Jump to content

[ADwD Spoilers]The Mummers dragon


Recommended Posts

Except the griffin and the mummer's dragon didn't come, they changed their minds and went to Westeros instead. Did Tyrion invalidate Quaithe's prophecy, or does becoming major players on the other side of the world qualify as "coming"? The other five all showed up at Mereen, or are fast approaching.

Many of Dany's prophecies haven't come true. It is as if they were on the border of coming true, but then something stops them. The ones about her son comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Daenerys is supposed to be the Slayer of Lies - maybe she ends up not caring about her destiny, then she might be the Slayer of Lies and Azor Ahai, but is going to save no one and slay no lies - the blue-eyed king, the cloth dragon, and the shadow beast on its tower have to be lies in one way or the other.

But I'm pretty sure that this does not refer to the heritage of this 'lies'. Aegon might be a Targaryen or no, but I'm sure the lie Daenerys is going to slay is the false belief that he will save Westeros from the threat of the Others - that seems to be her destiny, after. And her very presence in Westeros might be enough to prove that the false saviors aren't saviors.

No one will care about heritages and stuff, she the least, and I'm not sure how she would be able to reveal that Aegon is false. If her dragons don't like him, what's that going to prove? Apparently, Targaryen dragons devoured other Targaryens (Rhaenyra, for instance), so that's not going to prove anything.

The stone beast seems to be a false/artificial dragon - the very existence of a real dragon is going to put such obscurities back into place, I'd wager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Slayer of Lies' does not mean that they have to die. It only means that something is revealed about them. That could mean that they are going to fail miserably and die screaming, but it does not mean that it has to be this way.

But it's the 'Slayer of Lies' line strongly indicates for me that Stannis has to be alive and (more or less) well - meaning that he is no prisoner of Ramsay's, as Daenerys would not slay a lie if the lie in question was long dead and forgotten before she even decides to go to Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Slayer of Lies' does not mean that they have to die. It only means that something is revealed about them. That could mean that they are going to fail miserably and die screaming, but it does not mean that it has to be this way.

But it's the 'Slayer of Lies' line strongly indicates for me that Stannis has to be alive and (more or less) well - meaning that he is no prisoner of Ramsay's, as Daenerys would not slay a lie if the lie in question was long dead and forgotten before she even decides to go to Westeros.

Except again... Dany prophecies are known to not come true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stone beast seems to be a false/artificial dragon - the very existence of a real dragon is going to put such obscurities back into place, I'd wager.
If you're going to go through hoops with Aegon, you might consider the idea that the stone beast is metaphorical, and Melisandre's lie: at one point, Mel will learn that Daenerys has awoken dragons (from stone), and thus the lie that sacrificing kings must animate stone dragons will be slain. Without Dany doing anything.

Same stuff for Stannis, truly: once proven he's no Azor Ahai, the lie is slain. How that's done is iffy, still, depends on who Azor Ahai is, Dany or Jon, or when the two meet.

Except again... Dany prophecies are known to not come true.
One has apparently not come true, but it's not too late for Dany to be the stallion that mounts the world, herself. The others, most came true, the rest is still pending.

Most prophecies having come true certainly tips the probabilities towards subsequent prophecies most likely coming true too, though it keeps the possibility of them failing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stallion was supposedly her son, not she herself. And I'm quite aware of the fact that the prophecies of the Undying were only possibilities, not actual truths. Especially as there only purpose was to confuse and distract Daenerys while the Undying sucked out her life-force.

But since Dany survived, the chances are that at least some of those prophecies are going to be fulfilled. And I also believe that those three lies would be rather insignificant of neither Aegon nor Stannis would end up becoming politically important/powerful. Right now, they are not. And since neither Cersei nor her children were mentioned in Dany's prophecies, it is not that unlikely that either Stannis or Aegon are going to get rid of them, long before Dany actually arrives in Westeros...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to go through hoops with Aegon, you might consider the idea that the stone beast is metaphorical, and Melisandre's lie: at one point, Mel will learn that Daenerys has awoken dragons (from stone), and thus the lie that sacrificing kings must animate stone dragons will be slain. Without Dany doing anything.

Same stuff for Stannis, truly: once proven he's no Azor Ahai, the lie is slain. How that's done is iffy, still, depends on who Azor Ahai is, Dany or Jon, or when the two meet.

One has apparently not come true, but it's not too late for Dany to be the stallion that mounts the world, herself. The others, most came true, the rest is still pending.

Most prophecies having come true certainly tips the probabilities towards subsequent prophecies most likely coming true too, though it keeps the possibility of them failing

Except Mel really believes Stannis is Azor Ahai. There is no lie here. She simply misinterpreted what the fires shown her. I am sure when she looked into the fire and asked to be shown AA, it showed her Stannis because Stannis was going to take her to AA. She falsely assumed that Stannis himself was AA. This is why the visions didn't show Stannis when she asked to be shown AA, now it shows Jon.

Dany did sacrifice kings to bring forth her dragons: both Drogo and her child were kings. So maybe Mel isn't wrong that it is possible to bring dragons out with such sacrifices.

The problem here is people have been assuming Dany is Azor Ahai when that may not be the case. Also, the Stallion That Mounts the World and Azor Ahai isn't the same thing either. AA was never prophesied to be someone that conquers the world. She herself was also never prophesied as being the Stallion. That was her son, who she unwittingly sacrificed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except Mel really believes Stannis is Azor Ahai. There is no lie here.
Not one done by Melisandre, but Stannis being AA is still a big fat lie in itself. As in the expression "living a lie".

Dany did sacrifice kings to bring forth her dragons: both Drogo and her child were kings. So maybe Mel isn't wrong that it is possible to bring dragons out with such sacrifices.
Oh, she is never really wrong in what she sees, she is wrong in how she interprets it. Dany did wake dragons from stone by sacrificing a king. That's what Mel saw in her flames.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, she is never really wrong in what she sees, she is wrong in how she interprets it. Dany did wake dragons from stone by sacrificing a king. That's what Mel saw in her flames.

Great points here, Errant Bard. I was swayed by the Varys' dragon theory but thanks for reminding us about the paper dragon. And totally makes sense re the stone dragons. There was, I thought, emphasis in Dance on the idea that Mel is a work in progress when it comes to interpreting the flames.

Though, re the stallion that mounts: I like the idea that she did give birth to the stallion, but her stallion is a dragon. There is a lot of play between Dany's first ride on he silver Drogo gave her and he joy she feels in riding and how she felt when she first flew on Drogon. "Stallion that mounts the world" being a horse people's vernacular for a dragon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Aegon as Varys' dragon is more of an accurate interpretation of Quaithe's prophesy than the one assuming she is warning Dany of a fake dragon. Whether Aegon is the true Aegon is certainly a legitimate debate, but I don't think that is what Quaithe means when she says "the mummer's dragon". The possessive noun indicates two people, the mummer as one individual and the dragon is the second. The possessive also implies that the mummer is in possession of the dragon, not that the dragon is the mummer. While Varys could fit, I thing Jon Connington fits better. When we first meet Jon and Aegon they are disguised as 'Griff' and 'Young Griff'. A mummer is defined as an actor or a person who wears a mask while taking part in a pantomime. Griff is a mask and the story of an estranged sellsword raising his young son is a charade most befitting of mummery. Jon Connington also feels like the better fit since he is more directly involved with Aegon at the moment and Aegon was playing the part of Jon's son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I like Aegon better than Dany.

Oh, she is never really wrong in what she sees, she is wrong in how she interprets it. Dany did wake dragons from stone by sacrificing a king. That's what Mel saw in her flames.

I don't think that is something she saw in her fires. I think she was interpreting a prophecy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Aegon as Varys' dragon is more of an accurate interpretation of Quaithe's prophesy than the one assuming she is warning Dany of a fake dragon.

So you think that the mummer's dragon Quaithe talks about and the vision of the fake dragon Dany and Jorah dubbed "mummer's dragon" back in A Clash of Kings are completely unrelated?

ETA:

Honestly, I like Aegon better than Dany.

Really? What about him did impress you positively?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Aegon as Varys' dragon is more of an accurate interpretation of Quaithe's prophesy than the one assuming she is warning Dany of a fake dragon. Whether Aegon is the true Aegon is certainly a legitimate debate, but I don't think that is what Quaithe means when she says "the mummer's dragon". The possessive noun indicates two people, the mummer as one individual and the dragon is the second. The possessive also implies that the mummer is in possession of the dragon, not that the dragon is the mummer. While Varys could fit, I thing Jon Connington fits better. When we first meet Jon and Aegon they are disguised as 'Griff' and 'Young Griff'. A mummer is defined as an actor or a person who wears a mask while taking part in a pantomime. Griff is a mask and the story of an estranged sellsword raising his young son is a charade most befitting of mummery. Jon Connington also feels like the better fit since he is more directly involved with Aegon at the moment and Aegon was playing the part of Jon's son.

haven't read this book yet but enjoy the debate about young griff. you do have a very interesting point here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He listened to Tyrion and actually went to Westeros.

Of course Tyrion thinks that was a really stupid idea. So far, Young Griff has shown himself to be rash, impulsive and hungry for glory while not being able to behave gracefully in defeat (in a game, no less).

Compared to Dany, whose political actions were motivated by her desire for peace, I don't think he looks so good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Dany, her brother wasn't a real dragon because he got burned. That doesn't mean he wasn't a Targayren and heir to their dynasty.

I think people make way too much of this quote. Dany is not saying in this scene that Targaryens are divided into two groups, "true" dragons and "false" dragons. Her statement is just her way of coping with seeing her brother burn. It's in this moment that she realizes that Viserys, for all his talk of being a king and a dragon, was just a scared and angry little boy. His pedestal is broken, and he's finally fallen back to earth. Her realization of this is meant to be an example of Dany's growth: she has shattered her brother's intimidating facade, not just in real life but in her own mind. She is psychologically breaking free from her brother's abuse. This meant to be a character moment, I think, not a moment of exposition about the difference between "true" dragons and "false" ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think that the mummer's dragon Quaithe talks about and the vision of the fake dragon Dany and Jorah dubbed "mummer's dragon" back in A Clash of Kings are completely unrelated?

"A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd." "...mother of dragons, slayer of lies..."

This is the quote you are referring to that Jorah and Dany have concluded is a mummer's dragon, correct? The passage implies that the cloth dragon swaying on a pole in front of a cheering crowd is in some way a lie. It's possible it could be referring to the one bearing the cloth dragon, inferring they are not really a dragon. Dany and Jorah seem certain it means a fake Targaryen, but they also believe Dany is the only surviving Targaryen and are quick to come to this conclusion, so perhaps they are confusing what lie she is supposed to slay. Even though Aegon has proclaimed himself a Targaryen all the lords back in Kingslanding believe he is a pretender. Perhaps the lie she slays is the one surrounding his death. She could end up proving his legitimacy versus proving he is a fake. She'd still be slaying a lie, just not the one she expected. What the lie is exactly is vague, and Dany and Jorah are both in the dark about Aegon.

Do I think they are unrelated? No, I don't, but I also don't think the nature of the lie is clear either. There are definitely secrets surrounding Aegon, but is his death the lie or his identity? And if it is his identity that's the lie, is Young Griff the only mask or is Aegon as well? I'm leaning more toward Aegon being the real deal, mostly because it would really throw a wrench in Dany's claim to the iron throne. However, I'd personally be happy if he turned out to be a fake. I like Dany and I have no feelings toward Aegon either way, except for the slight annoyed feeling I get when I realize there is yet another contender for the throne. He's another player in a game that I feel has enough players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the griffin and the mummer's dragon didn't come, they changed their minds and went to Westeros instead. Did Tyrion invalidate Quaithe's prophecy, or does becoming major players on the other side of the world qualify as "coming"? The other five all showed up at Mereen, or are fast approaching.

It occurs to me that Quaithe might be referring to time rather than location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if she interprets the prophecy as he is a fake Targaryen, and it is a misinterpretation, it could go very badly.

Remember, no one ever said Dany is the good guy in all this. If he is a loved king, and a good king, and she comes riding in on her dragons to "slay the lie", she may end up simply being the Mad Queen Daenerys. Especially if he offers her a marriage and she scorns it much as she did to Quentyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...