a1andrew

Aegon as Faegon problem, Jon Snow, and House of Undying vision

62 posts in this topic

35 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

The Golden Company is represented by the sigil, the burning stallion, a homage to Bittersteel. 

That isn't Bittersteel's sigil though. The Golden Company's banner is solid gold, with no embellishment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

That isn't Bittersteel's sigil though. The Golden Company's banner is solid gold, with no embellishment.

 

It's symbolic. And I am not a supporter. I am just explaining the concept. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

That isn't Bittersteel's sigil though. The Golden Company's banner is solid gold, with no embellishment.

 

Bittersteel's personal sigil is Bracken stallion with dragon wings. The Golden Company's standard and Aegor's personal sigil is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LynnS said:

Yes it is Aegon and Elia in the room with Rhaegar.  Although we don't know the third person.  Dany doesn't see the person so assumes Rhaegar is speaking to her. 

Songs are written about the events that unfold.  Aegon and everyone else is caught up in the song of ice and fire; it isn't specifically Aegon's song except that he may play a part in it.   It is a song that doesn't have an ending at this point. 

Why do the crannogmen swear by ice and fire?

 

For a moment I couldn't understand your post because it made too much sense. In real life, most songs about people refer to their adventures, experiences and destinies, not about who their ancestors were. It makes me wonder why people are taking the opposite view in this instance.

I honestly have no clue why Jojen and Meera swear by ice and fire. If I were to take a guess, it refers to some incident in the past where the reminder is left in the greeting, but the details are lost to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, bent branch said:

For a moment I couldn't understand your post because it made too much sense. In real life, most songs about people refer to their adventures, experiences and destinies, not about who their ancestors were. It makes me wonder why people are taking the opposite view in this instance.

I honestly have no clue why Jojen and Meera swear by ice and fire. If I were to take a guess, it refers to some incident in the past where the reminder is left in the greeting, but the details are lost to time.

I agree. The Song of Ice and Fire is the tale that we are reading. It is about the babe represented in the vision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 10.8.2017 at 0:52 AM, a1andrew said:

[snip]

That is the ONLY, and I have to repeat, ONLY time in the entire book series, the words "song of ice and fire", that is, the ACTUAL NAME OF THE ENTIRE SERIES, are mentioned, and it was by Rhaegar talking to the unspecified woman in reference to the baby that was present and named Aegon.  Again, that is a huge mic drop for the entire book series.  Would Martin really chose to use the ONE reference to the name of the entire series when it was simply a mistake, simply naming the wrong party?  I have yet to see a satisfying explanation for that.  And personally, I have always answered that question definitively "NO".

[snip]
 

 

I don't know if Aegon is real or not (I think a Blackfyre Aegon would offer more story potential and has some possible hints for it but it still is just conjecture with no solid evidence. Aegon may still be real. Be that as it may: I can definitely answer your above question of 'would Martin choose to use the ONE reference  ...':

The answer is a clear and resounding 'Yes!'

And not by mistake at all.

That's what Martin does all the time! It is one of is trademark methods during writing: give a clue which seemingly pertains to a certain person - when it really pertains to another person. (Like Arya looks like Lyanna. Jon looks like Arya. So really the clue was: Jon looks like Lyanna.) It's the same method at work here.

Edited by Amris
forgot a word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2017 at 8:09 PM, a1andrew said:

I don't understand the concept of "Rhaegar was mistaken".  Could he have been?  Sure.  But why would Martin chose to show this mistake in the ONE place in the entire series that he chooses to mention a song of ice and fire, the title of the whole series.  You're telling me Martin, one of the most legendarily word conscience writers of this era, is going to chose to unveil them in the context of a mistaken belief?!  Sorry, that just makes no sense.  I'd believe Aegon is real before I believe that those words were not meant to apply to one of the three ptwp.  Sure, there is a wall of evidence that he is fake, but that textual evidence is of incomparably lesser weight in presentation than the House of Undying scene.  Regardless, under this theory, Aegon can still be Faegon and the vision can still be real.

This is the same GRRM that has Daenerys, Tyrion, and Marwyn comment on the unpredictability of prophecy, and has Melisandre acknowledge that interpreters of prophecy can be mistaken, and has commented on the unpredictability of prophecy outside the books.

Rhaegar originally believed he was TPTWP, but was later persuaded that his son Aegon was TPTWP. He could have been mistaken about either or both. Just because he applied the phrase of the series to his son Aegon does not mean that he was correct about that.

http://www.adriasnews.com/2012/10/george-r-r-martin-interview.html?spref=tw
 

Quote

 

Surely the plot is very unpredictable despite all the prophecies you give to help us...

[Laughs] Prophecies are, you know, a double edge sword. You have to handle them very carefully; I mean, they can add depth and interest to a book, but you don’t want to be too literal or too easy... In the Wars of the Roses, that you mentioned, there was one Lord who had been prophesied he would die beneath the walls of a certain castle and he was superstitious at that sort of walls, so he never came anyway near that castle. He stayed thousands of leagues away from that particular castle because of the prophecy. However, he was killed in the first battle of St. Paul de Vence and when they found him dead he was outside of an inn whose sign was the picture of that castle! [Laughs] So you know? That’s the way prophecies come true in unexpected ways. The more you try to avoid them, the more you are making them true, and I make a little fun with that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaegar saying that 'his is the song of Ice and Fire' isn't the only title drop in the series, it's merely the only one so far, with hundreds of thousands of words still to come. 

Prophecy is moving from the background to a more prominent feature as the series progresses. The last couple of books had more emphasis on things such as the Ref Priests' beliefs concerning AA, and prophecy in the Jade Compendium, and I would expect that to continue so that by the series conclusion we know the full picture of what was prophesised, and how that was fulfilled or subverted. I wouldn't take a vision of Rhaegar having spoken about this prophecy years earlier as anything more than a hint that at some point we will learn more about about an individual having a song of ice and fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GRRM has said the title has many meanings. So everyone can just calm down about whose song it is or is not because it's not that simple.

The Dragon that was Promised does NOT have to be a mixture of ice and fire. Nothing we've read about that prophecy or about Azor Ahai Reborn mentions ice except apparently that both warriors (or one if you prefer) will fight against it.

Rhaegar said Aegon was the prince that was promised, and that he has a song. Presumably either there's a "song" already written and Rhaegar was just assigning it to the baby because he thought this little dragon would save the world on his way home from the market, or Rhaegar wrote a song. Either way, that doesn't really have any bearing on who is truly The Dragon that was Promised. Rhaegar was wrong about the dragon, he could be just as wrong about the song. And remember, at this point in time Rhaegar has only his crazy little brother, himself, and his children to think of for that prophecy. Dany isn't ruled out just because her brother didn't know she was going to exist.

What we know about The Dragon that was Promised: 1) born amidst smoke and salt while the red star bleeds, which has a number of possible meanings and interpretations; 2) of Targaryen descent; 3) of Aerys II and Rhaella's line; 4) will apparently save the world from the Others; 5) has two main sidekicks, aka the other two heads of the dragon--just like Aegon had his sisters.

There is nothing that proves that Aegon is Elia's son. There is nothing that proves he is not. There is evidence in the series that we will see at least one Blackfyre pretender but nothing that specifically points to who it will be, and as I've said before Aegon makes a perfect smokescreen. There is also nothing that proves that Aegon is Illyrio's son, or the Pisswater Prince. We will all find out eventually...if The George wants us to know. Until such time as he publishes a book that answers the questions, we are all Jon Snow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2017 at 5:28 PM, Wolf of The Wall said:

Bittersteel's personal sigil is Bracken stallion with dragon wings. The Golden Company's standard and Aegor's personal sigil is different.

I understand that.  So why is the Golden Company switching their sigil after all this time?  They've already tried invading Westeros under their own banner, several times, and a couple without Bittersteel with them at all.  The current Golden Company has never met Bittersteel, and while they might honor him as their founder, why should they care beyond that?

Furthermore, fAegon isn't supposed to be a Blackfyre.  I think he is, personally (I subscribe to the theory that Illyrio's wife Serra was a female-line Blackfyre, and this is why Illyrio is in on the whole scheme, to put his son on the throne), but the Golden Company doesn't know that, they think he's a legitimate Targaryen... the mortal enemies of Bittersteel, and really the Company as a whole.  Why would they reaise Bittersteel's personal sigil because of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

I understand that.  So why is the Golden Company switching their sigil after all this time?  They've already tried invading Westeros under their own banner, several times, and a couple without Bittersteel with them at all.  The current Golden Company has never met Bittersteel, and while they might honor him as their founder, why should they care beyond that?

Furthermore, fAegon isn't supposed to be a Blackfyre.  I think he is, personally (I subscribe to the theory that Illyrio's wife Serra was a female-line Blackfyre, and this is why Illyrio is in on the whole scheme, to put his son on the throne), but the Golden Company doesn't know that, they think he's a legitimate Targaryen... the mortal enemies of Bittersteel, and really the Company as a whole.  Why would they reaise Bittersteel's personal sigil because of that?

I am not thinking the guy in the vision is fAegon i think that's Rhaego too. I was just correcting you on Bittersteel's sigil and The Golden Company's banner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

I understand that.  So why is the Golden Company switching their sigil after all this time?  They've already tried invading Westeros under their own banner, several times, and a couple without Bittersteel with them at all.  The current Golden Company has never met Bittersteel, and while they might honor him as their founder, why should they care beyond that?

Furthermore, fAegon isn't supposed to be a Blackfyre.  I think he is, personally (I subscribe to the theory that Illyrio's wife Serra was a female-line Blackfyre, and this is why Illyrio is in on the whole scheme, to put his son on the throne), but the Golden Company doesn't know that, they think he's a legitimate Targaryen... the mortal enemies of Bittersteel, and really the Company as a whole.  Why would they reaise Bittersteel's personal sigil because of that?

The tall lord with copper skin and silver hair is a vision, most likely, of what could have been if the Dragon hadn't eaten wee Rhaego in the womb. The suggestion above is that it is, rather, a possible hint by the author that Aegon is a Blackfyre. The idea is that the Aegon in the vision has Dothraki skin and almond shaped eyes because Illyrio's original plan was to have Dothraki join the Golden Company, and the sigil in the vision is an allusion to Bittersteel who founded the Golden Company. I don't think anybody is suggesting that Aegon has adopted or will adopt that sigil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2017 at 4:32 PM, bent branch said:

For a moment I couldn't understand your post because it made too much sense. In real life, most songs about people refer to their adventures, experiences and destinies, not about who their ancestors were. It makes me wonder why people are taking the opposite view in this instance.

I honestly have no clue why Jojen and Meera swear by ice and fire. If I were to take a guess, it refers to some incident in the past where the reminder is left in the greeting, but the details are lost to time.

I'm thinking it has to do with the Long Night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I'm thinking it has to do with the Long Night.

This is a good guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 8:31 AM, Amris said:

I don't know if Aegon is real or not (I think a Blackfyre Aegon would offer more story potential and has some possible hints for it but it still is just conjecture with no solid evidence. Aegon may still be real. Be that as it may: I can definitely answer your above question of 'would Martin choose to use the ONE reference  ...':

The answer is a clear and resounding 'Yes!'

And not by mistake at all.

That's what Martin does all the time! It is one of is trademark methods during writing: give a clue which seemingly pertains to a certain person - when it really pertains to another person. (Like Arya looks like Lyanna. Jon looks like Arya. So really the clue was: Jon looks like Lyanna.) It's the same method at work here.

That's as good a explanation as I've seen for why to include a massive head fake for arguably the single most significant line in the book, but to me its still very unsatisfying and sloppy.  Especially when accounting for the potentially omniscient "fantasy" Rhaegar.  If that's what Martin meant, and we ever actually find out, it will be a huge disappointment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 9:21 PM, bent branch said:

Don't let yourself be led astray. The child in that scene is indeed Aegon. GRRM has confirmed this. Therefore, any conclusion you come to must be in agreement with that baby being Aegon. That is only logical.

Here is how I interpret that scene. Dany sees a vision in which Rhaegar talks about not only the PTWP, but also the dragon with three heads. In the scene, Rhaegar is basically telling Dany to find two people to join with her in being one of the three heads of the dragon. If Aegon is alive (and there is a 50/50 shot he is), then the vision is telling Dany to find Aegon and "one more" (Jon). If Aegon is not alive, then Dany has to find two unspecified individuals. These are probably most likely Jon and Tyrion.

Just remember, the PTWP must be a descendent of Aerys and Rhaella. In this story there is only Dany, Jon and possibly Aegon. If all three heads must be descendants of Aerys and Rhaella (and there is a 50/50 shot they do need to be), then Aegon is definitely the son of Rhaegar and Elia. It is the only possible answer.

Really?  Do you have a cite?  What was the manner of confirmation?  If he just said "its Aegon" that wouldn't rule out John Snow, if that was his birth name.  He would have needed to say something like "that is Aegon the son of Elia" to really clear it up.

If that's really what Martin meant then I believe Aegon is alive, whether the Aegon we know or a different, unnamed character is actually Aegon.  The use of the soiaf line is much to powerful to be used as a headfake etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 6:46 AM, Lost Melnibonean said:

Thanks! So, the George says the mum and babe in the vision are Elia and Aegon--not Jon. 

From what I read of the above posts, it looks like that is a HIGHLY uncertain conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, a1andrew said:

From what I read of the above posts, it looks like that is a HIGHLY uncertain conclusion.

Read this one again...

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/147503-aegon-as-faegon-problem-jon-snow-and-house-of-undying-vision/&do=findComment&comment=7992223

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Looks like all the info is secondhand hearsay, and that the main source says he might have remembered it wrong, which is a recurring problem with hearsay and why it generally isn't allowed in a court of law

I won't deny that it is meaningful evidence, but that's far from reliable evidence.   At the end of the day, I'm going to assume Martin was not being sloppy and bizarre by choosing to use the one use of the title of the book series in a misdirection, and that the Aegon in the scene is alive and one of the ptwp, either as Jon Snow or Elia's Aegon.  It could well be that the Aegon from the vision is dead, but if so I'd be disappointed and would find it to be a rare act of poor storytelling on his part.

Edited by a1andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, a1andrew said:

That's as good a explanation as I've seen for why to include a massive head fake for arguably the single most significant line in the book, but to me its still very unsatisfying and sloppy.  Especially when accounting for the potentially omniscient "fantasy" Rhaegar.  If that's what Martin meant, and we ever actually find out, it will be a huge disappointment. 

Rhaegar is an unreliable narrator. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now