Jump to content

A new framework for some of the HotU visions


Archmaester_Aemma

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Alternate interpretations exist on the pairings though.

Old dragons: Bloodraven, and anyone else who is old and is a Targaryen but we don't know about (the Tattered Prince as little Maegor's son for example). 

Young dragons: Dany, Aegon, and Jon.

True dragons could mean either true as in Targaryen or as in honest non-betrayers: Jon, Dany, maybe Aegon, maybe Bloodraven (though not if he's the old dragon), any other Targ derivatives in play.

False dragons, again open to either Blackfyres or liars/betrayers: maybe Aegon, maybe Varys, maybe Illyrio, other Targ derivatives.

Bright could mean a descendant of Aerion Brightflame: maybe Aegon, maybe Varys, other Brightflame derivatives.

Dark as Blackfyre would include: maybe Aegon, maybe Illyrio, maybe Daario, maybe Brown Ben Plumm; maybe Varys. Dark as indicating black could mean Jon in his Night's Watch garb, but I think this less likely.

Then there's the question of whether each descriptor is for multiple players or only one. If there's only one old dragon, then it's Bloodraven, and that rules him out from being a false or true dragon. The others could fit any of them but if there's only a single Brightflame descendant my money would be on Varys.

I never really thought about this before, but it's interesting that Moqorro speaks in pairs when you remember Quaithe's warning to Dany about the men who were headed in her direction was also structured that way. Put in pairs, the first two dragons would have to be Bloodraven and Jon. The others could still be flexible but both BR and Jon had mothers with no Targ blood, both joined the Night's Watch, both were elected Lord Commander, both are powerful skinchangers, and both are very much aware of the threat of the Others. The similarities are impossible to dismiss on those two at least.

Agreed on Tyrion. And since we have multiple protagonists and antagonists, he's going to be doing a lot of bouncing.

I know the overwhelming majority interpret Moqorro's dragons as six. (They do not have the eyes to see!) But what would be the point of that? The reason I could see for that interpretation of something written at this point in Dance would be to hint that Tyrion, assuming he is a snarling dragon, rather than a snarling lion, is a dragonseed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

I disagree with your characterization of the game of the thrones and a Dance with Dragons as less important to the story than the final act. Without the first two acts, the third would be much less compelling. Yes the threat from the far north is perhaps the greatest threat of all, but we have to get from here to there. 

I realise that I didn't word that very well at all... It is not unimportant to the story as a whole, more that the visions I believe the Undying Ones would impart would have more to do with the final act than with the Game of Thrones itself.

I guess I thought this because the daughter of death visions are about bringing the dragons into the world i.e. they are symbols of forging Lightbringer, if not Lightbringer itself - so end of the world stuff.

The bride of fire visions are again related to the dragons, or more specifically, the birth and use of them - Drogo brought them in to the world, Euron is being set up to be a massive and terrifying third act villain (aiming to be a god-king installed on the Iron Throne) and Jon being a major protagonist in the War for the Dawn. - Again this is all about the use and potentially abuse of the dragons, which are LB symbols - so end of the world stuff.

In this pattern, I can't see the game of thrones fitting in the slayer of lies slot here. Especially considering what the Undying Ones would believe it is important to show Dany. Is the game of thrones really it? I'm not so sure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Archmaester_Aemma said:

Hey Masha - thanks for reading and commenting :) 

Re your Shireen theory, she has the greyscale for the stone-ness, but I'm not sure where the lie Dany could slay would be? Unless it would be Stannis, but then there's the problem of redundancy again, as Stannis is covered by the blue-eyed king...

Melisandre's lie. She would convince desperate Stannis to sacrifice Shireen to "wake the dragons from the stone" (she was talking about it before) and what she would wake would be some monstrosities not real dragons - a lie. A lie that Dany would have to slay with her real dragons or perhaps convince Stannis that what he woke wasn't a good thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Masha said:

Melisandre's lie. She would convince desperate Stannis to sacrifice Shireen to "wake the dragons from the stone" (she was talking about it before) and what she would wake would be some monstrosities not real dragons - a lie. A lie that Dany would have to slay with her real dragons or perhaps convince Stannis that what he woke wasn't a good thing to do.

To my mind, those would be the same thing. I.e. Azor Ahai wakes dragons from stone so if Dany was to slay the lie that Stannis is Azor Ahai she would simultaneously be slaying the lie about this hypothetical stone beast. That's what I'm thinking atm, which then leads back to this redundancy argument i.e. that Stannis/Mel would be mentioned twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2017 at 3:11 PM, Lost Melnibonean said:

I know the overwhelming majority interpret Moqorro's dragons as six. (They do not have the eyes to see!) But what would be the point of that? The reason I could see for that interpretation of something written at this point in Dance would be to hint that Tyrion, assuming he is a snarling dragon, rather than a snarling lion, is a dragonseed. 

I don't believe Tyrion is a dragonseed but I still lean toward the six. As to the point, that would be something we would learn in TWOW and/or ADOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I don't believe Tyrion is a dragonseed but I still lean toward the six. As to the point, that would be something we would learn in TWOW and/or ADOS.

I think even though Maqorro refers to them as multiple "dragons" I think he describes one category= one unique person

Old Dragons - Master Aemon

Young Dragons - Jon Snow

True Dragons - Dany

False Dragons - Aegon

Bright Dragons - Brightflame

Dark Dragons - either Blackfyre or Bloodraven

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Masha said:

I think even though Maqorro refers to them as multiple "dragons" I think he describes one category= one unique person

Old Dragons - Master Aemon

Young Dragons - Jon Snow

True Dragons - Dany

False Dragons - Aegon

Bright Dragons - Brightflame

Dark Dragons - either Blackfyre or Bloodraven

 

I agree. But I submit that we don't know the identities for sure yet. Aemon cannot be the Old Dragon because he's dead. Unless he comes back as a wight he is out of the picture. :(

We don't know that Aegon is false, because we don't know whether it refers to genetics or to character, and we don't know yet who Aegon is per genetics. Dany, Jon, or Aegon could be the young dragon. Right there with you on the bright and dark though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I agree. But I submit that we don't know the identities for sure yet. Aemon cannot be the Old Dragon because he's dead. Unless he comes back as a wight he is out of the picture. :(
 

I'm not sure that means he can't be the, or at least an old dragon. He may still have an impact on the story even after his death, and depending on the time of Moqorro's vision and the death of Aemon they might be close together. Aemon's certainly had a huge impact on Samwell and Gilly, and they may go on to have a significant part to play in this story if Samwell's encounters in Oldtown are any indication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2017 at 3:27 AM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

Firstly, the sword in the vision is red – Stannis’ isn’t. In the fake forging ceremony concocted by Mel, “jade green flames [are] swirling around cherry red steel”, after which “The Red Sword of Heroes looks a proper mess.” And in every occasion after that, the sword is described as red AND orange AND yellow:

 

Which raises a secondary problem with the sword – after the forging ceremony, Stannis’ sword is always described as being full of the sun. But, in Dany’s vision, the sword “glows like sunset” i.e. it is the herald of the night and a lack of sun. In this case, surely the blade that is the herald of night cannot be the same blade as one full of sunshine.

Google sunsets. They look red, orange and yellow, just as Stannis' sword is described. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In another thread a while ago I had made a comprehensive list of what (I think) the 3x3 vision triplets mean and how (I believe) they are related to and explain the 3x3 'fires, mounts, treasons' triplets that precede them. I don't want to repeat all of that.

But I want to point out two things:

First for the Stone Beast taking wing Jon is a more likely candidate than Tyrion IMO.

" ... from a burning tower a great stone beast took wing, breathing shadow fire."

The one scene in the books that matches this description perfectly was the burning of Winterfell.

There was a 'burning tower' (the first keep) with 'great stone beasts' on it (gargoyles) at least one of which fell down due to the fire (taking wing) and Summer, when watching the burning from a distance saw shadow fire over Winterfell.

Now we all know what's under the First Keep: The crypts. And many of us suspect there is a secret hidden in those crypts that relates to Jon's true parentage. To me this vision points to Jon being discovered as the son of Rhaegar (the 'lie being slain' being his supposed Ned ancestry).

This also fits with how the vision triplets are arranged:

3rd vision in first triplet: Rhaegar Targaryen

3rd vision in second triplet: Jon being discovered as Rhaegar's son (that's my take at least)

3rd vision in third triplet: Jon-Flower at the wall

Secondly I would like to again point out that the 3x3 vision triplets are explanations for the 3x3 'fires, mounts, treasons' triplets that precede them.

That's because after getting the first 3x3 fires, mounts, treason triplets Dany says "I don't understand ... help me. Show me." And the Undying reply " ... help her ... show her ..." And then the vision triplets start.

For this reason I think both sets of triplets should be combined and read together and an explanation that does not include the first set will likely come up short.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎.‎01‎.‎2017 at 8:17 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

1) Daughter of death – a) Viserys, b.) Rhaego, c) Rhaegar

2) Slayer of lies – a) Blue-eyed king, b.) cloth dragon, c) stone beast

3) Bride of fire – a) Riding her silver, b.) the smiling grey corpse, c) A blue flower at the Wall

 

On ‎10‎.‎01‎.‎2017 at 8:40 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

Final summary

I believe each trio of visions associated with a description can be placed on a tighter framework than has previously been proposed and this allows for a far more coherent interpretation of the visions. These are:

1) Daughter of death: 3 deaths that led to the epiphanies she needed to birth the dragons in to the world – Viserys showed her that fire cannot kill a dragon, Mirri Maz Duur’s in utero murder of Rhaego taught her that only death can pay for life, and the reminder of Rhaegar’s death on the Trident ensured that Daenerys is the last dragon.

2) Slayer of lies: Dany will slay the lies surrounding 3 people’s identities: she will show people that Aegon is not a true Targaryen, only a mummer’s dragon, that Tyrion is a stone dragon and that either R+L=J or Stannis is not Azor Ahai Reborn.

3) Bride of fire: Dany will marry 3 men that are heavily associated with her dragons: Drogo, her mount to bed, where she wedded fire in his funeral pyre; Euron, her mount to dread, who will marry her to gain a dragon to attempt to steal the Iron Throne; and Jon, her mount to love, who will use her dragons to end the War for the Dawn, defeating an army of ice at the Trident.

It looks like a matrix to me. A matrix in mathematics is often full of symmetry. Considering that Daenerys was told by Pyatt Pree that she would have visions of the past, of future days to happen and future days never to happen ("days that were, days that will be, days that never shall be").

If I take the visions and ask, if these have aready become true at the point of time Daenerys enters the Hous of the Undying (i.e. ACOK, chapter 48), then the following categorization can be made.

1a = past

1b = future (not to happen)

1c = past

2a = past (Stannis) or future (Jon); (Stannis is declared Azhor Azai by Melisandre in ACOK chapter 10).

2b = future (to happen)

2c = ?

3a = past

3b = future

3c = future

 

If I assume now further that GRRM liked symmetry, we should find 3 x past; 3 x future to happen; 3 x future not to happen.

As, according to your Interpretation, 1a, 1c and 3a are for sure in the past; 2a cannot be Stannis.

q.e.d.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Amris said:

In another thread a while ago I had made a comprehensive list of what (I think) the 3x3 vision triplets mean and how (I believe) they are related to and explain the 3x3 'fires, mounts, treasons' triplets that precede them. I don't want to repeat all of that.

Could you give me the link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, velo-knight said:

I'm not sure that means he can't be the, or at least an old dragon. He may still have an impact on the story even after his death, and depending on the time of Moqorro's vision and the death of Aemon they might be close together. Aemon's certainly had a huge impact on Samwell and Gilly, and they may go on to have a significant part to play in this story if Samwell's encounters in Oldtown are any indication.

That's a fair point and certainly possible, but in general the visions in the flames have to do with things going on in the present or coming in the future. Aemon no longer has a role in the future. Despite having influenced others, his part in the story is done. He won't be one of the dragons in the midst of whom is Tyrion, snarling and casting his long shadow, as the story continues. The fact that Tyrion is included in the vision from the flames seems to indicate that he's going to be smack in the middle of things for the upcoming Dance of the Dragons II.

There are no Sam or Gilly references, and Moqorro likely is only allowed to glimpse a portion of coming events, just as Melisandre never gets the whole picture. Yes, Sam potentially has a very important role to play, I'm just not sure Moqorro would have any information about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

That's a fair point and certainly possible, but in general the visions in the flames have to do with things going on in the present or coming in the future. Aemon no longer has a role in the future. Despite having influenced others, his part in the story is done. He won't be one of the dragons in the midst of whom is Tyrion, snarling and casting his long shadow, as the story continues. The fact that Tyrion is included in the vision from the flames seems to indicate that he's going to be smack in the middle of things for the upcoming Dance of the Dragons II.

There are no Sam or Gilly references, and Moqorro likely is only allowed to glimpse a portion of coming events, just as Melisandre never gets the whole picture. Yes, Sam potentially has a very important role to play, I'm just not sure Moqorro would have any information about that.

True, but Aemon and Tyrion have met back in AGOT, no? It's telling that dragons young and old are mentioned first - Tyrion has already been amidst these two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

True, but Aemon and Tyrion have met back in AGOT, no? It's telling that dragons young and old are mentioned first - Tyrion has already been amidst these two.

I was just commenting on this exact thing!  I think all that means is Tyrion has met them at some point.  I don't think it has to all be at the same time.  Plus the part about him in the midst of them "snarling" ,I believe was the term sorry if it isn't, seems already to have started somewhat with him convincing Aegon to go on to Westeros without Dany.  That isn't a spoiler is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...