The Blackfyre

[Suzanna Stormborn]

^^ You think?

Idk it makes a ton of sense to me and many others. I think it uses the hints we've been given to come to a rational conclusion (and the hints are plentiful).

[Lost Melnibonean]

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.

Those are some awfully big words you used there. But it sounds nice. So, I guess we are respectfully agreeing to disagree. :)

[Lost Melnibonean]

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.

I saw somebody write something ballistic in one of the illemonati threads the other day, and some folks go absolute bonkers at AJT. I have a sneaky suspicion that these folks are the direct descendants of Crusaders, Spanish Inquisitors, Salem witch prosecutors, Eugene McCarthy, etc.

[Lost Melnibonean]

(F) Aegon is a Bittersteel Blackfyre Brightflame.

You forgot Bloodstar. ;)

[Lost Melnibonean]

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.

I am sure your dog will appreciate it after you've eaten your hat.

[Lost Melnibonean]

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

Isn't Veltigar a gal?

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I am sure your dog will appreciate it after you've eaten your hat.

LOLLLZZZZZZZ!!! so perceptive :blushing:

Isn't Veltigar a gal?

I always thought Veltigar was male, pretty sure he said once "I'm not a betting man, but...." to me.

[LmL]

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.

This is a reasonably-skeptical point of view. I have no problem with this, and I wish more of the ASOIAF "skeptics" would take this approach. It's totally valid for some people to have a higher burden of proof to consider something a reasonable theory, and I don't mind skeptical people in general - life needs variety and balance. Someone has to scrutinize the logistics of the stuff the dreamers come up with, it's all part of a balance. :cheers:

[LmL]

I saw somebody write something ballistic in one of the illemonati threads the other day, and some folks go absolute bonkers at AJT. I have a sneaky suspicion that these folks are the direct descendants of Crusaders, Spanish Inquisitors, Salem witch prosecutors, Eugene McCarthy, etc.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :agree:

[Ser Eric]

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.

I'm not sure what you are are talking about. I wasn't one one to say people saying so and so makes me want to cry or scream. That was you!

Bad theories don't bother me. I'll just keep on picking holes in them as and when I see fit.

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.

The point I'm making is fairly obvious. Not everything has to have a point in the series. Not everything has to be resolved. Not every slight detail is foreshadowing or turn out to be important. Aerion's plot will never be resolved in the actual books despite being mentioned because it holds very little relevance. I suspect Illyrio saying "The Male line of Blackfres being finished" is going to be similar. People will hang on to the fact he said male line but the likelihood is that that Blackfyres are finished.

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.

Brightfyre theory is a load of bollocks. There's zero chance of it ever happening.

I probably shouldn't even call the GNC a theory. It's a bunch of people rambling on about nothing in particular.

[Ser Eric]

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.

Bingo.

[Lost Melnibonean]

I'm not sure what you are are talking about. I wasn't one one to say people saying so and so makes me want to cry or scream. That was you!

Bad theories don't bother me. I'll just keep on picking holes in them as and when I see fit.

The point I'm making is fairly obvious. Not everything has to have a point in the series. Not everything has to be resolved. Not every slight detail is foreshadowing or turn out to be important. Aerion's plot will never be resolved in the actual books despite being mentioned because it holds very little relevance. I suspect Illyrio saying "The Male line of Blackfres being finished" is going to be similar. People will hang on to the fact he said male line but the likelihood is that that Blackfyres are finished.

Brightfyre theory is a load of bollocks. There's zero chance of it ever happening.

I probably shouldn't even call the GNC a theory. It's a bunch of people rambling on about nothing in particular.

I'm curious? Why do you bother?

[Ser Eric]

I'm curious? Why do you bother?

Bother with that what?

I mean, seriously, if you don't want people picking holes in your theories then don't post them. There are not a lot of theories that interest me. This is one of them that does interest me (Aegon is one of my favourite characters) which is why I happen to post a lot on these threads.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

^^ Its not really Lost Melniboneans theory, it's been widely circulated for years, he just did an excellent job of recapping the whole thing in this thread. And pretty much every single long time poster agrees with it, certainly every poster I respect on here understands the foreshadowing of the part the Blackfyres will play in the next DoD.

[LmL]

I'm not sure what you are are talking about. I wasn't one one to say people saying so and so makes me want to cry or scream. That was you!

Bad theories don't bother me. I'll just keep on picking holes in them as and when I see fit.

I was directly responding to when you said:

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.

That indicates you are annoyed when people look for symbolism in places where you don't see any. I am annoyed when people like you assert that this or that thing definitely does not mean anything hidden. You can't know that, as I have said, so it's a totally baseless assertion every time someone makes it.

You can say "I don't think that means anything hidden," but even then, you're being close-minded. You really have no idea. Frequently, the hidden meaning doesn't pop out until you read the passage with a certain idea in mind that you discovered elsewhere in the books.

For example, when Jon's sword burns red in his dream in ADWD, he murferes his love, Ygritte, just like Azor Ahai did - so we are dealing with some kind of Azor Ahai symbol here, clearly - but then he also murders his sibling, the rightful ruler, and declares himself the Lord of Winterfell, an usurpation. This doesn't mean anything until we read TWOAIF, where find the usurper of the Great Empire of the Dawn named the Bloodstone Emepror who murdered his sibling, the rightful ruler, and usurped. I have determined, through exhaustive research, that this Bloodstone Emperor guy is actually just another name for Azor Ahai - and once you have that idea in your mind, you read back over Jon's Azor Ahai dream and see that he is actually playing the roles of Azor Ahai and Bloodstone Emperor at the same time - a confirmation that these two were in fact the same guy.

But until we read TWOAIF, there's no way we could understand the symbolism there.

So when people go around with the default opinion that most things don't have double meanings, I just feel like they are really missing a large part of the books. I think the only open-minded way to read these books is to consider every single line as having the potential for a second meaning.

[In A Coat of Gold]

I think it's more of a problem when some of you posters assign meaning to things and are unwilling to allow it to mean anything other than what you want.

[LmL]

Taking this thread down a different hole, Lost Melnibonean, I know you've read at least some of my astronomy theories. Have you read anything I have said about black fire? Stepping away form the Blackfyre line itself, the concept of black fire is something George has been developing since long before he wrote ASOIAF. Read the Lonely Songs of Laren Dorr and you will be blown away.

In ASOIAF proper, black fire represents the opposite of pale fire. The Gemstone Emperors have swords of pale fire, while I believe Azor Ahai's lightbringer was actually a match for Drogon's flame:

“Aegon’s dragons were named for the gods of Old Valyria,” she told her bloodriders one morning after a long night’s journey. “Visenya’s dragon was Vhagar, Rhaenys had Meraxes, and Aegon rode Balerion, the Black Dread. It was said that Vhagar’s breath was so hot that it could melt a knight’s armor and cook the man inside, that Meraxes swallowed horses whole, and Balerion … his fire was as black as his scales, his wings so vast that whole towns were swallowed up in their shadow when he passed overhead.”

The Dothraki looked at her hatchlings uneasily. The largest of her three was shiny black, his scales slashed with streaks of vivid scarlet to match his wings and horns. “Khaleesi,” Aggo murmured, “there sits Balerion, come again.”

“It may be as you say, blood of my blood,” Dany replied gravely, “but he shall have a new name for this new life. I would name them all for those the gods have taken. The green one shall be Rhaegal, for my valiant brother who died on the green banks of the Trident. The cream- and- gold I call Viserion. Viserys was cruel and weak and frightened, yet he was my brother still. His dragon will do what he could not.”

“And the black beast?” asked Ser Jorah Mormont.

“The black,” she said, “is Drogon.”

ACOK, DAENERYS

“I say, you are mad.”

“Am I?” Dany shrugged, and said, “ Dracarys. ” The dragons answered. Rhaegal hissed and smoked, Viserion snapped, and Drogon spat swirling red- black flame. It touched the drape of Grazdan’s tokar, and the silk caught in half a heartbeat. (ASOS, Daenerys)

Dawn is an icy sword of pale luminescence, and I think Lightbringer was a sword of dark flame. Ice that shines (Others are pale shadows) and fire that is black (Mel's shadow babies are dark shadows) seems to be the deal here. It kind of goes with everything about Asshai and everything we have seen about fire magic - it's a lot more shadow than light.

[draevan13]

I think it's more of a problem when some of you posters assign meaning to things and are unwilling to allow it to mean anything other than what you want.

I've only been on this forum a few weeks and I've sadly seen this repeatedly. Then again, that's more an internet thing in general than AFOIAF specifically.

[LmL]

I think it's more of a problem when some of you posters assign meaning to things and are unwilling to allow it to mean anything other than what you want.

That's certainly a problem too, and just as close-minded as the opposite.

[Ser Eric]

I am annoyed when people like you assert that this or that thing definitely does not mean anything hidden. You can't know that, as I have said, so it's a totally baseless assertion every time someone makes it.

You can say "I don't think that means anything hidden," but even then, you're being close-minded. You really have no idea. Frequently, the hidden meaning doesn't pop out until you read the passage with a certain idea in mind that you discovered elsewhere in the books.

The only one being definite is yourself, not me. My position has been fairly open minded. Not everything has to have a hidden meaning. Indeed, most of things in this series will have no hidden meanings. Which is why the suggestion that because the Golden Company has been mentioned Aegon must be a Blackfyre is baseless.

Could he be a Blackfyre? Sure, he could be. He could also be a faceless man from Bravos. He could also be Jon's twin brother. But there is no evidence for any of it and I say that despite liking the twin brother theory.