Jump to content

The Blackfyre


Lost Melnibonean

Recommended Posts

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that my argument that he is a Blackfyre is negative toward him?

My post was in no way directed towards you. It was just information we have from the books regarding our "dragons".

Aegon is in a much better position regardless if he is a Blackfyre or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you say Aegon is the same age as Rhaegar's son? Is is because the Appendix to Dance says Young Griff is 18? That's not even worth half a groat. The Appendix also says Rhaegar's son was killed in the Sack of King's Landing. So if the latter is false, how can you put any stock in the former? Tyrion put his age at 15 or 16 "or near enough to make no matter," so Aegon is likelyyounger than 18. I suppose you put stock into Tyrion saying Jon was 12, when Jon was 14? I don't. First, The George may have been setting the reader up for this future scene. Second, Tyrion was guessing his age. Consider the context. Tyrion wasn't guessing; he was trying to take Jon down a peg. He succeeded too, and then felt bad for it. They ended up being friends. Third, if you disagree and think Tyrion was guessing, he should get a pass here since his nephew Joffrey, who was 12, was taller than Jon, and he no doubt saw Robb and Jon as peers (not socially of course, but agewise). And finally, he may have known how old Robb was and assumed that Jon was his younger brother.

The Appendix also says that Jon is Bran's half brother. Notice how ages are very rarely given in the Appendix. Young Griff's is as is Alayne Stone's, both in disguise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP presents many connections between fAegon and the Blackfyres that have nothing to do with the GC. If you're going to read the OP, containing these examples, and then demand examples of connections between fAegon and the Blackfyres, you don't really have any credibility, or you just didn't read it very carefully.

You can't name a single one, and thaqt proves my point. I've read Dance dozens of times. All I'm asking for are clues that Aegon maybe a Blackfyre pretender that don't involve the Golden Company. How hard is that?

Your insistence that the GC is just another sell sword company is directly contradicted by the fact they decided to follow fAegon to invade Westeros. Yes, they've been a normal sell sword company is company since then (although they are the best and have never broken a contract), but suddenly they break a contract (unprecedented) and follow fAegon for reason NOT having to do with gold. Many will surely die. It's a risky move. Theres more at work than a common sell sword army. They make this very point while discussing their options - they can sit around taking money for doing basically nothing, or follow fAegon to Westeros, which is difficult and risky.

They broke the contract because they had been contracted to back Aegon since Myles Toyne brokered the deal.

And Homeless Harry doesn't even want to go. He'd prefer to go with the Yunish. They are expecting Dany and her Dragons and all of Dorne as support...and even when they know she isn't coming they debate on how to get to herr. Dany and home vs more of the same. Castles. Land. and a weakened Westeros.

Again, when you call something "wordlbuilding," what do you mean by that? You seem to imply that if something is wordlbuilding, it's just basically meaningless descriptions of the drapes or something there to enhance the color of a scene. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be using "wordlbuilding" as a dismissal of something ending important. If this is so, I would say you understand very little about wordlbuilding, specifically in ASOAIF.

What about Nimble Dick's tales of Crackclaw Point? George spent way more time than possibly needed on this, but what purpose does that serve? World building. Interesting stuff, no doubt, but not particularly important to the story. The mentions are all in passing. Not a single one references Aegon. Even when Tyrion asks Ilyrio about them, it's more about the Golden Company. They are the only link between Aegon and the Blackfyres...and the Blackfyres are extinguished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dany - targ

Aegon - blackfyre

Varys -either of the above trying to reunite the dragons.

Varys is likely a Targ descended from Aerion "Brightflame" but he may or may not care about red dragons vs black dragons or putting the two back together. It's hard to tell what exactly he wants to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Varys is likely a Targ descended from Aerion "Brightflame" but he may or may not care about red dragons vs black dragons or putting the two back together. It's hard to tell what exactly he wants to happen.

And the ultimate twist is that not even varys knows that Jon is the rightful heir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong about the Crackclaw Point world building, as you are about all the world building. It's all important, every bit. What you really mean to say is that you don't understand what Martin is doing with that particular bit of worldbuilding. You not understanding something doesn't mean its imaginary or irrelevant.

To be clear, your position is that Martin is wasting our time jerking himself off with flowery language and stupid folk stories. My position is that everything Martin writes should be carefully examined. I feel pretty solid with my view of the book. Your view undersells Martin and makes unprovable assumptions.

As for evidence that Aegon is a Blackfyre that does not involve the GC, it's in the OP. It's not my fault if your reading comprehension isn't up to snuff. Go back and re-read it, and then take a look at the other Blackfyre theories. I don't have time to waste explaining something to someone when it's in the OP of the thread we are commenting on. Just go back and read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong about the Crackclaw Point world building, as you are about all the world building. It's all important, every bit. What you really mean to say is that you don't understand what Martin is doing with that particular bit of worldbuilding. You not understanding something doesn't mean its imaginary or irrelevant.

How is it relevant? You debate like a child. What about Crackclaw Point has any importance on this story?

To be clear, your position is that Martin is wasting our time jerking himself off with flowery language and stupid folk stories. My position is that everything Martin writes should be carefully examined. I feel pretty solid with my view of the book. Your view undersells Martin and makes unprovable assumptions.

No. World building is used to immerse the reader in the story. The Crackclaw Point story does that very well, as does all of Brienne's travelogues.

As for evidence that Aegon is a Blackfyre that does not involve the GC, it's in the OP. It's not my fault if your reading comprehension isn't up to snuff. Go back and re-read it, and then take a look at the other Blackfyre theories. I don't have time to waste explaining something to someone when it's in the OP of the thread we are commenting on. Just go back and read it.

No, the OP doesn't do that. The OP just lays out all the mentions of the Blackfyre Rebellions and jumps through hoops and fails to link them to Aegon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little finger knows. He wants the throne and he is obsessed about the Starks

He certainly could know, but he doesn't want the throne for himself. He wants to be the power behind it. The man who sits on the throne is bound by social etiquette that LF can skirt as long as he's not physically occupying the chair. He wants to be head puppetmaster of Westeros.

Not obsessed with the Starks so much as Cat/Sansa. If he was more obsessed with the Starks he'd have to understand the threat of the Others, based on the family's history. No doubt LF has access to all kinds of info that most of Westeros doesn't. The question is, has he bothered to read what really matters? My guess is no, because he's too concerned with temporal power to think of threats that can't be defeated with money (I could see him trying to buy off the Others, that would be funny).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In A Coat of Gold, I could tell you which "world building" elements about the Crackclaw expedition are relevant to the main story, but if you've already made up your mind that none of it is relevant, then what's the point? If you'd really like to know, and have an open mind, I will be happy to take the time to explain what I am seeing there.

Again, I say that on principle, you cannot point to any given world building element and say that it doesn't have a double meaning or some relevance to a main plot line. You simply can't, for the same reasons you cannot prove God doesn't exist - you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove the non-existence of of a deeper meaning, in this case. For you to go around asserting that this or that does not have relevance beyond building atmosphere is therefore tantamount to making baseless and unproveable assertions. And the end result is that you are attempting to disprove other people's theories with these baseless assertions. Say that you don't think something is more than background color, ok, but there's always a possibility that you simply haven't deciphered the right clue or applied the given folktale to the right mystery. If you've been paying close attention to Martin, and you have read the series many times, so that's you, then you should know that Martin loves to hide foreshadowing and clues to puzzles in the background color of a given scene. If I'm getting pissy here, it's because you're being close minded to the level of craftiness which I believe Martin has employed with his "worldbuilding."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Appendix also says that Jon is Bran's half brother. Notice how ages are very rarely given in the Appendix. Young Griff's is as is Alayne Stone's, both in disguise.

OK, wait a minute... I thought you were saying Aegon was likely to be Rhaegar's son because it would have been too cooincidental to find or make a look alike exactly the right age, but now you're saying he's not exactly the right age?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of a tangent for the benefit of those people who learn their formal logic from "how to win a debate on the internet" guides for libertarians or creationists...

Yes, you can "prove a negative", a.k.a. disprove a hypothesis. Very easily. Chiefly, but not only, by proving a "positive", lol, that contradicts it.

There are no invisible methane-breathing dwarves in my closet. Why? Because the composition of the atmosphere in my closet does not support the existence of such creatures.

That works with God too. If God is defined as an entity that answers prayers, the effectiveness of prayer can be tested. If God created man from mud 6000 years ago, that can be tested too.

Religious people try to avoid this by positing "God" as an undefined hypothesis, with no properties and no detectable action at all. That such a hypothesis can not be disproved does not help their case one bit because it is neaningless and any such entity does not exist by definition - or more exactly by the lack of one. It's like saying "you can't prove The Sbahjizkir does not exist". Well, no. I can't and I don't have to. It's a menaingless word until you give it a proper definition, at which point its existence can (at least potentially) be disproven.

Thank you for your time, back to the regularly scheduled nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, fair point, perhaps I pulled a poor example. I'm definitely not a libertarian or creationist ;).

In this specific case however, I am correct that you cannot prove any given passage in ASOIAF doesn't have a second meaning. Therefore, for people to go around asserting that they know that a given passage is just colorful worldbuilding and not directly relevant to the main plot is pure hot air and windbaggery. When used to shut down other people's ideas, it's borderline rude, not to mention incredibly close-minded and hubristic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the ultimate twist is that not even varys knows that Jon is the rightful heir

Woah there. We don't know that. Firstly we don't know he is Rhaegar's son, we could be wrong. But you're also assuming Rhaegar and Lyanna got married, and so far we don't know that. If Aegon is a legit Targ, than he comes before Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woah there. We don't know that. Firstly we don't know he is Rhaegar's son, we could be wrong. But you're also assuming Rhaegar and Lyanna got married, and so far we don't know that. If Aegon is a legit Targ, than he comes before Jon.

Right but fAegon is not a legit Targ, he is (for all purposes) the last Blackfyre, which is what this thread is about.

And I dont get how people can say "We don't know Jon is Rhaegar's son."

Um, I do know it, for a fact 100%, I know it. If others don't know it, then they are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...