GRRM talks about what it means title Ice and Fire

[GravyFace]

16 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Exactly! Both fire and ice is the enemy and only the balance between those two is the answer.

Jon isn't the balance, if that's who you think the answer is. Either the Others are ice or the Starks are ice, it can't be both. So which is the enemy, the Others or the Starks? Because if it's the Others, then Jon isn't the balance. He isn't part Other. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, GravyFace said:

Jon isn't the balance, if that's who you think the answer is. Either the Others are ice or the Starks are ice, it can't be both. So which is the enemy, the Others or the Starks? Because if it's the Others, then Jon isn't the balance. He isn't part Other. 

Yeah, unless there is some sort of Stark-Targaryen war/imbalance going on Jon Snow isn't going to balance out anything.

And besides, if he is Rhaegar's son he is Targaryen just all the Targaryens were who had a Targaryen father.

[OuttaOldtown]

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, unless there is some sort of Star-Targaryen war/imbalance going on Jon Snow isn't going to balance out anything.

And besides, if he is Rhaegar's son he is Targaryen just all the Targaryens were who had a Targaryen father.

The fact that you think he isn't gonna be the balance all but guarantees he will be imo..

[Weirdo]

7 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

The "song" part is my speculation, but my point was that GRRM could have worded the series title in any manner he liked, and he chose to name it Ice and Fire.

Relevant to this thread:

I am reminded  that at the L.A. Worldcon in 2006, George was on a panel and he was talking a bit dismissively about the cookie-cutter fantasies with a Dark Lord that's the ultimate evil, wants to destroy the world, etc. and he said, you know, nothing is ever that black and white in reality, history's greatest villains and monsters were, from their own perspective, heroic, etc. And he basically said he didn't want to write about a Dark Lord sort of situation.

And so someone followed up asking, Well, what about the Others? They seem pretty clearly evil.

He paused and then smiled and said we'd have to keep reading to see where that goes.

It implied to me that, yes, there's more to the Others than what we've seen so far.

 

- Elio

 

http://boiledleather.com/post/8086891055/why-im-not-worried-about-the-end-and-why-i-am#comment-269218439

He's talked about that Robert Frost poem. From an old interview:

Why your saga is called A Song of Ice and Fire, because of the Wall and the dragons or is something more beyond that? 

Oh! That’s the obvious thing but yes, there’s more. People say I was influenced by Robert Frost’s poem, and of course I was, I mean... Fire is love, fire is passion, fire is sexual ardor and all of these things. Ice is betrayal, ice is revenge, ice is… you know, that kind of cold inhumanity and all that stuff is being played out in the books.

http://www.adriasnews.com/2012/10/george-r-r-martin-interview.html

The poem in question, for those who don't know it:

Fire and Ice by Robert Frost

Some say the world will end in fire, 

Some say in ice. 

From what I’ve tasted of desire 

I hold with those who favor fire. 

But if it had to perish twice, 

I think I know enough of hate 

To say that for destruction ice 

Is also great 

And would suffice.

 

[ShadowCat Rivers]

50 minutes ago, GravyFace said:

Jon isn't the balance, if that's who you think the answer is. Either the Others are ice or the Starks are ice, it can't be both. So which is the enemy, the Others or the Starks? Because if it's the Others, then Jon isn't the balance. He isn't part Other. 

And yet, we've got the "pact of ice and fire", an alliance agreement between Starks and Rhaenyra's side Targaryens that incidentally, among other terms, it includes a marriage of a Targaryen princess into House Stark. So there actually exists, and in-universe moreso, at least one instance where "ice" clearly stands for Stark in a symbolic usage of the ice-and-fire dipole.

Long story short, context matters.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

31 minutes ago, Weirdo said:

He's talked about that Robert Frost poem. From an old interview:

Why your saga is called A Song of Ice and Fire, because of the Wall and the dragons or is something more beyond that? 

Oh! That’s the obvious thing but yes, there’s more. People say I was influenced by Robert Frost’s poem, and of course I was, I mean... Fire is love, fire is passion, fire is sexual ardor and all of these things. Ice is betrayal, ice is revenge, ice is… you know, that kind of cold inhumanity and all that stuff is being played out in the books.

http://www.adriasnews.com/2012/10/george-r-r-martin-interview.html

The poem in question, for those who don't know it:

Fire and Ice by Robert Frost

Some say the world will end in fire, 

Some say in ice. 

From what I’ve tasted of desire 

I hold with those who favor fire. 

But if it had to perish twice, 

I think I know enough of hate 

To say that for destruction ice 

Is also great 

And would suffice.

 

Yeah so? The poem literally says that both fire and ice are destructive forces, not that one is better than the other.

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, Aegon VII said:

In the one example we have of a riderless dragon in asoiaf, he comes down and burns hundreds of innocent citizens alive.

What event are you referring to here?

Quote

Dany even reflects on the mother shielding her son from the flames while in the dothraki sea. And this is a young, not fully grown dragon. Dragons are categorically different than the other animals in the world. 

Not really. There are other legendary magical creatures in this world. Wyverns, manticores, direwolves, velociraptors, sphinxes, huge krakens, etc. Do you think they all have to die because they are a threat to humanity? They are not worse than dragons.

Quote

Three dragons was all it took for the Targs to take Westrosi initially. A massive kingdom established for thousands of years couldn't stand up to three dragons. Whether they have a rider or not is irrelevant. I am not saying the dragons themselves are any more wicked than other animals. They are wild animals just like any other and will do what they need to survive. I am saying that their power is too great to coexist with humanity.

 

But they did coexist with humanity for thousands of years. Without great problems, actually.

Quote

I do. When trying to figure out the books at the deepest level, I think you need to have a wide scope. I care about the long term that is not going to be covered in the novels because I care about the ending of the books, which is the last thing before said "long term". How the series ends will determine the "long term". I think that there can't be a long term with both dragons and people, and therefore, I argue that in the end, the dragons will need to die.

That is just an assertion.

Quote

 Even if the dragons aren't uber warfare machines, they are respected by people of westeros as such, and therefore they are absolute power. And your argument for dragons being weak is that you can kill one with a scorpion bolt through the eye. Let's take a moment to consider how incredibly difficult it would be too shoot a scorpion bolt through the eye of a moving dragon. Now lets also think that now that this has been discovered, the dragon riders are probably going to go after the scorpions immediately when battle starts. Hell, Dany could get some eye guards for them.

You are making a fool of yourself. If Meraxes, the second largest dragon in the history of Westeros, can be killed in battle, then every dragon can. And Dany's dragons are a joke compared to her. Drogon is nearly killed in Daznak's Pit. And a bunch of angry townsfolk apparently killed five dragons with conventional weaponry during the Dance of the Dragons.

Quote

They absolutely are. Think of the description of Harrenhal and how much went into making it an unconquerable castle. Then dragons come along and melt it like string cheese. And of course Dany's aren't there yet, they're children and still a fraction of their full grown size. We need to look to the past to see what the threat of the Dragons is.

You have to read more. Dragons are dangerous but they don't make you invincible. And neither are they.

Quote

She ain't got no coin. The only things she did have at that time were due to the dragons hatching. No khalasar would follow Dany without the dragons. And yes, some of what it took to get there was her name. That's why I threw out the 90/10 proportion. And I have no problem with people benefiting from their name and rank. That is natural and makes sense in our world and theirs. Dany deserved to marry Khal Drogo based on her name alone. Children of kings and lords benefit from their ancestors doing what was necessary to succeed. As their descendants, they deserve this advantage. The great houses were the families that were "best". Yet all it took was three dragons for every single one of them, through war or treatise, to be defeated.

You should also read the actual story of the Conquest. Dragons were important back then but armies were, too. Harren the Black lost his kingdom and his life because he was a cruel tyrant as well as a fool. He exploited his subjects and they turned against him when the Targaryens came. And then he thought he would be save in some castle.

The Stormlands were conquered in a more conventional way and Dorne even defied the dragons and the armies. This is doable.

Quote

I do because Melisandre is both so it's appropriate.

The fact that the other priests haven't bound shadows does not mean that shadow binding does not go hand and hand with the red god. Melisandre even presents it as such when talking about how a shadow cannot exist without the light. Conflated or not, even red preists without shadow binding appear to be a corruption of the fire element. And I do see a bad to someone resurrecting someone six times. I think Beric and Lady Stonehearts appearances begin to reflect this.

It is not appropriate because shadow-binding is a different magical tradition then fire magic. That is stated in the books. Just because I have two doctoral degrees doesn't mean everybody has, right?

Quote

I do love me some homework, but perhaps you can save me the time and tell me, do we have any examples of people with zero valyrian blood riding dragons? I'm not saying Robert doesn't have the blood prerequisite to ride a dragon, he does. I'm saying there is probably more to it than that. Quentyn had dragons blood and it made no matter. There is more than blood that determines if a dragon would accept a rider. Again, me saying Robert wouldn't have is just an opinion, but to say that he could ride based on his blood is assuming blood is the only requirement, which I think is false. But like I said, even if he could, it would still be the blood of the dragon retaining power. My argument is that it's those people without the blood of the dragon that are marginalized by the dragons.

Robert definitely had more dragonlord blood than Quentyn. However, Quentyn wasn't killed by the dragon he tried to claim he was burned by the dragon he had forgotten about/ignored. He seemed to have success with Viserion but it was Rhaegal who killed him. You cannot claim two dragons at the same time according to dragonlore. Quentyn may even have been killed had he actually mounted Viserion down there because sitting on dragon's back doesn't protect you from another dragon's fire.

Quote

It's not about physically riding the dragon whatsoever. Its that the family with dragons stays at the top of the food chain because of the respect and power their dragons command them. Since the time dragons came to westeros until they left, no other family ever could rule. The closest thing to a regime change we have seen or would ever seen would just be choosing between different bloods of the dragon,but in the end, its still only blood of the dragon on the IT. No room for the wolf, lion, or stag when dragons still exist.

Well, that is just the concept of a hereditary monarchy. The Starks, Arryns, Lannister, Arryns, etc. didn't hand down their crowns to some peasants or even their noble subjects. It passed down to their royal siblings, children, and grandchildren. This has nothing to do with dragons.

You do know that the Targaryens stayed in power even after the dragons all died, right?

Quote

Masters of old Valryia have dragons-> this ultimate power allows them to enslave people, forcing them to endure conditions far worse than the slavery we've seen so far-> living conditions are so bad the slaves en masse prefer death to life. I think this is doomed to happen again if dragons continue to exist. Eventually the dragons fall into a terrible persons hands, they use them to their advantage at the expense of everyone else, and eventually the only solution people have is mass suicide. We have seen what happens when dragons are allowed to exist. It is why the Braavosi and Ghiscari warn against them. This is why I say they are a threat to mankind equal to the others.

This is just nonsense. Slavery has nothing to do with dragons and you can have dragons and not be a slaver. You can even fight to abolish slavery everywhere (Daenerys). The idea that slavery has to be reintroduced at some time in the future by some evil dragonrider is about as likely as the claim that the US is going to enslave the entire world because they control a lot of nuclear weapons. They could do that, of course, if they play it right. But they don't have to.

12 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

What? So let's ignore all of Euron's characterisation to this point just to prop up the idea that dragons are not as bad as they seem?

Spoilers TWOW:

  Reveal hidden contents

What of  Aeron's vision that Euron blows a horn, and dragons, sphinxes and krakens come to his call ?

I'll put it very simply: If GRRM wanted to, he could have named this series Ice vs Fire and be done with it. The fact that he named it A Song (not a Dance) of Ice and Fire clearly indicates that it is harmony, or a balance, of both forces that he is aiming for.

Well, my first idea actually was that Euron fighting with a Valyrian steel blade wearing a (magical) Valyrian armor would be my prime candidate to slay a dragon and its rider in some sort of confrontation. And if Euron doesn't get a dragon is going to try to kill Dany's dragons, that is pretty clear.

If he was set up to become a dragonrider soon I'd assume he was with Dragonbinder in Slaver's Bay right now. He could still get a dragon later on but that should be much more difficult if Dragonbinder is now used to bind Rhaegal and Viserion to other riders, right?

7 hours ago, tugela said:

Rhaegar is not "wrong", it is not really Rhaegar, it is a vision in her mind, a construction. She is not looking into the past, she is seeing a metaphorical representation of what set her on the course she is on. What the vision tells her is that the boy (which is called Aegon, because that is the name she knows) will be the prince that was promised, not her. She will be one of the three heads of the dragon. The boy is not necessarily Aegon, and the woman is not necessarily Elia. The visions characters have should be looked at as metaphor, not reality.

You have nothing to base that on. The Red Weddning vision and the Aerys-Rossart vision from the past are genuine visions. Jaime independently confirmed that the dialogue between Rossart and Aerys took place the way Dany saw it. Thus it is very likely that Dany also got a genuine glimpse from the past in her vision of Rhaegar, Aegon, and Elia.

Quote

Melisandra is looking for Stannis in her flames, to determine what is going to happen. Remember, she believes that Stannis is Azor Ahai. What says is this: "I pray for a glimpse of Azor Ahai, and R'hllor shows me only Snow". She is praying to see Azor Ahai, and R'hllor shows him to her, only she does not understand that and instead thinks that her prayers are not being answered, because she is not seeing who she thinks she should be seeing. So she is confused and frustrated. But it is only because she is looking for confirmation of her preconceived ideas rather that what is being plainly laid out to her. She is being mislead by her bias, lost her objectivity, and it has lead her astray.

You are not reading the chapter in context. It goes like this:

First Mel says that:

Quote

Show me Stannis, Lord, she prayed. Show me your king, your instrument.

Then comes a description of the visions she sees in the flames:

Quote

Visions danced before her, gold and scarlet, flickering, forming and melting and dissolving into one another, shapes strange and terrifying and seductive. She saw the eyeless faces again, staring out at her from sockets weeping blood. Then the towers by the sea, crumbling as the dark tide came sweeping over them, rising from the depths. Shadows in the shape of skulls, skulls that turned to mist, bodies locked together in lust, writhing and rolling and clawing. Through curtains of fire great winged shadows wheeled against a hard blue sky.

Afterwards she is asking to see the girl on the horse again. She doesn't, and then the visions continue like that:

Quote

A face took shape within the hearth. Stannis? she thought, for just a moment … but no, these were not his features. A wooden face, corpse white. Was this the enemy? A thousand red eyes floated in the rising flames. He sees me. Beside him, a boy with a wolf’s face threw back his head and howled.

Mel remembers some trauma involving fire and her childhood as the slave girl Melony which is separated from his mother. Then it continues like that:

Quote

Snowflakes swirled from a dark sky and ashes rose to meet them, the grey and the white whirling around each other as flaming arrows arced above a wooden wall and dead things shambled silent through the cold, beneath a great grey cliff where fires burned inside a hundred caves. Then the wind rose and the white mist came sweeping in, impossibly cold, and one by one the fires went out. Afterward only the skulls remained.
Death, thought Melisandre. The skulls are death.
The flames crackled softly, and in their crackling she heard the whispered name Jon Snow. His long face floated before her, limned in tongues of red and orange, appearing and disappearing again, a shadow half-seen behind a fluttering curtain. Now he was a man, now a wolf, now a man again. But the skulls were here as well, the skulls were all around him. Melisandre had seen his danger before, had tried to warn the boy of it. Enemies all around him, daggers in the dark. He would not listen.
Unbelievers never listened until it was too late.

Then Devan asks Mel what she sees, and she thinks a little bit about what she usually tells people and how much it cost her to learn the craft before thinking what you said she said. But that is clearly not true. Melisandre did see a lot of other stuff in the fire, too. It is not true that she sees only Jon Snow when looking for Azor Ahai.

Quote

She will go Westeros once she has a suitable army, a fleet and her dragons are big enough. She has to have all three before she can go back to Westeros as a conqueror. Right now she is not strong enough. That has always been her dream, so why would she decide not to when she has those three things? We know her army is likely coming - she has reunited with the Dothraki, we know her dragons are large enough now, and we know that a great fleet is sailing to her (in one of the preview chapters, Tyrion II, they have actually arrived and are helping in the battle). So it is pretty obvious where the story is going next, and is going there soon.

Are you reading the books? Drogon is scarcely large enough to carry Dany. Her dragons are not big enough to be of much use in war. Dany distanced herself from Westeros in ASoS and ADwD and has yet to get a reason why she should go there soon. If she has the Dothraki she could do whatever the hell she wants in Essos. There has to be a reason why she should go to Westeros when she does.

Quote

The story mushroomed in number of books because the story arcs diverged as all the characters went their own ways. They will all be coming together as the conclusion of the story approaches, so the number of PoV chapters required to deal with it all will shrink considerably. Two books is about 140 chapters. That is more than enough to finish the story. There is nothing to suggest that the story will continue to become more and more convoluted with none of the arcs converging again. If that happens then the story will be not story and it would all be pointless.

The story was written with a detailed ending in mind. Unless you are saying that Martin doesn't know what he is talking about when he says so.

The story become much bloated in ADwD than it was before. Those plot elements aren't going to disappear suddenly. George would have to cut out more than half the POVs to get Dany back to Westeros in TWoW for simple reasons of space. 

@The Weirwoods Eyes

I'd just not call Mel a fire wight if she never died.

The idea of the dragonlord blood thing in relation to the fire resurrection spell is that there must be something in the people resurrected this way that responds to the fire that is injected into them. The dragons have returned so the dragonlord magic also returns, enabling them to overcome death itself (in a sense). Beric's Targaryen blood must be much diluted, possibly explaining why he is losing himself overtime (although the number of the resurrections could also attribute to that).

Beric's blood also suddenly had the quality to ignite mundane steel swords making them similar to Lightbringer. If Jon Snow is going to be resurrected the fiery way then his Targaryen blood might enable to get much more complete out of this whole thing, allowing him to eventually use his own blood to create himself some sort of (permanently) burning Valyrian steel sword. And Brienne might do a similar thing, eventually, due to her Targaryen blood.

Melisandre might have survived whatever ritual she went through once because she has Targaryen blood, too, considering that she might very well be Bloodraven's daughter by Shiera. That would also explain why the hell she had such a strong reaction when she saw her father in the flames without realizing it, remembering both her transformation and her own childhood.

1 hour ago, OuttaOldtown said:

The fact that you think he isn't gonna be the balance all but guarantees he will be imo..

He can balance out non-existing differences all day long if he wants to. After all, he just has to exist to do this considering that he is a Targaryen-Stark crossbreed.

Not sure why the Others should care about his heritage.

[Drogonthedread]

1 hour ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

why? 

Its just my belief that horn works only for the one with valyrian blood or in other words blood of the dragons

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

@The Weirwoods Eyes

I'd just not call Mel a fire wight if she never died.

The idea of the dragonlord blood thing in relation to the fire resurrection spell is that there must be something in the people resurrected this way that responds to the fire that is injected into them. The dragons have returned so the dragonlord magic also returns, enabling them to overcome death itself (in a sense). Beric's Targaryen blood must be much diluted, possibly explaining why he is losing himself overtime (although the number of the resurrections could also attribute to that).

Beric's blood also suddenly had the quality to ignite mundane steel swords making them similar to Lightbringer. If Jon Snow is going to be resurrected the fiery way then his Targaryen blood might enable to get much more complete out of this whole thing, allowing him to eventually use his own blood to create himself some sort of (permanently) burning Valyrian steel blood. And Brienne might do a similar thing, eventually, due to her Targaryen blood.

Melisandre might have survived whatever ritual she went through once because she has Targaryen blood, too, considering that she might very well be Bloodraven's daughter by Shiera. That would also explain why the hell she had such a strong reaction when she saw her father in the flames without realizing it, remembering both her transformation and her own childhood.

He can balance out non-existing differences all day long if he wants to. After all, he just has to exist to do this considering that he is a Targaryen-Stark crossbreed.

Not sure why the Others should care about his heritage.

Really interesting thoughts, thank you

I'm not a big fan of BR+S=M, tbh. But I do think it is quite plausible for Mellisandre to have Dragonlord blood via just being from Essos in general. We know the Valyrians who were on the continent stayed, we know Lys is full of Valyrian descendants and I doubt that red hair and eyes are real. Glamour much. I'd find it very easy to accept that she is just the descendant of someone who was some dragonlords bastard.

Beric, yeah he so has targ blood, and Brienne. 

Jon, ah Jon. I've always hated the idea of him being resurrected by Mel, always insisted he might not actually die. Just need healing, but I'm more open to it after that which shall not be named. Not that I believe what they do is canon, It REALLY isn't. But I do accept that there are some elements which are correct. I'm not saying I think this is, but I'm not as sure as I once was that she won't have anything to do with how he survives the stabbing. I won't be visiting ladbrooks at any time soon put it that way. 

I shall mull over your ideas. very interesting thank you. 

 

Oh so do you think Cat has Targ blood? Or are you thinking there is another factor at play here? 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

8 minutes ago, Drogonthedread said:

Its just my belief that horn works only for the one with valyrian blood or in other words blood of the dragons

So, am I correct in thinking that you believe the internal combustion won't happen if the blower has Valyrian blood? 

I must say I am a believer that Dragonlords do indeed have some sort of blood of the dragon, some crazy shit went down if you ask me. And I think there really is a dragon riding gene (as such) I don't buy for one minute the notion Nettles was just some random kid. She had the blood and she was intelligent enough to realise that you can't just waltz up to a fully wild dragon and hop on. 

[KirnMalidus]

On 7/19/2016 at 3:13 AM, tugela said:

Euron won't get control over a dragon, because in order to do so you would need to blow the horn, and be sufficiently fire resistant so as to not be fried in the process. Euron can blow on the horn to get control of a dragon, but he will die from his burns two minutes later, after which the dragon will be free to do as it pleases again.

No, the red priest reads the runes on the bands of the horn and tells Victarion how it works. The aspiring dragon tamer needs to bind the horn to him or herself with some sort of blood magic ritual, then he/she can let anyone blow the horn (and die) and still take control of dragons.

[Drogonthedread]

9 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

So, am I correct in thinking that you believe the internal combustion won't happen if the blower has Valyrian blood? 

I must say I am a believer that Dragonlords do indeed have some sort of blood of the dragon, some crazy shit went down if you ask me. And I think there really is a dragon riding gene (as such) I don't buy for one minute the notion Nettles was just some random kid. She had the blood and she was intelligent enough to realise that you can't just waltz up to a fully wild dragon and hop on. 

Yeah you are right that's what I believe. 

Andagree with you about dragonlords and nettles as well..

To put it simple only those with first men blood can warg amd only with those dragonblood can blow the horn and survive . 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

Glad I understood you correctly. 

I still think it is more complicated than that, I don't like how it dances in targs are fireproof territory, cos we all know that ain't true.  Hence why I think you need a fire wight who is your servant to do it.

They have a fire inside already and they have fire for blood & gave their blood for fire; in a sense just like, it says on the horn. 

[Lord Varys]

23 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Really interesting thoughts, thank you

I'm not a big fan of BR+S=M, tbh. But I do think it is quite plausible for Mellisandre to have Dragonlord blood via just being from Essos in general. We know the Valyrians who were on the continent stayed, we know Lys is full of Valyrian descendants and I doubt that red hair and eyes are real. Glamour much. I'd find it very easy to accept that she is just the descendant of someone who was some dragonlords bastard.

The big clue for the Shiera-Mel thing is that their faces are both described as being heart-shaped. It is not all that much but Shiera Seastar most likely is going to play a role in the story. She is this insanely beautiful woman connected to sorcery and Bloodraven who did not feature in any way in TWoIaF. If her story was just for Dunk & Egg we would have gotten some glimpses (just as we got with the Laughing Storm and the marriages of Egg's children). But we got literally nothing. That is very suspicious.

And Mel looking for the savior in Westeros has to have meaning, too. She is most likely only interested in going there because she originally is from there.

Quote

Beric, yeah he so has targ blood, and Brienne.

The hint is that Baelor Breakspear had a Dondarrion wife. That doesn't make any sense if she is no Targaryen cousin. We are told that Egg's marriage to Betha Blackwood would have been a big scandal had he not been at the far end of the succession. Baelor was Prince of Dragonstone when he married his wife. In his case that marriage would have been a big deal. But if Daeron II played it as a cousin marriage, marrying both Baelor and Aerys (and possibly Rhaegel and Maekar, too) to descendants of grandaunt Rhaena (who had those six daughters with Garmund Hightower) then nobody could technically object.

After all, the traditional Targaryen marriage custom was to marry close relatives to each other. Daeron II just was in the bad position to have no daughters, nieces, or first cousins he could marry his sons to. Aside from his own sister Daenerys, and she he intended to use for the Dornish alliance.

In addition the Dondarrions could also have married later one of Elaena's three Penrose daughters. Some of them most likely did marry some guy.

Quote

Jon, ah Jon. I've always hated the idea of him being resurrected by Mel, always insisted he might not actually die. Just need healing, but I'm more open to it after that which shall not be named. Not that I believe what they do is canon, It REALLY isn't. But I do accept that there are some elements which are correct. I'm not saying I think this is, but I'm not as sure as I once was that she won't have anything to do with how he survives the stabbing. I won't be visiting ladbrooks at any time soon put it that way. 

I shall mull over your ideas. very interesting thank you. 

Well, as I've said quite a few times already. The idea that George would give us a great Caesar-assassination scene and then not deliver is just not very good. I don't like the idea of Jon Snow being killed all that much. But considering what George has done I want it to be a real death and a real bodily resurrection (the spirit is safe in Ghost for the time being) rather than some magical healing cop-out. That would just be a huge letdown for me.

Quote

Oh so do you think Cat has Targ blood? Or are you thinking there is another factor at play here? 

There are two possibilities:

1. Catelyn does indeed have Targaryen blood. An easy way for this would be Cat's grandfather or great-grandfather marrying a Lothston girl. TWoIaF effectively introduced the main branch of House Lothston as a bastard branch of House Targaryen to us. Aegon the Unworthy is most likely the father of the first few children of Falena Stokeworth by her husband, Lord Lucas Lothston.

2. The fire spell + dragonlord blood create a sort of working magical resurrection matrix. That matrix can then passed on by the resurrected to another body. Keep in mind that Beric died when he resurrected Catelyn.

I'm leaning more towards the former. The Tullys must have always been heavily intermarried with the various Lords of Harrenhal considering that those were effectively the most powerful and prestigious lords in the Riverlands, not the Tullys. And it seems that whatever drove Mad Danelle Lothston mad may very well have to do with her Targaryen ancestry.

[Drogonthedread]

11 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Glad I understood you correctly. 

I still think it is more complicated than that, I don't like how it dances in targs are fireproof territory, cos we all know that ain't true.  Hence why I think you need a fire wight who is your servant to do it.

They have a fire inside already and they have fire for blood & gave their blood for fire; in a sense just like, it says on the horn. 

I don't think we can assume all targs can do this ..similar to how not all starks are wargs..

If viserys blows a horn he will die but daenrys won't.  

Elio said nicely when talking about nettles ..even if you are targ you cant ride a dragon just like that...one has to have the right drop of blood and it should be activated ..that's how I believe dragonriders bond with their dragons..

And thats why dany succeeded with hatching dragons while other targs failed because she is blood of the dragon and she has that right drop and its activated.

[Protagoras]

Does this mean that we finally will see the end of all those post with posters claiming Jon to be both ice and fire, that the story is all about him and in general paint him as some kind of second coming of christ?

Not a moment too late in that case.

 

[Macgregor of the North]

32 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Does this mean that we finally will see the end of all those post with posters claiming Jon to be both ice and fire, that the story is all about him and in general paint him as some kind of second coming of christ?

Not a moment too late in that case.

 

If we look at the pact Cregan was pushing to make happen, a union between Stark and Targaryen, which was named the pact of ice and fire, then those posters in those posts are technically right that Jon is both Ice and fire, assuming RLJ. 

And along with a small few other people, including Dany, Tyrion etc, yes, the story is all about him, as it is them.

So no, I can't see them posts with those posters stopping anytime soon.

[One-eyed Misbehavin]

On July 17, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

Also, if someone was still in doubt, later in the interview Martin slips in the fact that Jeyne Westerling is not pregnant. So that debate can be put to bed at last.

I def never believed this but still ....... Damn

[Protagoras]

2 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said:

If we look at the pact Cregan was pushing to make happen, a union between Stark and Targaryen, which was named the pact of ice and fire, then those posters in those posts are technically right that Jon is both Ice and fire, assuming RLJ. 

And along with a small few other people, including Dany, Tyrion etc, yes, the story is all about him, as it is them.

So no, I can't see them posts with those posters stopping anytime soon.

Too bad. I guess some things, like right wing free market supporters, racists who claim they are not and jehovas witnesses, won´t go away. Ah well. I will have to endure their bullshit...as always.

[Macgregor of the North]

4 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Too bad. I guess some things, like right wing free market supporters, racists who claim they are not and jehovas witnesses, won´t go away. Ah well. I will have to endure their bullshit...as always.

This thread and forum is about the asoiaf book series, stick to the topic at hand and leave the real world where it belongs.