to be had. Sure, they miscalculated. Miscalculations happen in war all the time by good generals. But just because they miscalculated, their actions were still a reasonable alternative given the extent of the potential benefit.
  8. I remain confused. How do Dany and Jon -- and Tyrion, who obviously knows Cersei well -- know that she is so unbalanced mentally that she would risk the death of all humankind just to oppose her human enemies? And Jon and Dany cannot divert resources to conquering KL because Dany and Jon understand that such a victory would be worthless if the WW are allowed to advance against a now weakened (as a result of the war to conquer KL) human army. Apparently Tyrion advises that most of the people who would die in an assault on KL would be innocent civilians in any event, so such an attack would not really be advisable -- and again, would simply waste resources needed for the battle against the WW. I understand that the wight demonstration does not convince Cersei. But Dany, Jon and Tyrion have reason to believe that it would. They believe that they need Cersei's support in that war -- and most rational (even if ruthless and untrustworthy) leaders in Cersei's position would recognize the need to ensure the survival of humankind against the bigger enemy before going after human enemies. Basically, Dany, Jon and Tyrion know that she is ruthless, petty and perhaps even "evil" in some sense (whatever that term really means in this world). But I don't think that they know that she is so stupid and reckless that she would risk the survival of all humankind to try to get an advantage over Dany and Jon. Or at a minimum, this calculation is worth the risk. And in fact, if she "betrays" them by not sending troops (as appears to be Cersei's plan), Dany and Jon really are no worse off than if they merely ignored Cersei. So trying to get the support of the Lannister army by convincing Cersei of the threat from the WW has the potential for big benefit (if they win her support) with no real downside (as her failing to carry out her promise really ends up being no different in terms of the war against the WW than it would be if they simply ignored her and took their armies North without her support). Where is the downside in trying to get Cersei's support?
  9. Can someone please fill me in on the nature of the debate as to whether it makes sense for Dany and Jon to try to cut a deal with Cersei? Specifically, the issue as I thought it had been presented in the leaks is that Jon convinces Dany that the biggest threat is the White Walkers. And no matter how unreliable Cersei might be in general, that if they can convince her of the nature of the threat (thus the need to bring back the wight), purely for self-preservation purposes, Cersei will help to defeat the White Walkers. Isn't that the thrust of the leaks? I thought so, but no one seems to be making this point but rather the debate seems to be focused on whether it makes sense to negotiate with someone who is not trustworthy--but that question seems to be more or less irrelevant under the circumstances. What am I missing in this debate? Now the leaks also suggest that the Cersei is crazy enough that she thinks that the WW will defeat (or at least dramatically weaken) her political rivals (Dany and Jon) -- and then somehow Cersei thinks that the WW will not be a threat to her (there is where the logic somewhat falls apart, perhaps) and she will be the last woman standing. But that decision seems to stem from a combination of foolishness, recklessness and disconnection from reality -- not lack of trustworthiness. Cersei can be considered to be the least trustworthy person on the planet (and perhaps she is), but if she is convinced that the WW will destroy all humankind unless she teams up with Dany and Jon, logically, Dany and Jon should be able to "trust" her until the WW are defeated -- as her survival is as much at stake as everyone else's survival under these circumstances. After the war against the WW, of course, Cersei could no longer be trusted, but much would have changed in each side's positions after a battle royale to defeat the WW that if the human side were to win, Dany and Jon could decide how to deal with Cersei at that point, assuming that at that point they were in a position to try to do so. But the biggest and most immediate threat that Dany and Jon are trying to resolve is the threat from the WW to turn every human being on the planet into a wight. So to "trust" Cersei in this situation does not seem to me to require relying on her being trustworthy in the traditional sense. But rather only requires that she be sane and pragmatic enough to realize that all humankind needs to team up to survive. Thus why Dany and Jon believe that showing her the dangers by seeing a wight in action should be enough to get Cersei to devote her resources to defeating the WW. Cersei deciding to betray Dany and Jon is based in part on Cersei not being trustworthy--but that trait is not enough -- she also had to be stupid, reckless and crazy. Dany and Jon had no reason to know that she had those traits as well (at least not to such an extent). So for those who think that Dany and Jon going to try to reach an agreement with Cersei makes no logical sense -- please explain what I am missing in my line of reasoning?
  10. Regarding the bolded -- if he does not have Targ blood, then no, he does not have all of the characteristics. GRRM has used the term dragon in the series only to refer to Targs or people who have Targ blood (other than of course references to actual dragons). I don't see how breaking slavery chains has anything to do with being a dragon -- I am not even sure what the connection might be. As to the use of wild fire, there is quite a bit of foreshadowing that Cersei is going to use the wild fire that is still under KL to blow up part or all of KL. If she does so, will that make Cersei a dragon? I don't think so. The use of wild fire is just not something that would "make" Tyrion become a dragon. A writer as good as GRRM is not going to use a term over and over again to mean one thing -- just to say that it really means something else later on as a plot device to wrap up a plot point. This series has NEVER suggested that someone could be considered to be a dragon based on actions alone -- Targ blood has always been a required part of the use of that term. Sure, some Targs have been accused of not really being "true dragons" based on behavior, so maybe Targ blood is not sufficient to be a dragon -- but it has always been a necessary component. GRRM is too careful a writer to pull such a jarring switch in the way the term is being used in the series.
  11. As I noted above--the prophecy is not necessarily about dragon riders -- but about three "dragons" (i.e., people of Targ blood) who are central to saving the world. The prophecy, however, states that the dragon must have three heads -- so three heads it must be. Being a dragon rider might be central to being a head of the dragon -- but might not be -- something else might be crucial to winning the battle but still has some connection to the three leaders being three people of Targ heritage. I also noted above that even if a dragon dies, one of the three heads might die near the end with the "third head" bonding with the now riderless dragon. So it could be three dragon riders on two dragons (just not two on the same dragon at the same time). So imagine the following possibility -- NOT a prediction but just an example of how such a scenario might work. Assume that Dany is riding Drogon and Jon is riding Rhaegal and Tyrion does not yet know he is of Targ blood. Imagine that the big battle is raging on and the "good guys" are having some success -- but then right before victory is assured, tragedy strikes and Dany is killed. Drogon becomes despondent and is no longer helping in the fight. Tyrion sees Jon being forced back without Dany and Drogon to help in the fight -- and Tyrion becomes desperate and unthinkingly leaps onto Drogon -- and amazingly Tyrion bonds with Drogon and races to save Jon from defeat, and together, Jon and Tyrion finish off the Others. Again, I am NOT making a prediction that the battle will go this way -- but this scenario is an example of how even with only two dragons, three total dragon riders might become essential to the victory. Either way, the prophecy that the dragon must have three heads does not require three dragon riders -- it only requires three people "of the dragon" -- who work together as a team -- to be central to the war victory in some manner.
  12. I just have too many issues with YG as the third head of the dragon -- mainly that YG is just not a central character in the story. The readers know little about him and have not been led to have much connection to him. If "the dragon must have three heads" really means what I believe it means -- i.e., that three "dragons" must work together if the world is to be saved -- then a character as relatively minor as YG, who is only brought into the story half way through and who never gets a POV -- simply does not work as one of the three heads. Just imagine how that would develop in the story -- all of a sudden, Jon and Dany team up with YG and he becomes a central part of resolving the war. That approach would be "cold" and "jarring" for most readers. People on these boards who analyze the details and get caught up in the clues sometimes seem to lose track of the storytelling that GRRM is doing for the general reader and not specifically for the "super fan" like the people here. The typical reader would just be confused if YG turned into one of the most important characters in the series -- GRRM simply has not set up YG to be such a character with any plausibility. And while you make a valid point about Blackfyre seeming to be more of a dragon than a Hill -- keep in mind that Blackfyre simply is a bastard branch that got a name. Tyrion Hill would still be just as much a dragon as he would have just as much dragonblood -- and keep in mind that the term for such a person in this series is dragonseed. Also, the Blackfyre backstory is not really that explored in the series. There are some mentions and clues (like the rusted dragon head, which I simply take as evidence that YG really is fAegon and not Aegon), most readers don't even know anything about the Blackfyre story. I have asked people who have read all the main series books but none of the side books and do not go on the ASOIAF message boards, and they have no idea what Blackfyre means at all. So while I think there will be a Blackfyre reveal regarding YG, I tend to think that if YG's identity as a Blackfyre was going to be critical to him qualifying as a head of the dragon, more back story for the Blackfyre line would have been included in the main series.
  13. "The dragon must have three heads. Oh, but I forgot to mention that one of the three heads looks strangely like a wolf." Yeah, I don't think so. IIRC, Bran has already skinchanged birds, so the statement about him flying has happened. Bran (as well as Arya and likely Sansa) will have important roles in the endgame. Bran is the being set up to become the most powerful human being on the planet, so I certainly expect him to have an important role in the endgame. But the DRAGON has three heads, and Bran is just not a dragon or a head of a dragon.
  14. I have written quite a bit on this board about this topic. This topic happens to be one of the "mysteries" of the series that interests me quite a bit. Personally, I think that Rhaegar's scene is a pivotal piece of information because it seems to lay out the endgame to some extent -- specifically that the "dragon must have three heads" seems to be a signal to the readers that the "war for the dawn" 2.0 can be won only if the three heads come together as a joint force to win the big battle. Most people agree that Dany and Jon are two of the heads (not universally accepted but certainly a plurality if not majority view). So the big question become the identity of the third head. So what can the readers reasonably deduce about the three heads? In my view, from a storytelling point of view, the three heads must be main characters. The critical players in the endgame cannot be characters that are introduced half way through the story or are only minor side characters in the story. So in my view, fAegon, Gendry and BBP are eliminated from consideration. I get the desire to have fAegon, presumably a Blackfyre, be the third head, but the readers don't meet YG until half way through the series. And even then, he is never really given much direct focus. To turn him into one of the three critical figures in the war seems like an incredibly strange literary choice -- and I don't see GRRM going in this direction. The readers simply have not grown close enough to this character to make him so central to the endgame, and the series is too far toward the end to create such a connection at this point. The other information that seems to be directly stated by Rhaegar is that these three heads are "dragons" which seems to suggest being Targaryens. That information would eliminate Bran (and any other Starks) from consideration. While there is some symmetry in the three heads being Ice--Bran, Fire--Dany and Ice/Fire--Jon, but Bran just does not seem to fit as a head of the dragon -- as he is a "wolf" and not reasonably characterized in any sense as a dragon. While the notion that Bran might be able to skinchange a dragon -- that action does not seem enough to be part of a "three-headed" dragon (metaphorically speaking, of course). But what about the quote from GRRM that the third head is not "necessarily a Targ"? No matter what GRRM might say to try to keep the mysteries as mysteries -- the overwhelming pieces of evidence from the books that GRRM has written make sense only if the three heads are all Targs of some kind (whether it be Blackfyre, Targ bastard (i.e., dragon seed) or some other character reasonably described as a "dragon" within the context of how the term has been used in the series). The notion that GRRM really will have someone that could not be described as a "dragon" be one of the three heads of the dragon would be inconsistent with the manner in which GRRM has constructed use of such metaphors throughout the series (and GRRM has stated that he does not "lie" to his readers by setting up all the clues to point one way just to have the resolution be something completely different). So Bran and any other Stark or character who cannot be viewed as a "dragon" is out as a contender for the third head. And if a Blackfyre or dragonseed is the third head, that character is not a Targaryen (thus the quote from GRRM being technically accurate) while still being a dragon. So by process of elimination the readers must turn to Tyrion. Tyrion certainly is one of the main characters in the series. He is one of the big 5 (or big 6 if Sansa is included). The readers know that Bran and Arya (and Sansa) are Starks -- i.e., wolves. As noted above, Jon and Dany are assumed to be three of the heads. So Tyrion is the most viable candidate left. But can Tyrion be a "dragon"? I have probably written as much as anyone on these boards about this topic so I will not bore anyone with all of the reasons that I have become convinced of the likelihood that Tyrion really is the biological son of Aerys. Go ahead and read my OP in the AJT thread (just click to see link) for more details. No other resolution meets all of the apparent criteria other than Tyrion as Targ bastard being the third head. Note that none of this analysis revolves around the three heads all being dragon riders. While riding a dragon might seem to be the natural assumption about the three heads (based around the original Targ trio conquering Westeros on three dragons) -- the critical criteria is identity as a "dragon" and not riding an actual dragon. If, for example, one or more of the actual dragons die before the endgame, perhaps a different role is central to why the dragon must have three heads. Or maybe one of the three "heads" dies near the end of the big battle but before victory has been assured and the third head mounts the now riderless dragon and ends up being critical to winning the battle. I really don't know and try to stay away from predicting the plot points to that level of specificity (my prior attempts have been largely unsuccessful). The point remains that a combination of basic story structure and the numerous clues and hints placed in the text (including WOIAF) by GRRM convinces me that Tyrion is the third head and a Targ bastard.
  15. FWIIW--I still think Jon's birth name was Aemon (at least in the books -- who knows about the TV show, but would make sense for TV show as well given that they Jon had a relationship with Maester Aemon). Birth name of Aegon never really made sense, but who knows what direction the TV show might have wanted to go on that score -- but glad that it appears they have not gone that way.