Alia of the knife Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I just tend to think the sole point of the Lannisters as characters are to show how the mighty fall through their pursuit of ambition. I think their fate will be their own stunning end and "Rains of Castamere," (a song usually sung to remind those who cross the current gang of Lannisters). It was Joanna and the ruling lady of Dorne who were close friends, and the Lannister children were who that ruling lady sought to marry her own children to, but for Tywin who said Cersei was for Rhaegar until she outsmarted him and married her own daughter to Rhaegar. Her daughter Elia and grandchildren would pay dearly for that slight at the hands of the Lannisters. I think also the vision that Jaimie had of his mother was to show the sadness of this woman who perhaps was very much against what her husband had in mind for her children, the very ambition that would get them killed. I think even Jaimie senses the end of House Lannister, and is now focused on his own legacy as well as what they will write about him in the book of the KG along with trying to restore some sanity in the face of his sisters insanity. Tyrions statement on his siblings loving each other because they are a reflection of each other goes to the symbolism of narcissism where in Greek mythology Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water. And the Tyrells are on cue to take the place of the Lannisters and it won't be long until they fall too, for as Dontos said, they are merely "Lannisters with flowers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 This talk about Joanna reminds me of a discussion some time ago - we wondered whether she might have reciprocated Aerys' affection and Tywin found out, and this was the main reason for the Sack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruby Chevrolet Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Unfortunately I still can't get the Princess and the Queen yet, so I appreciate the no-spoilers rule. But if it shows that no Targaryens have greater than normal resistance to heat then I will revise my opinion on that. And I will admit it. If it just shows that a lot of fire can burn some Targaryens -- that is, as we always knew, Targaryens aren't completely fireproof -- then I will stick to my guns on this one.Okay, I have read it. Here we go: No surprise here -- the Princess and the Queen supports the "So Spake Martin" that says that Targaryens have greater than normal resistance to heat. One of them survives dragon fire that kills people who are further away (he is injured because his armor melts into his skin, but he survives while the people who are further away die). And there is no confirmation either way on whether Rhaenyra was burned before she was eaten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyse Stark Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I just tend to think the sole point of the Lannisters as characters are to show how the mighty fall through their pursuit of ambition. I think their fate will be their own stunning end and "Rains of Castamere," (a song usually sung to remind those who cross the current gang of Lannisters). It was Joanna and the ruling lady of Dorne who were close friends, and the Lannister children were who that ruling lady sought to marry her own children to, but for Tywin who said Cersei was for Rhaegar until she outsmarted him and married her own daughter to Rhaegar. Her daughter Elia and grandchildren would pay dearly for that slight at the hands of the Lannisters. I think also the vision that Jaimie had of his mother was to show the sadness of this woman who perhaps was very much against what her husband had in mind for her children, the very ambition that would get them killed. I think even Jaimie senses the end of House Lannister, and is now focused on his own legacy as well as what they will write about him in the book of the KG along with trying to restore some sanity in the face of his sisters insanity. Tyrions statement on his siblings loving each other because they are a reflection of each other goes to the symbolism of narcissism where in Greek mythology Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water. And the Tyrells are on cue to take the place of the Lannisters and it won't be long until they fall too, for as Dontos said, they are merely "Lannisters with flowers."And it also goes in hand with my prediction that the wardenship of the West will go to a house that actually cares about people, not power, as Jon has seen how hungering for power has negative ramifications for both the House, as well as their people. The games of thrones has weakened the Lannisters, and I'll predict the same for the Tyrells, as their ambitious politicking to get a future heir to the throne will also end with their demotion from a Great House to a minor house, and a House with "winter" sensibilities promoted to Wardenship.The point that GRRM will drive in our head is that political ambition should come second to the needs of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Okay, I have read it. Here we go:No surprise here -- the Princess and the Queen supports the "So Spake Martin" that says that Targaryens have greater than normal resistance to heat. One of them survives dragon fire that kills people who are further away (he is injured because his armor melts into his skin, but he survives while the people who are further away die).And there is no confirmation either way on whether Rhaenyra was burned before she was eaten. Actually, there is conformation about Rhaenyra: Sunfyre, it is said, did not seem at first to take any interest in theoffering, until Broome pricked the queen's breast with his dagger. The smell ofher blood roused the dragon, who sniffed at Her Grace, then bathed her in ablast of flame, so suddenly that Ser Alfred's cloak caught fire as he leaptaway. Rhaenyra Targaryen had time to raise her head toward the sky andshriek out one last curse upon her half brother before Sunfyre's jaws closedround her, tearing off her arm and shoulder. So it clearly states Sunfyre first burns her, before he eats her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenFire3 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Yeah, that's how I understand it too. Which is iffier with the twins because of Joanna, obviously (unless she has a Targ ancestor we don't yet know about). But GRRM might not make that distinction. Yes, from a scientific point of view a couple is more likely to have non-identical twins if there are twins in the woman's family. Some women may be genetically more likely to produce more than one egg during a menstrual cycle and this makes it more likely that they will have twins (another story for identical twins: embryo splitting seems to be a merely random event). Of course, Martin could use the precedents in a textual, non-scientific way. A wink to the reader, in a 'pay attention, this has already happened' fashion. This talk about Joanna reminds me of a discussion some time ago - we wondered whether she might have reciprocated Aerys' affection and Tywin found out, and this was the main reason for the Sack. Dramatically intense. I like it ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alia of the knife Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 This talk about Joanna reminds me of a discussion some time ago - we wondered whether she might have reciprocated Aerys' affection and Tywin found out, and this was the main reason for the Sack.I tend to think it was the opposite and she rejected him which sowed the first seeds of jealousy on Aerys part towards Tywin,and his humiliation of Tywin.It was said that only Joanna could make Tywin smile and it doesn't seem as if Tywin had any issues with Aerys beyond getting the put-downs.I think the sack of KL was definitely more of a payback for what Elias mother did in slipping in and undercutting Cersei, thus Tywin, which of course she did to slight Tywin for refusing her children, because I think Joanna herself wanted their children for the Martells.My sense is that Joanna was the opposite of Cersei, and what an irony if Tyrion took after her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alia of the knife Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 And it also goes in hand with my prediction that the wardenship of the West will go to a house that actually cares about people, not power, as Jon has seen how hungering for power has negative ramifications for both the House, as well as their people. The games of thrones has weakened the Lannisters, and I'll predict the same for the Tyrells, as their ambitious politicking to get a future heir to the throne will also end with their demotion from a Great House to a minor house, and a House with "winter" sensibilities promoted to Wardenship.The point that GRRM will drive in our head is that political ambition should come second to the needs of the people.Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruby Chevrolet Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Actually, there is conformation about Rhaenyra: So it clearly states Sunfyre first burns her, before he eats her.I read that very carefully and it confirms that Sunfyre bathed her in flames but it does not say she was burned by them. It does say that she was still alive when Sunfyre started eating her. So, there's no confirmation that the fire hurt her at all, but there is confirmation that she died from being eaten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gwynhyfvar Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I read that very carefully andit confirms that Sunfyre bathed her in flames but it does not say she was burned by them. It does say that she was still alive when Sunfyre started eating her.So, there's no confirmation that the fire hurt her at all, but there is confirmation that she died from being eaten. Come on, really? We learn from Dany's dragons thatdragons prefer their meat cooked. Barbecuing their prey before consuming it seems pretty standard dragon practice and Dany's dragons specifically turned up their noses at raw meat. Why would Sunfyre be any different? Also, in that same section we are told that Lady Baela was badly burned in her battle with Sunfyre, and that Aegon II was so horribly burned in his battle that "burn scars covered half his body" The burns from the melted armor apparently affected only his left arm. In the same battle in which Aegon II was burned so badly he was permanently disfigured, Princess Rhaenys was killed. When her body was found beside the corpse of her dragon it was "so blackened that no one could be sure it was her." Isn't clinging to fire proof (or even fire resistant) Targs at this point a bit like clutching at a reed to save yourself from a deluge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Han Snow Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I read that very carefully andit confirms that Sunfyre bathed her in flames but it does not say she was burned by them. It does say that she was still alive when Sunfyre started eating her.So, there's no confirmation that the fire hurt her at all, but there is confirmation that she died from being eaten.I'll take whatever you are on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winds of Winter blow cold Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 To be fair that was really up close! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I read that very carefully andit confirms that Sunfyre bathed her in flames but it does not say she was burned by them. It does say that she was still alive when Sunfyre started eating her.So, there's no confirmation that the fire hurt her at all, but there is confirmation that she died from being eaten.What? :bang: :bang: :bang:You completely forget the fact that Aegon was burned, not to death, but seriously burned and died later.andI'll take whatever you are on! :agree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Wow, mental gymnastics.... pity this is not an Olympic discipline, it might earn some applause at least there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruby Chevrolet Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Come on, really? We learn from Dany's dragons that dragons prefer their meat cooked. Barbecuing their prey before consuming it seems pretty standard dragon practice and Dany's dragons specifically turned up their noses at raw meat. Why would Sunfyre be any different? Also, in that same section we are told that Lady Baela was badly burned in her battle with Sunfyre, and that Aegon II was so horribly burned in his battle that "burn scars covered half his body" The burns from the melted armor apparently affected only his left arm. In the same battle in which Aegon II was burned so badly he was permanently disfigured, Princess Rhaenys was killed. When her body was found beside the corpse of her dragon it was "so blackened that no one could be sure it was her." Isn't clinging to fire proof (or even fire resistant) Targs at this point a bit like clutching at a reed to save yourself from a deluge?Actually Daenerys' dragons did prefer cooked meat, at least when they were younger, but Drogon ate, or at least, bit off, uncooked meat in the fighting pit. Aegon II was burned but not killed in a three-way battle between some of the biggest and hottest dragons alive. He survived being in the middle of it while onlookers some distance away were killed by the fire. How could he live while they died if he does not have some resistance to heat that they lack? Rhaenys died in that same battle but it is not made clear whether she was burned after she died (as we know that dead Targaryens are cremated) or if the fire of two dragons she was fighting (one being Vhagar) was enough to overcome her resistance. Baela was burned, but not killed, in a battle with Sunfyre, one of the largest dragons alive. Constrast what happened to Quentyn Martell, who was killed by one puff from little Rhaegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gwynhyfvar Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 ActuallyDaenerys' dragons did prefer cooked meat, at least when they were younger, but Drogon ate, or at least, bit off, uncooked meat in the fighting pit.Aegon II was burned but not killed in a three-way battle between some of the biggest and hottest dragons alive. He survived being in the middle of it while onlookers some distance away were killed by the fire. How could he live while they died if he does not have some resistance to heat that they lack? Rhaenys died in that same battle but it is not made clear whether she was burned after she died (as we know that dead Targaryens are cremated) or if the fire of two dragons she was fighting (one being Vhagar) was enough to overcome her resistance.Baela was burned, but not killed, in a battle with Sunfyre, one of the largest dragons alive. Constrast what happened to Quentyn Martell, who was killed by one puff from little Rhaegal.Gold medal!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Ah, the selective boar-shaped flames again. Or is it biting=feeding, absolutely and always? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Okay, I have read it. Here we go:No surprise here -- the Princess and the Queen supports the "So Spake Martin" that says that Targaryens have greater than normal resistance to heat. One of them survives dragon fire that kills people who are further away (he is injured because his armor melts into his skin, but he survives while the people who are further away die).And there is no confirmation either way on whether Rhaenyra was burned before she was eaten.... Yeah you must not have read it very closely, because that does happen and it's explicit.Multiple Targaryens get scorched in the novella. Like at this point I have to think that anyone clinging to the fireproof bullshit is a troll or not paying any attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruby Chevrolet Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 ... Yeah you must not have read it very closely, because that does happen and it's explicit.Multiple Targaryens get scorched in the novella. Like at this point I have to think that anyone clinging to the fireproof bullshit is a troll or not paying any attention.It absolutely does not happen.The Princess and the Queen does confirm what I have always said --Targaryens aren't completely fireproof. So I don't know why you talk about people clinging to some "fireproof" theory. But it also provides substantial support for the proposition that Targaryens have a heightened resistance to heat. How else could Aegon II survive being in the middle of a three-way dragon battle that killed lesser mortals who were standing farther away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khal Pod Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 I'm sure this has probably been mentioned many times but why do the Kingsguard need to protect the ToJ from Ned? I know baby Aegon and Rhenys were murdered but do they believe that Ned would kill his sister's son even if he is the heir to Ned's enemy? I for one am a believer of R+L=J but this has always bugged me. Even if they have orders from Rhaegar, what could those orders be to make them feel the need to fight Ned, Lyanna's brother who is there to rescue her, and IMO is one of the very few people that Lyanna and the next heir would be safe with. And if she loved Rhaegar and went with him willingly, why wouldn't one of the Kingsguard use this opportunity to tell that to Ned. Maybe the fight isn't about protecting the ToJ but instead just killing a rebel/enemy, staying true to the end. Just wanted to know if anyone had any thoughts on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.