GRRM talks about what it means title Ice and Fire

[tugela]

6 hours ago, teej6 said:

In TWoW, Teora Toland narrates her dream and notes that "everywhere the dragons danced, the people died." I would say that this is a strong indication of the future destruction and mayhem that dragons are going to inflict on the people of Westeros. Are they going to be as destructive as the Others? Probably not. But then here we are down to arguing the magnitude of destruction. Does it matter if it's 10,000 people dying instead of 50,000? 

"Dance" in the Westeros in that context refers to combat. Specifically, in the Targaryen civil war rivals fought each other with dragons, hence all the destruction and death.

[tugela]

6 hours ago, GravyFace said:

Just butting in here but...

The Targaryens have strong intense bonds with dragons, they can control them, and communicate with them. They can feel each other from thousands of miles away. So yes they are more associated with fire. They're even more heat resistant than the usual human. The Starks don't truly have the same association with ice. The others are ice, the Starks don't have bonds with them, they don't control them or manipulate them. The Targaryens use fire/dragons to fight, to conquer. The Starks don't use the Others for that. The Starks are eventually going to have to fight the Others. So is ice going to have to fight ice? That doesn't really make sense, they can't both be "ice".

 

As for Dany's vision, it's not about Jon being the song of ice and fire. It's about her one day realizing that HER song is the song of ice and fire. That her destiny is not to sit the throne, but to fight against ice. To use her fire to "dance" against ice, the tale people tell afterwards will be the song of her dance. Rhaegar thought Aegon's song was the song of ice and fire, and not because he was part ice, but because he thought his destiny was to one day fight ice, that that would be his song. He was wrong of course, and Dany will one day realize it's her who that destiny belongs to.

No, the "song of ice and fire" was the song for the boy in her vision. Rhaegar then looked at her and said that there must be another, because the dragon has three heads. Daenerys is not the hero in the song of ice and fire, the boy is. But she plays a part in the story.

[tugela]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Well, we don't know in what magical disciplines the Children were good at. Considering the Reed vow there I'd assume that they might have been more than fluent in fire and ice magic. We defintely know they could pull off quite a few things back in the days, the Breaking, the Hammer of the Waters, and of which supposedly included a lot of blood magic as well. And we see that people mastering one magical discipline are often also great practioners in others (Bloodraven can make glamors and is both a skinchanger and a greenseer; Melisandre has mastered at least fire magic and shadowbinding; Marwyn and Qyburn are studying every branch of sorcery, and Mirri Maz Duur also could more than just one branch of magic). Thus it makes no sense to restrict the Children to one branch of magic.

 

So the point of Dany's story is that she should find out that Rhaegar meant his other son as the promised prince in that vision? Then why was he looking at her when he said that? The other visions have little to do with Dany, true, but the ones referring to her special destiny have to do with her. And there are a lot of those prophecies, actually. No character has so many layers of prophecy dumped upon her story arc.

 

The breaking was clearly the result of a very large earthquake. It may have happened during the war between the children and the first men and interpreted as being a result of their spells because they did not know what an earthquake was or how they happened. It was probably just a natural phenomenon that happened at that time by coincidence and was woven into their stories as an act of god/magic.

In Daenerys's vision, Rhaegar was looking at the boy when he was talking about the prince that was promised. He then looked up at Daenerys and said that there must be one more, because the dragon has three heads. That would mean that she is NOT the prince that was promised, for who the song of ice and fire was for, but that she was one of the three heads of the dragon.

Btw, Jon has just as much prophecy/vision in his story arc as well.

[tugela]

52 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We'll have to wait and see whether that's going to happen. I'm not sure there will be a lot of raping and pillaging in the middle of winter.

It won't be the middle of winter when the Dothraki arrive. It won't be long before they arrive in Westeros. I am guessing that it will happen in WoW.

[Lord Varys]

42 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

That the generic teleological narrative of Zoroastrianism (and its derrivatives). Meaning, it's the end of the world, the end of life - as we know it, at least. Normally life requires death as it's its natural conclusion and a logical prerequisite for new life. That's what would be wrong with that, assuming (of course) that the R'hllorian existential myth holds water. Which we (kind of) should, considering that we are already taking them much at their wold -in the current discussion, at least- regarding Azor Ahai and the rest of their mythology.

We don't. The Azor Ahai story is a story of a savior from the distant past who is supposed to return but we have no reason to believe that those prophecies have anything to do with the faith of the Red Priests. They could have just incorporated the story into their belief system. The Targaryens also believe in the coming of the promised prince without believing in R'hllor.

6 minutes ago, tugela said:

The breaking was clearly the result of a very large earthquake. It may have happened during the war between the children and the first men and interpreted as being a result of their spells because they did not know what an earthquake was or how they happened. It was probably just a natural phenomenon that happened at that time by coincidence and was woven into their stories as an act of god/magic.

That doesn't make any sense and contradicts all the sources we have.

6 minutes ago, tugela said:

In Daenerys's vision, Rhaegar was looking at the boy when he was talking about the prince that was promised. He then looked up at Daenerys and said that there must be one more, because the dragon has three heads. That would mean that she is NOT the prince that was promised, for who the song of ice and fire was for, but that she was one of the three heads of the dragon.

Or it means Rhaegar was wrong about Prince Aegon being the promised prince and the true prince isn't a prince but a princess, Daenerys.

6 minutes ago, tugela said:

Btw, Jon has just as much prophecy/vision in his story arc as well.

No, he doesn't. He never has any visions about a grand future nor sorcerers telling him about his special destiny who make prophecy involving him.

5 minutes ago, tugela said:

It won't be the middle of winter when the Dothraki arrive. It won't be long before they arrive in Westeros. I am guessing that it will happen in WoW.

That doesn't make any sense. Dany is right now farther away from Westeros than she ever was since AGoT. There is no way she is going to arrive in Westeros in the next book. Nor is it very likely that winter is going to progress slowly. By the end of the next book all of Westeros will be in its grip.

[tugela]

39 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Child of three could refer to having two siblings which Jon did (Rhaenys and Aegon), Dany did (Rhaegar and Viserys), and Tyrion does (Cersei and Jaime). One child of three. Each, potentially a head of the dragon. 

I doubt it. A child of **** usually refers to the offspring of ****. One way for a child to have more than two parents is if it is adopted. Then they would have four. Except in the sort of situation where Jon was raised, where someone claimed to be his father but really was not. Similarly, a child born of cuckold could be said to be a child of three. It is hard to see how that might apply to Daenerys, unless Rhaella was impregnated by someone else. Clearly Jon would fit that description but it takes creative thinking to place Daenerys in it. One possibility I have put forward in the past is that Rhaegar might have formed some sort of cult like pact with Lyanna and Ashara to produce one or more children. Jon and Daenerys would be two of them, the third is someone else. My guess is that the third is Meera, since she is one of the few characters in the story with the right age and somewhat mysterious origins. My personal theory is that Daenerys is Ashara's, while Jon and Meera are twins, with Ned raising Jon and Howland Reed raising Meera, both as their own children.

[tugela]

53 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

If Jon is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen, then he is Dany's nephew. 

Assuming that Aerys is Daenerys's father. If she was really Rhaegar's daughter, and substituted for Rhaella's stillborn child, then Jon and Daenerys would be siblings.

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, tugela said:

Assuming that Aerys is Daenerys's father. If she was really Rhaegar's daughter, and substituted for Rhaella's stillborn child, then Jon and Daenerys would be siblings.

And if Rickard Stark was truly Eddard Stark's son then he wouldn't be his father. What's the point of such an assumption?

[ShadowCat Rivers]

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't. The Azor Ahai story is a story of a savior from the distant past who is supposed to return but we have no reason to believe that those prophecies have anything to do with the faith of the Red Priests. They could have just incorporated the story into their belief system. The Targaryens also believe in the coming of the promised prince without believing in R'hllor.

Sure, I'd agree that fragments of truth (ie, eventually future facts) may exist in all the various myths we've been given in universe, while other parts of them are not going to come to pass - but then, telling which is which, a priori, is a whole different matter. For examble, why take as a "truth" the concept of the one saviour of the AA myth, especially given that the author's proxy has, in-story, called for critical examination of this particular aspect?

[Aegon VII]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

But think about it - George could have made the Targaryens/dragonlords actually fire demons or fiery people (of the sort Mel is). Then they could have been as twisted as the Others. But they aren't.

I disagree and say the others are the ice threat to mankind while the dragons are the fire threat. I believe it is not a false dichotomy and grrm has put enough info throughout the books for the reader to realize there is no room for dragons in this world, same as others. Just because the dragons do not have organization and a plan to kill humans does not mean they are any less of a threat. They are a threat because hey are too powerful. Dany has won most of her struggles and wars in an almost cheat-mode fashion. What I mean is that no matter how bad the odds, she always has the deus ex machine of the dragons. E.g. Astopor, house of undying, fighting pits of mereen. It's great for Dany and because Dany is a good person, we don't see them as evil right off the bat. But what happens when a targ who isn't as good as Dany takes power and because they have the dragons they have absolute rule. They can be as shitty as they want and the normal course of politics will never usurp them because they have the power and illusion of power stemming from the dragons. And this is what happened in years past.

We have many society's in Essos who already name dragons as evil. They are unbridled chaos and they are a threat just as much as the others. Grrm would not make it so obvious as to have the targs be fire demons, their dragons already are. 

 

[tugela]

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't. The Azor Ahai story is a story of a savior from the distant past who is supposed to return but we have no reason to believe that those prophecies have anything to do with the faith of the Red Priests. They could have just incorporated the story into their belief system. The Targaryens also believe in the coming of the promised prince without believing in R'hllor.

That doesn't make any sense and contradicts all the sources we have.

Or it means Rhaegar was wrong about Prince Aegon being the promised prince and the true prince isn't a prince but a princess, Daenerys.

No, he doesn't. He never has any visions about a grand future nor sorcerers telling him about his special destiny who make prophecy involving him.

That doesn't make any sense. Dany is right now farther away from Westeros than she ever was since AGoT. There is no way she is going to arrive in Westeros in the next book. Nor is it very likely that winter is going to progress slowly. By the end of the next book all of Westeros will be in its grip.

It does make sense. Earthquakes (really big ones) can result in land changing altitude by a significant amount. If the arm of Dorne was low level land, an earthquake may have dropped it below sea level. There are areas on earth like this. A big earthquake like that would have produced massive Tsunamis, which might have given rise the concept of the Iron Born's drowned god, for example. It was not just the arm of Dorne that sank, the Neck also sank, resulting in the present day swamp lands where the crannogmen live.

The Rhaegar in Daenerys vision was prophetic information for her. It was not a factual replay of true events, but rather a metaphorical image explaining what was happening and her role in it. The vision clearly indicates that the boy was the prince that was promised and that she was to play a supporting role to him. For example, in a later vision where she sees Rhaegar in his armor, and lifts his visor to see her own face, it does not mean that Rhaegar literally looked like her, but that she was of him, a part of him, and that his quest was her quest.

Jon does have visions and dreams. Lots of them. There was one in particular, IIRC, I need to look for it again. He also has prophetic input as well, namely what Melisandra sees in her flames. When she looks into the fire asking to see Azor Ahai, instead of seeing Stannis as she expected, she hears a voice saying Jon Snow, and sees Jon Snow himself. She complains about this, that she asked to see Azor Ahai, but all she sees is snow. Not only that, but some of Daenery's visions clearly involve the Starks, Lyanna, and events at the wall.

At the end of the last book Daenerys met up with the Dothraki again, while Mereen was under siege. The Iron born and their fleet are sailing to Mereen to offer their ships to her. This we all know for a fact. All of that will come together in WoW and she will take them to Westeros. All of the elements she needs for her invasion will be present, so there is no way that she is going to continue to sit on her ass. Just from a structural point of view, we know that there are two books left. One of these will be for the battle to control Westeros, and the last one will be about the struggle with the Others. If she does not invade Westeros in the next book there will be no time in the final book for everything to happen without it being rushed. WoW will be about the conquest of Westeros, or at least most of it. Martin may leave the final battle for King's Landing for the beginning of the last book. Daenerys will be coming in from the south, while Jon will be coming in from the north.

[tugela]

49 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And if Rickard Stark was truly Eddard Stark's son then he wouldn't be his father. What's the point of such an assumption?

Not an assumption, there are reasons provided in the book to believe that Daenerys's parentage is not what she thinks it is.

There is Ser Barristans observations that she look so much like Ashara that she could be her daughter. The people she sees in her visions and looks to guidance for in her minds eye in her hour of need are not her supposed parents, instead we see Rhaegar and Quaithe. Then we also have Quaithe telling Daenerys to remember who she is. Since it is metaphor, it means that she is not who she appears to be.

Quote

Remember who you are, Daenerys, ... The dragons know. Do you?

The clues are there, you just refuse to see them. Daenerys has an origin story that is hidden, she is not just a princess who has expectations.

[El Guapo]

2 hours ago, tugela said:

Viserys was a threat since he was the rightful heir of the crown. But after his death the next male in line for the crown was Robert Baratheon, and his male children after him. Daenerys was not a legitimate claimant for the crown, but could be a banner that disgruntled lords might rally behind.

As things currently stand, the usurper wannabe is Daenerys herself.

Daenerys IS a threat to Westeros, because she will bring not only Dragons, but also 100000 Dothraki warriors who will rape, pillage and generally lay waste to the land.

Not true at all. Daenerys was Viserys's heir.

 

[Lord Varys]

46 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Sure, I'd agree that fragments of truth (ie, eventually future facts) may exist in all the various myths we've been given in universe, while other parts of them are not going to come to pass - but then, telling which is which, a priori, is a whole different matter. For examble, why take as a "truth" the concept of the one saviour of the AA myth, especially given that the author's proxy has, in-story, called for critical examination of this particular aspect?

I'm not sure we should use myths to predict the future. Prophecies, yes. But not myths and legends inspired by or spun out of thin air in the distant past of foreign lands. The historical Azor Ahai may or may not have existed (I think he is actually a conglomerate of different historical/mythical characters whom their respective cultures attributed the saving of the world in the wake of the end of the Long Night) but the promised prince/savior guy is most likely going to come, just as there will be another Long Night and a Second War for the Dawn.

The parallels between the mythological Azor Ahai of the stories and the promised prince are pretty much irrelevant, actually, because whatever he did in the stories might have nothing to do with the stuff the new savior does.

I'm completely on board with the core error of the people interpreting the prophecies is the search for one savior and the idea that one person could solve all the problems. There are way too many parallels between the stories of Dany, Jon Snow, and Tyrion for them to be unintentional.

If I had to guess then Dany will become the leader/symbol/ruler of the savior trinity, the Conqueror returned, a female Aegon, Jon Snow her champion and leader of the armies against the Others (a male Visenya), and Tyrion the human element who keeps everything together. If there is somebody who could create a balance then it would be Tyrion because he is the guy who knows the most of those people and is already heavily interconnected with a lot of important people (Jon Snow, Bran, Sansa, Varys/Illyrio, Aegon, Connington, and eventually Daenerys).

The very structure of the story (multiple POVs) makes it pretty clear that we are to expect multiple great heroes. The challenges in this story will be met by an ensemble of heroes in the end, not by some lonely guy.

52 minutes ago, Aegon VII said:

I disagree and say the others are the ice threat to mankind while the dragons are the fire threat. I believe it is not a false dichotomy and grrm has put enough info throughout the books for the reader to realize there is no room for dragons in this world, same as others. Just because the dragons do not have organization and a plan to kill humans does not mean they are any less of a threat. They are a threat because hey are too powerful.

Can you provide some quotes supporting your view of the dragons? I don't remember any such from my readings of the books. What I do remember is Tyrion longing to see a real dragon because that would be magical sight, and Ser Arlan often retelling the magical moment in his life when he saw the last dragon in King's Landing a year before her death.

The only people loathing/fearing dragons are the Ghiscari and the Braavosi. And they have historical reasons for that. Nobody in Westeros seems to consider dragons a major threat. 

52 minutes ago, Aegon VII said:

Dany has won most of her struggles and wars in an almost cheat-mode fashion. What I mean is that no matter how bad the odds, she always has the deus ex machine of the dragons. E.g. Astopor, house of undying, fighting pits of mereen. It's great for Dany and because Dany is a good person, we don't see them as evil right off the bat. But what happens when a targ who isn't as good as Dany takes power and because they have the dragons they have absolute rule. They can be as shitty as they want and the normal course of politics will never usurp them because they have the power and illusion of power stemming from the dragons. And this is what happened in years past.

So what? In reality there are real weapons of mass destruction. Yet nobody destroys them, either. So why should the dragons go who aren't that great weapons of mass destruction, anyway.

As of yet Dany doesn't owe much of her successes to the dragons. Yes, Drogon saved her in the House of the Undying, but the Unsullied saved her in Astapor and helped her conquer Meereen later on. The dragons didn't play a major role in all that.

52 minutes ago, Aegon VII said:

We have many society's in Essos who already name dragons as evil. They are unbridled chaos and they are a threat just as much as the others. Grrm would not make it so obvious as to have the targs be fire demons, their dragons already are. 

Then why the hell is George as obvious as include ice demons into his story?

46 minutes ago, tugela said:

It does make sense. Earthquakes (really big ones) can result in land changing altitude by a significant amount. If the arm of Dorne was low level land, an earthquake may have dropped it below sea level. There are areas on earth like this. A big earthquake like that would have produced massive Tsunamis, which might have given rise the concept of the Iron Born's drowned god, for example. It was not just the arm of Dorne that sank, the Neck also sank, resulting in the present day swamp lands where the crannogmen live.

I know that. But this was still accomplished by magic not a regular earthquake.

46 minutes ago, tugela said:

The Rhaegar in Daenerys vision was prophetic information for her. It was not a factual replay of true events, but rather a metaphorical image explaining what was happening and her role in it. The vision clearly indicates that the boy was the prince that was promised and that she was to play a supporting role to him. For example, in a later vision where she sees Rhaegar in his armor, and lifts his visor to see her own face, it does not mean that Rhaegar literally looked like her, but that she was of him, a part of him, and that his quest was her quest.

Or it means that she is the person Rhaegar was looking for all along. The promised princess.

46 minutes ago, tugela said:

Jon does have visions and dreams. Lots of them. There was one in particular, IIRC, I need to look for it again. 

Well, then cite them, please, and also give me those who put him on equal footing with Daenerys.

46 minutes ago, tugela said:

He also has prophetic input as well, namely what Melisandra sees in her flames. When she looks into the fire asking to see Azor Ahai, instead of seeing Stannis as she expected, she hears a voice saying Jon Snow, and sees Jon Snow himself. She complains about this, that she asked to see Azor Ahai, but all she sees is snow. Not only that, but some of Daenery's visions clearly involve the Starks, Lyanna, and events at the wall.

She doesn't hear a voice, she just sees Jon Snow. But those visions aren't working precisely as she wants them to. You are presupposing that the fire/R'hllor/whatever wanted to show Melisandre Jon Snow because he is Azor Ahai. But that doesn't have to be the case. Besides, I'm not denying that Jon Snow is one of the dragon heads.

46 minutes ago, tugela said:

At the end of the last book Daenerys met up with the Dothraki again, while Mereen was under siege. The Iron born and their fleet are sailing to Mereen to offer their ships to her. This we all know for a fact. All of that will come together in WoW and she will take them to Westeros. All of the elements she needs for her invasion will be present, so there is no way that she is going to continue to sit on her ass.

Right now she with Khal Jhaqo of the Dothraki. She could return soon to Slaver's Bay - but that doesn't seem to be the case because George has already said that Dany and Tyrion's stories will only eventually intersect in TWoW, making it very unlikely that they are going to meet in the near future. You also know that lots of chapters are covering the Meereen battle already, and that there are lot of plots left dangling in that city - Hizdahr, the Harpy, Quentyn's people, Daario, the Tattered Prince, the two dragons, Victarion's fate. Afterwards the Volantene fleet and army are going to come, and with it possibly another battle.

In addition we do know that the slaves in Volantis (and possibly in all the other Free Cities) are wanting to be freed, too, so Dany will help them with that before she goes to Westeros. She most certainly will go to Volantis on her way to Westeros and take over that city, too.

All of that is going to take a lot of time, especially if Dany is actually returning to Vaes Dothrak first. Realistically it would be even surprising if Dany returned from Vaes Dothrak to Slaver's Bay in the next book considering the vast distance and all the other stories that have to be continued in the next book as well.

46 minutes ago, tugela said:

Just from a structural point of view, we know that there are two books left. One of these will be for the battle to control Westeros, and the last one will be about the struggle with the Others. If she does not invade Westeros in the next book there will be no time in the final book for everything to happen without it being rushed. WoW will be about the conquest of Westeros, or at least most of it. Martin may leave the final battle for King's Landing for the beginning of the last book. Daenerys will be coming in from the south, while Jon will be coming in from the north.

That is based on the rather problematic assumption that there will only be two books. There will be as many books as there are needed to conclude this series. Originally there were only supposed to be three books - but there were much more. What makes you believe that George is going to be able to conclude the series in two books if the finale is literally nowhere near in sight. Not even the prelude to the finale.

[blckp]

tf are you guys talking about? dunno what ice you guys talking about but daenerys's ice is WW and she is WW's fire

GRRM already said in video a song of ice and fire is Daenerys and WW, a song is battle tale not some harmony shit, and we viewers reading this tale written by samwell/GRRM, is it really that hard to grasp?

[RumHam]

1 hour ago, tugela said:

 It was not just the arm of Dorne that sank, the Neck also sank, resulting in the present day swamp lands where the crannogmen live.

Just to be clear, those were two separate events. Not one big earthquake that effected both regions. They hammered the Arm of Dorne while the First Men were still migrating in, and the Neck years later to try to stop the Andals. Only the second time it didn't really work that well and they just ended up with swamps. 

[Lady Blizzardborn]

3 hours ago, blckp said:

tf are you guys talking about? dunno what ice you guys talking about but daenerys's ice is WW and she is WW's fire

GRRM already said in video a song of ice and fire is Daenerys and WW, a song is battle tale not some harmony shit, and we viewers reading this tale written by samwell/GRRM, is it really that hard to grasp?

GRRM has said many things in many interviews and videos. And he's said that the series title has MULTIPLE meanings. 

5 hours ago, tugela said:

Not an assumption, there are reasons provided in the book to believe that Daenerys's parentage is not what she thinks it is.

There is Ser Barristans observations that she look so much like Ashara that she could be her daughter. The people she sees in her visions and looks to guidance for in her minds eye in her hour of need are not her supposed parents, instead we see Rhaegar and Quaithe. Then we also have Quaithe telling Daenerys to remember who she is. Since it is metaphor, it means that she is not who she appears to be.

The clues are there, you just refuse to see them. Daenerys has an origin story that is hidden, she is not just a princess who has expectations.

There are reasons to believe that her memories are missing information, not necessarily that her parentage is suspect.

Barristan thinks that her EYES remind him of Ashara, because Ashara had purple eyes, and Targaryens have purple eyes. Not that Dany looks like Ashara in general. Dany is said to look like her great-great-great-great-grandmother Naerys, mother of the first Daenerys who married into House Martell. But Dany does have Dayne blood through Maekar I's wife.

6 hours ago, tugela said:

I doubt it. A child of **** usually refers to the offspring of ****. One way for a child to have more than two parents is if it is adopted. Then they would have four. Except in the sort of situation where Jon was raised, where someone claimed to be his father but really was not. Similarly, a child born of cuckold could be said to be a child of three. It is hard to see how that might apply to Daenerys, unless Rhaella was impregnated by someone else. Clearly Jon would fit that description but it takes creative thinking to place Daenerys in it. One possibility I have put forward in the past is that Rhaegar might have formed some sort of cult like pact with Lyanna and Ashara to produce one or more children. Jon and Daenerys would be two of them, the third is someone else. My guess is that the third is Meera, since she is one of the few characters in the story with the right age and somewhat mysterious origins. My personal theory is that Daenerys is Ashara's, while Jon and Meera are twins, with Ned raising Jon and Howland Reed raising Meera, both as their own children.

Then why is it Daenerys who is called "child of three?" in the books and not Jon?  She is the one being addressed in the visions. 

Usually doesn't apply here. This is a fantasy series, and the author goes out of his way to keep things vague. What takes creative thinking is deciding that what the Undying call Daenerys is actually them calling someone else that. I'm all for creative thinking, by the way, I just disagree with you on this.

Dany being younger than Jon presents a problem for you as Rhaegar doesn't have a whole lot of time between impregnating Lyanna and fighting a war to have a fling with Ashara Dayne.

The books make it abundantly clear that Meera has the looks typical of crannogs folk: short in height, brown hair, green eyes. Howland Reed is her father. So she can't be Jon's twin unless Howland is his father.

If Jon DOES have a twin it would be either Aegon or Daenerys. Either way the twin with the Targaryen looks has to be smuggled out of the country in secret to protect it from Robert. Ned's already going to Starfall to return Dawn to the Daynes, so he has the perfect opportunity to place the Targ-looking twin with a pro-Targ house that has the ability and connections to secret the baby safely anywhere else. Ashara's alleged death could easily cover up her taking Lyanna and Rhaegar's other child to Essos/Dragonstone. I could easily see her taking little Aegon to Varys and being sent to Illyrio in Pentos. That makes Aegon a fake, but a real fake, and explains Illyrio's attachment to him, having had him since he was a baby.

 

[Aegon VII]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Can you provide some quotes supporting your view of the dragons? I don't remember any such from my readings of the books. What I do remember is Tyrion longing to see a real dragon because that would be magical sight, and Ser Arlan often retelling the magical moment in his life when he saw the last dragon in King's Landing a year before her death.

The only people loathing/fearing dragons are the Ghiscari and the Braavosi. And they have historical reasons for that. Nobody in Westeros seems to consider dragons a major threat. 

The Braavosi and Ghiscari are the exact people I am talking about  the ones who have been around dragons long enough to see what their power can bring. We have the FM being created because slavery under the dragon lords was so bad they preferred death. If dragons had not disappeared, Robert would have never been able to take the IT. And I'm not arguing that dragons aren't "magical", of course they are.  I'm saying that like all things in grrms world they are not wholly good or evil. At first, it is easy to assume dragons good, ww bad. but I believe that dragons are too powerful for man to yield and pose an equal threat as the ww. Just like we will see that the ww have some redeeming (or at least humanizing) qualities as well.

Quote

So what? In reality there are real weapons of mass destruction. Yet nobody destroys them, either. So why should the dragons go who aren't that great weapons of mass destruction, anyway.

Exactly, there are real weapons of mass destructions. And a strong argument could be made that dragons represent nukes in asoiaf. This fits perfectly with the fact that they have to go. We are currently in the middle of a huge global nuclear weapon disarmament. Countries are destroying the majority of nukes, and are instead researching how to create nukes that will do a tiny fraction of the damage. Power that great cannot exist in our world or grrms.

Quote

As of yet Dany doesn't owe much of her successes to the dragons. Yes, Drogon saved her in the House of the Undying, but the Unsullied saved her in Astapor and helped her conquer Meereen later on. The dragons didn't play a major role in all that.

I disagree, she owes everything to the dragons. They're the only reason she keeps her khalasar, and they're the only reason people of Qarth and other nations even notice her. And in astapor, she was trading a dragon for the unsullied. No dragon, no unsullied. That plus the house of undying and the pits in mereen and I'd say dany would be nowhere without dragons. No one follows some skinny girl who doesn't have dragons. Dany has had a cake walk of a military career and it is too unfair. She has gotten everything based on her name and her dragons. Now I say that, but I still believe she's a hero of the story and she's learning and doing the right things, she's just gotten an easy ride. I think it's interesting to compare to Jon snow, who has had the exact opposite experience.

Quote

Then why the hell is George as obvious as include ice demons into his story?

 

Im not saying it's a vinous to include either demons per se. Ice demons are presented as the antagonist, I argue we will see that they are not fully evil and will begin to humanize them. Dragons are presented as the protagonist, I argue we will see that they are just as problematic in their own way. Not saying that he can't have straight up demons, just that if one side is presented as demon, it has some good, and vice versa. I find one of the biggest underlying themes in asoiaf is balance. The title speaks to these two elements in harmony. We've seen good and bad of both elements. We have the red preists as the perversion or evil side of fire in the same way the Bolton are evil ice. I don't see evidence to support fire is good, ice is bad. Especially how much attention is given to the Starks, who seem pretty good. Both elements have good and bad sides. As do their mystical manifestations in ww and dragons. 

[RumHam]

36 minutes ago, Aegon VII said:

 If dragons had not disappeared, Robert would have never been able to take the IT. 

Not a given. If the dragons hadn't died out Robert himself could have well been a dragonrider. We've seen from house Velaryon that the Targaryens are not adamant that the last name is a pre-requisite for dragon riding. 

[Poupsi]

8 hours ago, blckp said:

one more thing, since Daenerys is Azor Ahai then Stallion Who Mounts The World is same as PTWP,Yin Tar,Shadowchaser,Last hero , just dothraki version

 

The Last Hero - Westeros

Azor Ahai- Asshai

The Prince That Was Promised - Valyria/targaryen

in some other essos culture -Hyrkoon the Hero, Yin Tar, Neferion

The Stallion Who Mounts the World -Dothraki

I'd be careful with that!

There were probably some heroes who originated those legends, myths and religions.

In the case of the Stallion, so far there was but one, Khal Mengo. Khal Mengo and his sons and grandsons were the Stallion that mounts the world. He was the first to unite the horselords tribes under his command during the century of blood. In a few generations later the great kingdom of Sarnor was destroyed. His first advisor was his mother, queen Doshi. So, the legend of the Stallion is based on real events, those led the Dothraki and the Dosh Kaleen to take control over the dothraki sea (one hell great arable plain in Essos). That all religion is no less than a political system that sustains the dothraki way of life. You fight, you enslave and if you win you may grow.

The very opposite to Khal Mengo was Huzhor Amai, the amazing. A sort of Sarnori Goldenhand, who won great military and diplomatical battles, and then created the most prosperous kindom in the world. I believe that hero was also not one man , but a powerful family.

It is all circles of constructions and destructions. The Stallion brings chaos and destruction, the amazing creates, builds and thrives.