Jump to content

[Book Spoilers] R+L=J, A+J=T and other theories on HBO V.4


Suzanna Stormborn

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jo Maltese said:

Not sure D&D are too concerned with either controversy or [out of the blue]ness! :D

By controversial, I really meant unpopular. Polling on the issue has indicated that a majority do not want Tyrion to be a Targ (either due to Tywin/Tyrion dynamics or "too many hidden Targ" issues). So for the final season, D&D might think that the fans will be happier without Tyrion as a Targ -- if they don't view his role in the endgame as so dependent on being a Targ that the development is needed even for their version of the endgame.

As to "(out of the blue)ness", well, to a certain extent I agree. And I don't think that the lack of foreshadowing is why many have suspected AJT will not be revealed -- there has been enough I believe that could be taken as reasonable foreshadowing. So AJT could be revealed next season without the development being completely out of the blue. The issue is whether exploring the implications of the development (e.g., Aerys/Joanna and the importance of "Targ blood" and the "three heads of the dragon") would take up too much screen time.

I think the main reason most have started to question whether AJT will happen on the show is due to the death of the dragon (still not 100% sure which one died) on the show -- and perhaps that the final season will have only 6 episodes so not much time to explore the implications of such a development. 

But I have always assumed that if AJT will be part of the show, it won't be revealed until the final season. So I certainly don't have a real "out of the blue" rationale. Basically, I am suggesting that there are plausible reasons why D&D might decide to excise AJT -- especially if they decided to give Tyrion's dragon to the NK but even if the books do not have "three heads of the dragon" riding on three dragons. But I still think AJT will be true on both the show and in the books. I just don't think that if it does not happen in the show that a definite conclusion that it will not happen in the books is indicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

I meant on the Rant and Rave thread more than this one, it used to be hundreds of posts per day, and I still feel that posters have plenty to rant and rave about, to me it seems ppl do not care as much anymore.

I think a few things have contributed to this....since the bulk of this entire season leaked before it aired, a lot of people have already known for months at the level of stupid plotting, so hard to sustain a good rant over something you've known about, and also, at this point, why bother?  There are 7 episodes left, it's going to be what it will be.  Hopefully, for myself, the final season will also leak far in advance of airing so I can be done with this all once and for all.  

Also, there are now so many plot holes and logic fails per episode, it's hard to go on a full rant because it would be hundreds of words long to get to everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I think a few things have contributed to this....since the bulk of this entire season leaked before it aired, a lot of people have already known for months at the level of stupid plotting, so hard to sustain a good rant over something you've known about, and also, at this point, why bother?  There are 7 episodes left, it's going to be what it will be.  Hopefully, for myself, the final season will also leak far in advance of airing so I can be done with this all once and for all.  

Also, there are now so many plot holes and logic fails per episode, it's hard to go on a full rant because it would be hundreds of words long to get to everything.

That's a good point. The Spoilers and Speculation thread had over 4,000 posts before it got deleted. 

I'm also thinking that a lot of people have resigned themselves to being disappointed with the show now. And despite the high ratings, it seems pretty uncommon for any show that goes past four or five seasons to garner huge consideration anymore. HBO marketing is a well-oiled machine, and there's no denying that bloggers and tweeters are consistently churning out GOT material, but I don't think casual show-watchers are quite as interested in talking about the show at length anymore. The extended period between seasons probably doesn't help much, either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/8/2017 at 3:17 PM, Jo Maltese said:

+ The special saddle for Bran IIRC - which is a strong clue for many (including me) that Tyrion will use the same design to mount a dragon.

My view on this has always been that AJT will not be explicitly confirmed - not unlike Nettles' true origin in tPatQ, Tyrion riding Viserion will just almost confirm it. And yes, it would make sense that it will only happen at the very end (the closing of the penultimate episode of the last season?), because if true it would be paramount to the end game. I actually believe only Sansa + Tyrion will survive as the sole "normal" political leaders - probably elected by the people, as the show strongly hints at during the Dany / Tyrion discussion about her succession.

Anything resembling a parliamentary democracy would seem so out of place/anachronistic in the books (most of the population can't even read and probably wouldn't know one candidate from the next) that I don't see it happening. A grand council chosing a king could happen, and maybe there could be a house of lords or some such to check the power of the monarch a bit.

The special saddle for Bran also looked like a very early hint, to me. Was this on the show, too? I thought so, but it's been a while.

On 20/8/2017 at 4:48 PM, Lord Varys said:

Exactly. That wouldn't really work in the books. It wouldn't be a plot George is going to tell because it is full of holes.

Again, that could be part of them actually adapting the source material somewhat adequately without getting/understanding every ounce of foreshadowing they are putting into the story there. I mean, those guys don't really get all the subtleties of the story, right? Nor do they care about those.

And they had their talk with George about the endings only somewhat later. I doubt George told them about that when they were writing season 1. You see how George sort of had them to retcon Selyse and Shireen into the story after he told them what Shireen's ultimate fate would be. That's why they put her in there, that's clear from the start since they are building up to that for a really long time.

The big scene with Tyrion's dragon background only came in S6, with a long monologue given to Rhaegal and Viserion while he was unchaining them. At that time, they must have known the ending very well.

While opinions on their abilitity as writers/plotters differ, I'm pretty sure that D&D do get the subtleties of the story. They are more likely unable (partially due to time and budgetary constraints) or to some extent, unwilling to do it exactly like he does, and to be fair an adaptation of this scale can't be made without significant deviations (ASOIAF as it stands cannot really be filmed with present tech and economics; it was deliberately designed to be "unfilmable", at that). In their favour, while they cut many corners and their work isn't near as rich as Martin's, they are going to get to the end. Maybe even before TWOW comes out, which is a sobering thought, especially for us bookreaders.

We still don't know for certain whether Viserion or Rhaegal died?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wouter said:

We still don't know for certain whether Viserion or Rhaegal died?

According to people who watched on closed caption, the CC made it clear that Viserion was the dragon that was hit and died (by identifying the wailing as coming from Viserion). I did not watch on CC to confirm, but I tend to believe those who indicated this information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. Looks like "lads" was right yet again, then.

This last episode, the timing of events at the wall was completely ridiculous, but the moment that Dany and Jon finally gave in to one another made it worthwhile. The circumstances will be different, but something like this should happen in the books too, assuming those ever get written.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I'm having a hard time equivocating Jon and Dany's future book relationship, as implied by the director, with George's comments about Jon being a "fire wight" that isn't really fully human any more. Maybe their convergence will be played completely differently in the books, but right now it seems rather paradoxical to me. 

The answer is simple:

Quote

“... or not.” Aemon chuckled softly. “Or I am an old man, feverish and dying.” He closed his white eyes wearily, then forced them open once again. “I should not have left the Wall. Lord Snow could not have known, but I should have seen it. Fire consumes, but cold preserves. The Wall... but it is too late to go running back. The Stranger waits outside my door and will not be denied. Steward, you have served me faithfully. Do this one last brave thing for me. Go down tothe ships, Sam. Learn all you can about these dragons.”

GRRM introduced the concept of the cold of the Wall keeping Aemon alive and in good health for a reason, just sayin'. The ice of the "magical hinge of the world" (as Melisandre puts it) will balance the worst effects of the kiss of life. Both fire and ice will unite to preserve and resurrect Jon. He will be ultimately nowhere near as damaged as Beric (though still damaged) because of the added factors. It's kinda having a cake and eating it too, but that has always been inevitable since Jon is a major character that is instrumental to the endgame. There's no way he could actually lose most of his memory etc. and still be of any use in the War for Dawn. He's got to remember who is who beyond the small gang around him if he's to be a central player in any way.

There's not a snowflake's chance in the hell that Jon/Dany won't happen in the books at this point. What else are supposed to be the "rough strokes of the story" if not the relationship between the two most important characters of the saga?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lojzelote said:

The answer is simple:

GRRM introduced the concept of the cold of the Wall keeping Aemon alive and in good health for a reason, just sayin'. The ice of the "magical hinge of the world" (as Melisandre puts it) will balance the worst effects of the kiss of life. Both fire and ice will unite to preserve and resurrect Jon. He will be ultimately nowhere near as damaged as Beric (though still damaged) because of the added factors. It's kinda having a cake and eating it too, but that has always been inevitable since Jon is a major character that is instrumental to the endgame. There's no way he could actually lose most of his memory etc. and still be of any use in the War for Dawn. He's got to remember who is who beyond the small gang around him if he's to be a central player in any way.

There's not a snowflake's chance in the hell that Jon/Dany won't happen in the books at this point. What else are supposed to be the "rough strokes of the story" if not the relationship between the two most important characters of the saga?

There is no reason for weirdo ice mysticism there. Jon's spirit will be in Ghost, not destroyed/in the afterlife. He is not going to be restored by the fire kiss, only his body will be. Which means his body is going to be imbued by fire magic, giving him the same magical gimmicks as Beric's body and blood had without being losing as much of memory and personality.

However, fire consumes, and it will take its toll. Jon doesn't need a lot of his personality and character to finish the mission. He could very well become a dead man walking, completely focused on the mission up until his inevitable death in the end. 

The Dany-Jon romance will come in the books but it is not going to be the beginning of their future but rather a passionate short time between two people who won't have much time together.

With the Second Dance and the Aegon issue to be resolved or at least be partially resolved Dany might also suffer more than a few losses and personal tragedies by this point. I don't think she will die and be resurrected, too, but she could be disfigured or severely injured in some fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lojzelote said:

The answer is simple:

GRRM introduced the concept of the cold of the Wall keeping Aemon alive and in good health for a reason, just sayin'. The ice of the "magical hinge of the world" (as Melisandre puts it) will balance the worst effects of the kiss of life. Both fire and ice will unite to preserve and resurrect Jon. He will be ultimately nowhere near as damaged as Beric (though still damaged) because of the added factors. It's kinda having a cake and eating it too, but that has always been inevitable since Jon is a major character that is instrumental to the endgame. There's no way he could actually lose most of his memory etc. and still be of any use in the War for Dawn. He's got to remember who is who beyond the small gang around him if he's to be a central player in any way.

There's not a snowflake's chance in the hell that Jon/Dany won't happen in the books at this point. What else are supposed to be the "rough strokes of the story" if not the relationship between the two most important characters of the saga?

I suppose so, but in his Time interview, George really seemed to be emphasizing how resurrection comes at a high price. I'm no Freudian expert, but the contrast of Eros and Thanatos seems to be at play here. For Jon to be able to have a passionate romance after being brought back from the dead is just hard for me to wrap my head around.

There's also a matter of the timeline, but at this point, I have no clue how George is going to be able to resolve the series in only two more books, so it's only a small part of a larger conundrum in that case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

According to people who watched on closed caption, the CC made it clear that Viserion was the dragon that was hit and died (by identifying the wailing as coming from Viserion). I did not watch on CC to confirm, but I tend to believe those who indicated this information.

Here's a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/4JJ9rTr.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize for the delayed response.  Got caught up with brother's birthdays and eclipses and arguing about nazis in America.  I understand many have put their own two cents since your response - to clarify I have yet to read them.

On 8/20/2017 at 10:48 AM, Lord Varys said:

I honestly don't know. But then, it is quite clear that the show cut all the important dragonrider scenes we are going to get in the books during/after the battle of Meereen. I mean, Dragonbinder is there, right? If Tyrion doesn't have Targaryen blood then Victarion and/or Brown Ben Plumm will claim a dragon. The books have Tyrion, Victarion, and Brown Ben set up as potential dragonriders. Unlike the show unclaimed dragons that are growing ever larger have to be claimed to accompany anyone to Westeros. They are not going to follow Dany or anyone just out of the goodness of their animal hearts.

I do not think the purpose of Tyrion riding a dragon will ever entail making sure they get to Westeros.  You raise a fair argument on how the other two actually get to Westeros, but this is decidedly orthogonal to the argument of why if Tyrion rides a dragon in the books it will be necessary to depict in the show.  If Tyrion's dragonriding role in the books only constitutes making sure Viserion gets to Westeros, then Martin has as much to answer for.

On 8/20/2017 at 10:48 AM, Lord Varys said:

The best explanation I have for this is that 

- the writers don't give a shit about the intricacies of the dragonbonding/dragonriding plot as it is build up in the books.

- the writers don't particularly care for Tyrion's Targaryen ancestry. Perhaps they will include that detail, perhaps they won't.

I agree with the first explanation - they obviously don't give a shit about intricacies concerning much about anything.  But Tyrion riding a dragon is not an intricacy.  Which concurrently covers the second explanation; whether they care about Targ ancestry or not, the showrunners most certainly would care about Tyrion - one of the key characters they've invested time, effort, and money cultivating - riding a dragon.  Please explain to me why they wouldn't.

On 8/20/2017 at 10:48 AM, Lord Varys said:

If you check the way they adapted Dany-Drogon it is also quite clear that this had nothing to do with the way the scene was written in the books. In the show you had a submissive Drogon essentially present himself to Dany to jump upon. There was no fight for control there, no danger, no anything.

Agreed completely, in the show Dany was able to simply jump on.  This is irrelevant to the discussion (as is your later discussion of Cersei which I'll skip entirely).

On 8/20/2017 at 10:48 AM, Lord Varys said:

Which was a huge waste of screen time. Thank you not for reminding me that I had to watch stuff like that.

All men must serve. ;)

On 8/20/2017 at 10:48 AM, Lord Varys said:

They could come around doing that in the end. But then it wouldn't have anything to do with the dragons. Which would sort of cheapen the storyline. Again - the book Tyrion needs some way to really win the trust and support of Dany's people and eventually herself. Else he would just end up as her court jester, or the buy they ask stuff when they want to know things about the dragons and some of the Westerosi players. They would not grant him a voice on any council nor give him any power in the political or military field.

If you think Tyrion isn't going to quickly talk himself into Dany's good graces - and shut down the advisors she has around Meereen in very quick fashion - I strongly disagree.  Further, I think such a position is unwilling to recognize the plot armor Martin has afforded Tyrion throughout ADWD.

On 8/20/2017 at 10:48 AM, Lord Varys said:

For one, at the point where the show runners decided to kill Viserion at the hands of a character who doesn't really exist in the books - during a plot, we are not going to see in the books even remotely in the same fashion because it is utter stupidity.

With two Targaryens left - Daenerys and apparently 'Aegon' - we also have two dragons left - Drogon and Rhaegal. There is simply no dragon left for Tyrion.

So, you are not only open but adamant about the possibilities of a number of characters bringing the two dragons to Westeros.  But now Dany and Jon ('Aegon') are the only two possible riders upon reaching Westeros and there's "simply no" room left for Tyrion?  Seems incredibly contradictory.  Like I've been saying for bout a year now, what if Jon or Dany die?

On 8/20/2017 at 10:48 AM, Lord Varys said:

In the show anyone can take the Iron Throne since nobody cares all that much about legal claims or anything, really. In the books it should be a lot harder. The Lords of Westeros wouldn't want a dwarf king, especially not one who murdered his own father. A Targaryen bastard and dragonrider who rose high in the service of Queen Daenerys could pull it off. Just as Bloodraven could have become king if some freak accident had killed all of Daeron II's sons and grandsons.

But just some Lannister dwarf - that's simply not likely in the books. It would be far too controversial not to mention mostly against the premise of the entire series. I mean, we are likely to see one of the children growing up taking the throne, not some older guy.

I agree in principle.  It was a flippant point trying to emphasize Tyrion taking the throne in the show is just as unlikely as it is in the books.  Varys and Tyrion literally discuss this in the premiere of Season 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason for weirdo ice mysticism there. Jon's spirit will be in Ghost, not destroyed/in the afterlife. He is not going to be restored by the fire kiss, only his body will be. Which means his body is going to be imbued by fire magic, giving him the same magical gimmicks as Beric's body and blood had without being losing as much of memory and personality.

However, fire consumes, and it will take its toll. Jon doesn't need a lot of his personality and character to finish the mission. He could very well become a dead man walking, completely focused on the mission up until his inevitable death in the end. 

The Dany-Jon romance will come in the books but it is not going to be the beginning of their future but rather a passionate short time between two people who won't have much time together.

With the Second Dance and the Aegon issue to be resolved or at least be partially resolved Dany might also suffer more than a few losses and personal tragedies by this point. I don't think she will die and be resurrected, too, but she could be disfigured or severely injured in some fashion.

Well, you gotta wonder then, why GRRM had Mel establish that the Wall is imbued with powerful magic and why Maester Aemon told us that it has healing and preservative properties. "The fire consumes" part of Aemon's quote fits very well the way in which GRRM describes his "fire wights" as burning away, so I think Aemon is right on the point with the "ice preserves" part as well. And what is it going to serve if not a certain event in which a major character is resurrected at the Wall, right? It's not like if Jon didn't have a dream in which his body is covered by black ice instead of black cloth or black armor.

I concede that the idea of his ultimate survival seems strange and unlikely, but for the time being he should be a mostly functioning and relatable human being. There's pretty much no point in telling us his personal story otherwise.

4 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I suppose so, but in his Time interview, George really seemed to be emphasizing how resurrection comes at a high price. I'm no Freudian expert, but the contrast of Eros and Thanatos seems to be at play here. For Jon to be able to have a passionate romance after being brought back from the dead is just hard for me to wrap my head around.

There's also a matter of the timeline, but at this point, I have no clue how George is going to be able to resolve the series in only two more books, so it's only a small part of a larger conundrum in that case. 

GRRM likes to use the Faulkner quote that human heart in conflict is the only thing worth to write about. I see little chance he has decided to swap a major character like Jon with an automaton zombie without memory or ability to feel emotions midway the story. Especially now when it's de facto confirmed that Jon's story is half the key to the heart of the series.

As to the second point, I think that GRRM kinda sucks at planning. At this point I doubt he's any better at estimating the scope of his story any better than what a realistic publication date for the next book is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

I'm wondering if the convergence of Jon and Beric on the show means that somewhow Jon and LSH are destined to be reunited and her purpose is to make good on how she treated Jon when he was a kid, like if that is now part of her purpose.

I really like Jon having the opportunity to discuss undeadness with Beric in the show - certainly one of the few silver linings.  I do not see, however, how any reunion with LSH would resemble anything as amicable in the books.

17 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

As to the assertion by some that if AJT is true in the books -- then it must be true on the show, I just am not as certain. And no, I am not "moving the goalposts" or "engaging in confirmation biased thinking." [1] Rather I am watching how much D&D seem to be changing major elements of the plot and how D&D might think that introducing Tyrion as a Targ bastard might be too complicated and controversial to put forward on the show. 

If AJT is true in the books, without knowing how it plays out in the books, I cannot assess how radical a change the story would have to take to ignore that development. Sure AJT not being revealed on the show makes me less certain of AJT in the books -- but not to the point of being convinced of AJT not happening in the booksAs @Lord Varys has stated, the changes made to how the dragons "bond" on the show compared to the books suggests that the use of the dragons might be playing out differently on the show -- and I have never been convinced that Tyrion will ride a dragon in the books and don't think AJT is necessarily being done to allow Tyrion to do so. [2]

1.  While I'm not entirely sure what "confirmation biased thinking" is, yes, you are moving the goalposts.  Confirmation bias entails framing information to justify one's preexisting beliefs - that doesn't really apply in this regard because all of the available information is antithetical to your proposition.

Anyway, you most certainly have moved the goalposts.  When Tyrion had that scene last season with R and V, you're going to pretend as if you weren't ready to use that as support for your argument?  I still think Tyrion riding a dragon is totally possible, but the show cuts both ways.  Please stop acting like it doesn't.

2.  Of course, zealots will never be convinced.  But are you seriously going to sit here and say AJT is not necessarily about Tyrion riding a dragon in the books?  Talk about moving the goalposts.  What do you now conveniently think it is for now?  Seriously, this is an honest question because it makes no sense based on your prior position?  Here's you from AJT 8 in January 2016 that took me less than 5 seconds to look up:

Quote

I think that Tyrion being a dragon actually is critical because I think that the "dragon has three heads" prophecy is important to winning the War for the Dawn 2.0 (i.e., defeat the Others). So the book needs three heroes who are dragons to work together. Dany is one -- Jon is another -- and Tyrion is the third. That is not too many dragons -- but rather just the needed number of dragons.

Please explain and reconcile.

12 hours ago, Wouter said:

The special saddle for Bran also looked like a very early hint, to me. Was this on the show, too? I thought so, but it's been a while.

I think Bran's saddle will be important to dragonriding one way or another.  Is it for Tyrion to ride?  I hope so.  Or, maybe, is it for Bran to ride?  Now that the "ice" dragon is out in the open, I'd like to entertain the thought that's Bran's purpose (you will fly) is to warg a dragon.  How does he do so?  Fuck if I know.  But mayhaps a saddle has something to do with it.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Dany-Jon romance will come in the books but it is not going to be the beginning of their future but rather a passionate short time between two people who won't have much time together.

Yeah...pretty sure you just described how the romance is playing out in the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21. 8. 2017 at 2:51 PM, Newstar said:

Alan Taylor (7x06) on Jon/Dany:

 

He added to it some later:

Quote

Jon and Daenerys are growing closer together. What's that like for you to see and be involved in bringing to life, given your view of the series as someone who's been involved since the very first season?

It's funny, it really did have a real scale to it for me. I remember being on location in season one, on location in Malta with George R.R. Martin, when he was visiting. At the time, we had no idea what the show was going to turn into. We hadn't gone public yet. He was quite open about what his plans were, in a way we certainly haven't been since, since the show has become a big deal and has to be kept secret. But even then, in that first season, when there were 100 characters and we were finding out who was important and who was going to last, and no one knew if Robb Stark [Richard Madden] was going to wind up being king or something — even then, he said very early on that this was going to be about Dany and Jon Snow. It was a revelation to hear so early on, because they were secondary characters, or at least they were characters among many other characters, and it wasn't clear yet where the story was going to head. From the beginning, he knew this relationship was going to be the focus. The actors have known about it for a long time, and seeing them together, they've played beautifully off each other. They know each other so well that it's almost effortless in terms of their performance.

source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I really like Jon having the opportunity to discuss undeadness with Beric in the show - certainly one of the few silver linings.  I do not see, however, how any reunion with LSH would resemble anything as amicable in the books.

1.  While I'm not entirely sure what "confirmation biased thinking" is, yes, you are moving the goalposts.  Confirmation bias entails framing information to justify one's preexisting beliefs - that doesn't really apply in this regard because all of the available information is antithetical to your proposition.

Anyway, you most certainly have moved the goalposts.  When Tyrion had that scene last season with R and V, you're going to pretend as if you weren't ready to use that as support for your argument?  I still think Tyrion riding a dragon is totally possible, but the show cuts both ways.  Please stop acting like it doesn't.

2.  Of course, zealots will never be convinced.  But are you seriously going to sit here and say AJT is not necessarily about Tyrion riding a dragon in the books?  Talk about moving the goalposts.  What do you now conveniently think it is for now?  Seriously, this is an honest question because it makes no sense based on your prior position?  Here's you from AJT 8 in January 2016 that took me less than 5 seconds to look up:

 

Let me take your points one at a time:

1. Have I moved the goalpost? I don't think so because I have never indicated that Tyrion riding a dragon is critical to why I think AJT is true, and I have never stated that Tyrion must be a Targ bastard on the show if he is a Targ bastard in the books. I certainly have thought -- and still believe -- that Tyrion most likely will be a Targ bastard on the show. I have revised my view a bit -- not moved the goalposts, just used new information to update my analysis -- based on how much it appears to me that D&D are deviating from GRRM's outline of the plot. I still believe that D&D have every intention of having the end results of the battle and the outcome for who lives and dies and who has what "official" title at the end be mostly or maybe even entirely the same as the books. But the path they will take clearly will be different -- and Tyrion as Targ bastard might be one of those differences. 

The accusation of "moving the goalposts" suggest that I indicated in the past that I would know for sure whether Tyrion is a Targ in the books based on the show. While I have most presumed that the show would have the same development on this issue, I don't think I ever indicated that the show outcome was necessarily the same as the book outcome on this one issue. And as noted above, I have been surprised already at how much D&D seem to be deviating from anything that I imagine GRRM will do with the plot, so my view of the possibility of the book and show being different on this issue has altered a bit. But I don't consider that "moving the goalposts" as I have allowed new information to adjust my analysis -- as I would hope all people would do. And more important, while I still think it likely that AJT will be revealed on the show, and I will continue to point out any clues in that direction, I did not set up AJT on the show as a definitive "test" for AJT in the books.

2. Here is where I think I can clear up any confusion. The quote of mine that you re-printed actually proves my point -- but I can see how you misunderstood -- and how many others have misunderstood. Let me re-print the quote again:

Quote

I think that Tyrion being a dragon actually is critical because I think that the "dragon has three heads" prophecy is important to winning the War for the Dawn 2.0 (i.e., defeat the Others). So the book needs three heroes who are dragons to work together. Dany is one -- Jon is another -- and Tyrion is the third. That is not too many dragons -- but rather just the needed number of dragons

When I reference Tyrion being a "dragon" I am NOT referencing him riding an actual dragon. I am talking about the prophecy -- as I clarify in the next sentence. The prophecy states that the "dragon has three heads" which I have consistency for many years stated that I believe it means that three Targs (or people with a Targ father in the case of Tyrion as a Targ bastard) will be the three "war generals" who are critical to winning the war. Go to the A+J=T (click on link) thread that I posted (with some editorial help from Consigliere). The term "dragon" appears in multiple places, but the term either is used to reference Tyrion (and Jon and Dany) as "dragons" in the sense that Targs are referenced as "dragons" and must be what the term "dragon" means in the prophecy -- OR -- I have used it in reference to Tyrion's obsession with dragons as support for him being a Targ. But nowhere in that analysis will you see a statement that the books need to have three Targs to ride the three dragons. Why? Because that analysis has never been critical to why I think that AJT is true in the books (even if not true on the show).

So back to my quote above. I use the term "dragon" five times in that quote. And EACH and EVERY time that the term "dragon" is used by me in that quote I am unambiguously referencing actual individuals in the story (Tyrion principally but also Jon and Dany) as being "dragons" in the sense of being "Targs" which are represented as "dragons" in prophecy. I refer to "Tryion being a dragon" -- I indicate that the prophecy that the "dragon must have three heads" is important -- I refer to "three heroes who are dragons" -- I state that Dany, Jon and Tyrion being three dragons is not "too many dragons" but rather "the needed number of dragons." I am NOT talking about actual dragons in any of those references. I don't talk about Tyrion riding a dragon. I talk about Tyrion BEING a dragon. He must BE a dragon because the prophecy states that the "dragon must have three heads" and so Westeros needs three Targs to win the war. That does not necessarily mean that Westeros needs three actual dragons to win the war.

So the fundamental misunderstanding is that when I use the term "dragon" you appear to be assuming that I am referencing actual dragons. But in context, I believe it is quite clear that I am NOT referencing actual dragons (except when I refer to Tyrion being obsessed with dragons or having particular knowledge about dragons -- but never in terms of the necessity to have three dragon riders). I am referencing Targs as being dragons (which the Targs themselves often do in conversation -- Dany referring to herself as the "last dragon" for example). So again, I have been posting for I think about three years on this issue. My analysis has always been based on the clues in the books (including WOIAF). These clues are mostly about Tyion having Targ traits (like hair color) or foreshadowing statements (like Tywin saying Tyrion is "no son of mine") or connections between Aerys and Joanna (particularly in WOIAF but not exclusively) or connections among Jon, Dany and Tyrion (like mothers dying in childbirth). I have not relied on the need for three dragon riders. And the quote you re-printed that you thought proved your point does not -- as I never in that quote reference Tyrion riding a dragon -- only that Tyrion must BE a dragon to fulfill the prophecy.

------------------------------------------------------------

So the common question that is asked of me is that if the three Targs riding three dragons is not what the prophecy means -- then what does it mean? My short answer is that I am not sure, and I believe that the answer likely is one that most could not even fathom to predict. I think that GRRM has a resolution in mind that likely is unique in ways that no one has predicted so far. Just having three Targs ride into battle on three dragons and defeat the Others is a little too "pedestrian" for GRRM. But what I have always believed is that GRRM has made it pretty clear (despite his statement that third head is not "necessarily a Targ") by the way he uses prophecy in the books, that three people who qualify as "dragons" (which can include Tyrion -- the reason for quotes like "Black or red, a dragon is still a dragon") must come together to win the war.

But I follow the clues where they lead me. And in the books, the clues are quite clear. Are there some clues in the show? Yes. Are they as clear and overwhelming? No. So I am less sure about AJT being the case on the show (although still think it likely -- and if true on the show then it pretty much resolves the question for the books although not 100% as we just cannot be sure what GRRM will do or what changes D&D will have done). But if AJT is not the case on the show, does that answer the question for the books? No. There are a number of plausible reasons why D&D might cut that issue out of the show.

So in sum, I do not believe I am moving the goalposts because I never indicated that the show must be the same as the books on this issue -- and new information has come out that reduces the extent to which I thought D&D were sticking to GRRM's plot points. Moreover, I have NEVER NEVER NEVER stated that Tyrion as a Targ must mean that Tyrion rides a dragon. Tyrion must BE a dragon in the sense of the prophecy stating that the dragon must have three heads (i..e., House Targ must have three leaders to win the war). Go back to all of the past AJT threads (if they are still searchable -- not sure if they are any longer). While I have made statements that Tyrion riding a dragon seemed likely (and I still think it could happen both on the show and books, as I don't think that both Jon and Dany survive to the end of the war), I have never made Tryion as a dragonrider central to my AJT analysis. In fact, that issue has been quite ancillary to my analysis, as even the quote that you thought proved your point actually proves mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A poster on another board made the very good point that now that Jon has fallen in love with Dany and will likely realize that they're related, the writers are extremely unlikely to do the same thing with Tyrion (who is in love with Dany in the show and who would be her brother if AJT is correct).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Newstar said:

A poster on another board made the very good point that now that Jon has fallen in love with Dany and will likely realize that they're related, the writers are extremely unlikely to do the same thing with Tyrion (who is in love with Dany in the show and who would be her brother if AJT is correct).

I have no idea what the logic of this analysis is supposed to be. Tyrion may be "in love" with Dany -- not totally clear on the show -- but he is not going to have a physical relationship with Dany. Jon is. And that development will not be repeated even if Tyrion is Dany's brother. Jon and Dany's emerging romantic relationship is becoming central to the plot. Finding out that Dany is Jon's aunt will be a big deal for many reasons -- that reason included. Tyrion and Dany will never be in any sort of romantic relationship. Finding out that Dany is Tytion's half-brother will not have the same fall-out at all -- still a big deal -- but not relating to any romantic feelings between them (or even unrequited by Tyrion).

This "argument" really is a just another variation on the "too many hidden Targs" complaint -- which is one of two main complaints given about AJT (the other being "ruining the Tywin/Tyrion relationship"). I have addressed this issue over an over again. At least in the books, the "Dragon Has Three Heads." Thus, we need two more Targs in addition to Dany -- and thus we need two "hidden" Targs.

Is the show going a different way? Maybe, I have acknowledged as much quite a bit recently. But Tyrion supposedly being in love with Dany is not something that I see as evidence one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lojzelote said:

GRRM likes to use the Faulkner quote that human heart in conflict is the only thing worth to write about. I see little chance he has decided to swap a major character like Jon with an automaton zombie without memory or ability to feel emotions midway the story. Especially now when it's de facto confirmed that Jon's story is half the key to the heart of the series.

As to the second point, I think that GRRM kinda sucks at planning. At this point I doubt he's any better at estimating the scope of his story any better than what a realistic publication date for the next book is.

I don't necessarily think that Jon will be devoid of feelings, just that I find it kind of a cop-out for him to be resurrected, become King in the North, and then have a passionate relationship with a dragon queen. Of course, I expect GRRM's take on all of this to be vastly different than how it was presented on the show. I usually try to cut GRRM some slack when it comes to finishing the series, but this is one of those times when I really wish he had published the next book already.

On the topic of Tyrion being in love with Dany, I'm not really sure what Peter was going off of here, because he doesn't seem to be in love with her to me. Most of the things GOT actors and actresses say seem to be an exaggeration (although they may also be under directions from the producers to mislead fans). Some actors, such as Lena Headey and NCW, usually give fairly insightful interviews, but most of the actors on this show seem to just be throwing stuff out there. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...