The Blackfyre

[LmL]

But returning the idea of evidence, I still say that what we have here is a disagreement about interpretation of evidence, which is not the same as saying there is no evidence. There is no PROOF, certainly, and I wouldn't say there's the level of high probability of RLJ or my comet theory *chuckles to self*

But clearly, there are a lot of different pieces of evidence which can rotationally be interpreted as evidence for Blackfyre heritage of fAegon. And I do think the question raised of "then why all this about the Blackfyres?" is a valid question. It's basically saying that the Blackfyres are a Chekov's gun, don't they have to go off somehow?

I do think the idea of a pisswater prince is interesting, and the idea of one becoming a good ruler, even King of Westeros (without any real Targ blood) has a certain ironic appeal.

[draevan13]

These theories are sometimes like being in a dark forest at night. You see a shadowy, blurry, distant thing. You say with absolute certainty "That's a person!" The guy next to you says "It might just be a shrub, you know, part of the forest..." and then the other guys says "No! What a cop-out, clearly it's a person!"

Well... I didn't say it's not a person... only that it might be something else. Maybe it's something neither considered! Bleh. Point it, it's a theory, speculation. I just point out that it might sometimes be something simple. In this case, backstory. In the case of the Jeyne Westering pregnant+impersonated case, GRRM slipping up and making a mistake in a physical description.

Who knows, we'll see in TWOW if all the threads connect or not.

[Lost Melnibonean]

I'm not dismissing anything. Given what GRRM's given us before, I wouldn't be surprised if it was all connected.

I'm merely suggesting an alternative to the theory, I'm not saying it's false.

That's readonable. Some sunsets and sunrises are not allusions to grand Tyrell conspiracies. But the Golden Company is not world building. It's too closely associated with the the Blackfyre, and the Blackfyre is set up for a return.

[Lost Melnibonean]

He doesn't even want to set sail from Volantis. He keeps thinking up every excuse to not go until Aegon steps up.

And when Aegon stepped up he swore his sword, and now he's following the lead of Aegon's Hand.

[Lost Melnibonean]

These theories are sometimes like being in a dark forest at night. You see a shadowy, blurry, distant thing. You say with absolute certainty "That's a person!" The guy next to you says "It might just be a shrub, you know, part of the forest..." and then the other guys says "No! What a cop-out, clearly it's a person!"

Well... I didn't say it's not a person... only that it might be something else. Maybe it's something neither considered! Bleh. Point it, it's a theory, speculation. I just point out that it might sometimes be something simple. In this case, backstory. In the case of the Jeyne Westering pregnant+impersonated case, GRRM slipping up and making a mistake in a physical description.

Who knows, we'll see in TWOW if all the threads connect or not.

When I was in the 10th Mountain, we were aggressing against some SFs. I swore I saw some trees moving, but no, it couldn't be, so I kept moving. Sure enough, they ambushed my buddy (who later went on to become SF). So, I always pay attention when the trees look like they're moving.

[LmL]

When I was in the 10th Mountain, we were aggressing against some SFs. I swore I saw some trees moving, but no, it couldn't be, so I kept moving. Sure enough, they ambushed my buddy (who later went on to become SF). So, I always pay attention when the trees look like they're moving.

Huh what now? Are you taking about war? Like real war? SF's?

[Ser Eric]

I thought you said they were a sellsword company with mostly Essosi and other backgrounds, several generations removed from Westeros. Why would they have a burning desire to return "home" to Westeros?

I don't think I ever said that. That was someone else in the thread (Greg I think).

I just object to people using some variation of the phrase "it's just world building" as a way of dismissing something's importance. I feel like anyone who has taken a lot of time to study Martin's writing knows that he hides symbolic clues which are extremely relevant in the most meaningless-sounding descriptions (and many more meaningful descriptions). TWOIAF is literally crammed with symbolic clues to mysteries in the main series - I know because I have talked time to study it, as have others. People who dismiss it is fluff, "just world building," or a coffee table book, etc. are doing it a real disservice and it makes me either want to cry or scream.

I also think there's a level of ridiculous assumption when someone points to anything in the series (say, Cracklaw Point expedition for example) and say it doesn't mean more than it appears. Way too many things have double meanings in this series - absolutely ANYTHING could have a double meaning, and unless you've studied something really hard, you really have no fucking clue if it might mean something hidden, you know? Even if you've read a passage 10 times - unless you have a certain idea in mind, you may not get the symbolism or double meaning.

It makes me angry, but really, more than anything, it makes me sad when people sell Martin short because of their own very uncreative assumptions.

Actually, the assumption that absolutely everything George writes (or does not write in some cases) has to be some sort of clue or foreshadowing or has to be important is even more tiresome. People speculated for a long time that George not mentioning the Ned's mother in the series was a sign that she was hugely important or she was from Skagos and that George wouldn't omit such a detail if it wasn't important in someway. I wonder how that turned out... Then there's the Brightflame theory. People insisting that because Aeron was mentioned a couple of times, Aegon must be a descendant of him. Or the Brightfyre theory which combines the crackpottery of the previous two and takes it to new levels. The GNC is another example of complete gibberish disguised as a theory. By the time the series is done 90% of the theories knocking around will turn out be false for simple reason that not everything George writes has to have a point or hidden purpose.

Sometimes, things are exactly as they seem to be. Not everyone is lying and not every word or smile is part of a larger conspiracy.

Regardless,

1. The conclusion that Aegon is a Blackfyre because Blackfyres have been mentioned a few times here and there is beyond ridiculous.

2. The conclusion that because the GC is supporting Aegon, he must be a Blackfyre is logically flawed for various reasons already mentioned. It's a circular argument.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Huh what now? Are you taking about war? Like real war? SF's?

That was just training :) But, I'm telling you... when those bushes look like they're moving, you'll be wanting to get down real low.

[Lost Melnibonean]

I don't think I ever said that. That was someone else in the thread (Greg I think).

Actually, the assumption that absolutely everything George writes (or does not write in some cases) has to be some sort of clue or foreshadowing or has to be important is even more tiresome. People speculated for a long time that George not mentioning the Ned's mother in the series was a sign that she was hugely important or she was from Skagos and that George wouldn't omit such a detail if it wasn't important in someway. I wonder how that turned out... Then there's the Brightflame theory. People insisting that because Aeron was mentioned a couple of times, Aegon must be a descendant of him. Or the Brightfyre theory which combines the crackpottery of the previous two and takes it to new levels. The GNC is another example of complete gibberish disguised as a theory. By the time the series is done 90% of the theories knocking around will turn out be false for simple reason that not everything George writes has to have a point or hidden purpose.

Sometimes, things are exactly as they seem to be. Not everyone is lying and not every word or smile is part of a larger conspiracy.

Regardless,

1. The conclusion that Aegon is a Blackfyre because Blackfyres have been mentioned a few times here and there is beyond ridiculous.

2. The conclusion that because the GC is supporting Aegon, he must be a Blackfyre is logically flawed for various reasons already mentioned. It's a circular argument.

Just because some readers guessed incorrectly about Eddard having Skagosi blood doesn't mean Skagos isn't important to the plot. Rickon is there and yhose headhunting cannibals were mentioned for a reason. By contrast Ned mum was never mentioned at all so assigning any importance to her was purely speculative but not ridiculous. Aerion though was the primary antagonist in The Hedge Knight. He had a son, who stood first in line to inherit the throne but got passed over. That needs to be resolved. It might not prove the Brightfyre theory tough. It could be resolved in a future Dunk and Egg story.

[Greg B]

I don't think I ever said that. That was someone else in the thread (Greg I think).

To be clear, several -- not all -- of the officers are from Westeros and indicate a desire to return, whether to acquire some lands and a big castle or kill some Fossoways or whatever. However, there is no suggestion than anyone but Harry Strickland has any connection to the Blackfyre Rebellions. And even Strickland is characterized as entirely unmotivated by it (at least from JC's POV). Strickland is shown to be willing, however grudgingly, to honor the agreement between his predecessor and Illyrio as long as he can do so with acceptable risk.

To summarize: Several of the apparently influential officers want to return to Westeros, but there's no indication that this has anything to do with the GC's original raison d'etre. That doesn't rule out the possibility that they all secretly know Aegon is a Blackfyre and are highly motivated to put him on the Iron Throne, as LM suggests, but the case is entirely speculative.

[In A Coat of Gold]

And when Aegon stepped up he swore his sword, and now he's following the lead of Aegon's Hand.

After the rest of the commanders have already done so. The GC elects their leaders. If Strickland doesn't go along with it, they'll vote him out. Remember, many of those guys that swore to Aegon have little to no connection to the original purpose of the Blackfyre Rebellions. They are sellswords.

[Lost Melnibonean]

To be clear, several -- not all -- of the officers are from Westeros and indicate a desire to return, whether to acquire some lands and a big castle or kill some Fossoways or whatever. However, there is no suggestion than anyone but Harry Strickland has any connection to the Blackfyre Rebellions. And even Strickland is characterized as entirely unmotivated by it (at least from JC's POV). Strickland is shown to be willing, however grudgingly, to honor the agreement between his predecessor and Illyrio as long as he can do so with acceptable risk.

To summarize: Several of the apparently influential officers want to return to Westeros, but there's no indication that this has anything to do with the GC's original raison d'etre. That doesn't rule out the possibility that they all secretly know Aegon is a Blackfyre and are highly motivated to put him on the Iron Throne, as LM suggests, but the case is entirely speculative.

I'll concede everything accept the characterization of the theory as speculative. I think it's well founded. It may be wrong--in which case I will pay you Fat Walda's weight in silver stags, or as many gold dragons as Sandor can fit in his pockets--and you're not "ridiculous" or some of the other insulting terms that have been tossed about here for doubting it. For every conclusion I've stated, I believe I have cited tectusl support and explained how I drew my inferences. You've been very reasonable too. You've thrown strong challenges and forced me to defend the theory. That's a good thing.

[Lost Melnibonean]

After the rest of the commanders have already done so. The GC elects their leaders. If Strickland doesn't go along with it, they'll vote him out. Remember, many of those guys that swore to Aegon have little to no connection to the original purpose of the Blackfyre Rebellions. They are sellswords.

I know he could be deposed Daario style, but I don't recall any instance of a lord commander of any organization getting voted out.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

If you want to believe writing lore and backstory is "meaningless", go right ahead. GRRM wrote an entire novel of nothing but lore and backstory for the World of Ice and Fire. Clearly, he does do what you call "meaningless fluff".

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong about the GC. I'm saying not every detail is proof of something bigger.

That's why I said that the series doesnt have world building (as in the 5 main books). I agree the companion book, WOIAF does have some, but like Lucifer MLB said, there is still a ton of important relevant stuff in there as well. But I really disagree with your original statement that the GC backstory is merely world building.

I just object to people using some variation of the phrase "it's just world building" as a way of dismissing something's importance. I feel like anyone who has taken a lot of time to study Martin's writing knows that he hides symbolic clues which are extremely relevant in the most meaningless-sounding descriptions (and many more meaningful descriptions). TWOIAF is literally crammed with symbolic clues to mysteries in the main series - I know because I have talked time to study it, as have others. People who dismiss it is fluff, "just world building," or a coffee table book, etc. are doing it a real disservice and it makes me either want to cry or scream.

I also think there's a level of ridiculous assumption when someone points to anything in the series (say, Cracklaw Point expedition for example) and say it doesn't mean more than it appears. Way too many things have double meanings in this series - absolutely ANYTHING could have a double meaning, and unless you've studied something really hard, you really have no fucking clue if it might mean something hidden, you know? Even if you've read a passage 10 times - unless you have a certain idea in mind, you may not get the symbolism or double meaning.

It makes me angry, but really, more than anything, it makes me sad when people sell Martin short because of their own very uncreative assumptions.

yes me as well.

[draevan13]

But I really disagree with your original statement that the GC backstory is merely world building.

As I said to Lucifer, I'm not saying the GC backstory is definitely world building, but that it might be world building. I'm not arguing either for or against, only presenting alternatives.

[Greg B]

I'll concede everything accept the characterization of the theory as speculative. I think it's well founded. It may be wrong--in which case I will pay you Fat Walda's weight in silver stags, or as many gold dragons as Sandor can fit in his pockets--and you're not "ridiculous" or some of the other insulting terms that have been tossed about here for doubting it. For every conclusion I've stated, I believe I have cited tectusl support and explained how I drew my inferences. You've been very reasonable too. You've thrown strong challenges and forced me to defend the theory. That's a good thing.

Well, I was just stating that your specific claim that the GC knows Aegon is a Blackfyre and wants to put him on the Iron Throne is speculative. As for the theory as a whole, I think it's largely based on literary interpretation -- symbolism, allusion, the author's intent in providing certain setting details, etc. I think this kind of interpretation can be very rewarding, enriching the reader's experience of the text. I'm of that hermeneutic school that believes reading literature can be a creative act, just as writing is.

But by the same token, I believe it's an extremely unreliable method of predicting what an author will do in a sequel. There's no way to distinguish what you are bringing to the text from what the author thinks he's put there. So I do think it's inescapably speculative, but it's very well-reasoned speculation and I think there's a non-trivial chance that you're right.

[LmL]

I don't think I ever said that. That was someone else in the thread (Greg I think).

Actually, the assumption that absolutely everything George writes (or does not write in some cases) has to be some sort of clue or foreshadowing or has to be important is even more tiresome. People speculated for a long time that George not mentioning the Ned's mother in the series was a sign that she was hugely important or she was from Skagos and that George wouldn't omit such a detail if it wasn't important in someway. I wonder how that turned out... Then there's the Brightflame theory. People insisting that because Aeron was mentioned a couple of times, Aegon must be a descendant of him. Or the Brightfyre theory which combines the crackpottery of the previous two and takes it to new levels. The GNC is another example of complete gibberish disguised as a theory. By the time the series is done 90% of the theories knocking around will turn out be false for simple reason that not everything George writes has to have a point or hidden purpose.

Sometimes, things are exactly as they seem to be. Not everyone is lying and not every word or smile is part of a larger conspiracy.

Regardless,

1. The conclusion that Aegon is a Blackfyre because Blackfyres have been mentioned a few times here and there is beyond ridiculous.

2. The conclusion that because the GC is supporting Aegon, he must be a Blackfyre is logically flawed for various reasons already mentioned. It's a circular argument.

I have no idea why other people's theories would bother you - that's a really strange attitude. Seems a bit gloomy. Maybe you should learn how to not be annoyed quite so easily? Or maybe just how to not read things you don't like?

Right now, somewhere in the world, a bad theory is being written. Is it hurting anyone? No. it is not.

Sounds like you label everything "ridiculous" which you don't agree with.

At least someone looking for double meanings everywhere has an open mind - they're looking for things they don't see yet. On the other hand, someone who tends to assume things don't have a double meaning are being close-minded to anything they don't see yet. I'd rather be in the first camp than the latter.

Nobody is concluding that fAegon IS DEFINITELY a Blackfyre. There is however plenty to suggest that he is - it's not a case of chasing shadows. If he's not intended to be a Blackfyre, then it's likely a case of George laying a potential false trail to keep us guessing - this is not like the Neds mother thing. That was simply a gap that people filled in a bunch of things. This is not.

[LordImp]

(F) Aegon is a Bittersteel Blackfyre Brightflame.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I don't think I ever said that. That was someone else in the thread (Greg I think).

Actually, the assumption that absolutely everything George writes (or does not write in some cases) has to be some sort of clue or foreshadowing or has to be important is even more tiresome. People speculated for a long time that George not mentioning the Ned's mother in the series was a sign that she was hugely important or she was from Skagos and that George wouldn't omit such a detail if it wasn't important in someway. I wonder how that turned out... Then there's the Brightflame theory. People insisting that because Aeron was mentioned a couple of times, Aegon must be a descendant of him. Or the Brightfyre theory which combines the crackpottery of the previous two and takes it to new levels. The GNC is another example of complete gibberish disguised as a theory. By the time the series is done 90% of the theories knocking around will turn out be false for simple reason that not everything George writes has to have a point or hidden purpose.

Sometimes, things are exactly as they seem to be. Not everyone is lying and not every word or smile is part of a larger conspiracy.

Regardless,

1. The conclusion that Aegon is a Blackfyre because Blackfyres have been mentioned a few times here and there is beyond ridiculous.

2. The conclusion that because the GC is supporting Aegon, he must be a Blackfyre is logically flawed for various reasons already mentioned. It's a circular argument.

Ok, I think you may regret all these statements down the line, The Brightfyre theory is one the smartest theories on this entire forum. If it doesnt turn out to be true I'll eat my hat. And the GNC is another one that is most likely accurate as well, you picked some pretty solid ideas to rip apart. Now if you had faulted Euron = Daario or HOwland Reed is the High Septon or Illemonati or Mance is Rhaegar or Ashara Dayne is fAegons mother or any number of the other totally ridiculous theories to criticize, then most would agree. But the theories you are calling gibberish are actually highly intelligent.

And I am sure that Ned's mother being half a Flint will end up of some vital importance, I mean we only just found that out when WOIAF was published, we have no idea how it will affect the next two books.

[In A Coat of Gold]

Ok, I think you may regret all these statements down the line, The Brightfyre theory is one the smartest theories on this entire forum. If it doesnt turn out to be true I'll eat my hat. And the GNC is another one that is most likely accurate as well, you picked some pretty solid ideas to rip apart. Now if you had faulted Euron = Daario or HOwland Reed is the High Septon or Illemonati or Mance is Rhaegar or Ashara Dayne is fAegons mother or any number of the other totally ridiculous theories to criticize, then most would agree. But the theories you are calling gibberish are actually highly intelligent.

And I am sure that Ned's mother being half a Flint will end up of some vital importance, I mean we only just found that out when WOIAF was published, we have no idea how it will affect the next two books.

The Brightfyre theory is literally just a guy reaching for anything and everything. It's beyond convoluted.