Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About corbon

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,527 profile views
  1. Or not actually truly prophecy at all? So you are saying its impossible that Rhaella could have died before Rhaegar was born? I can't accept that fate is completely unavoidable, That by definition leads to a nihilistic philosophy and ultimately, death and the failure of prophecy (except for that one prophecy!) Ultimately, determinism (prophecy is determinant) is a self defeating realism. Yup. I can agree with that part. But I don't agree that, for example, it was impossible for Rhaella to die before the child was born. She had the choice to commit suicide, for example, and she could have taken that choice, which would have broken the prophecy. She didn't, but she did have that power, that choice, it was a possibility. I don't think of mine as co-creation like you describe. In mine, its not necessarily a requirement that someone (not necessarily the subject) be 'trying' to fulfill the prophecy. But it is a possibility that the prophecy will only be fulfilled because someone (the right someone) tried. Its also a possibility that it will be fulfilled without anyone 'trying' (ie including your belief), and also a possibility that it will fail, not be fulfilled at all. The origin, IIRC, of this particular sub-conversation, was (paraphrased) the question, "why would Aemon want to go to Dany (or send another Maester) and guide her?" (#52) @Brad Stark seems to agree with your beliefs about prophecy in asking that question. I think my understanding allows for Aemon's thoughts, right or wrong. I think your understanding just labels him a fool - it is pointless to try to do anything to help once she's been confirmed as the 'prophesied hero' (in his understanding), because its all just going to work out anyway, yay! Each to his own, I was addressing the original thought about Aemon's wish to 'help' Dany.
  2. Apparently you are offended. I have no idea why. It was a reply to Crystal Feather, who was insinuating that I knew all about how prophecy works. My reply shows that no, neither I nor anyone else actually know how it works, and thinking you do gets you screwed over by it, as per the metaphors given by GRRM. Should I apologise for not being a regular? For having the temerity to enter into discussion? Well apparently it is, since I was mocked for thinking it could be anything other than a metal sword - I'm aware that I was probably being mocked for preferring the literal to the metaphorical in general. I didn't think it was a stretch for people. Just answered a question/comment/point someone made. Since I wasn't addressing a comment from you, unless you've moved on to a different insult I've apparently committed, I'm not quite sure what your reference is to - post 61 of yours I guess, which I didn't answer or address. Repeated references were made by several people to Aemon's interaction with Mel, regarding AA and tPtwP being the same or not. Since that was not the relevant bit of text that shows AA and tPtwP prophesies are clearly the same (at least originally), I felt it was necessary to lay that out more clearly, since people were still misunderstanding. And in reference to the salt and smoke, several people, yourself including if I understand #61 correctly, were indirectly pointing out how almost meaningless salt and smoke are, given there are so many ways that can be resolved to include almost anyone. But the subject under discussion was whether the two prophecies are the same. In that context, the logic that 'salt and smoke are far too common' is backwards. It matters not that the resolution is common, its that the marker itself (its description) is unique out of all the infinite numbers of possible markers (not possible ful-fillers), and definitely in common between the two prophecies. In other words, AA prophesy is the same as tPtwP prophecy, given the 5 different specific markers they have in common. I absolutely agree that lots of characters could have salt and smoke applied to their birth (plus it appears that their birth's are not the relevant issue, its AA/tPtwP' birth that matters ie the emergence of the hero, not the birth of the person that becomes the hero). Indeed. Beating the bushes is what this forum (wider, not just heresy) is for isn't it? Sure, Well, however I offended you, sorry. The conversation has been interesting even if its nearly all old ground. Not at all. I'm saying that if Walder Frey hadn't of organised the Red Wedding, it wouldn't have happened. And Patchface's 'prophecy' would have just been some meaningless drivel, not a prophecy. Not at all. Say I prophecy "tomorrow evening there will be a cake after dinner, and it will be the best cake ever". I'm certainly not going to bake it, btw - cake should be edible! As I see it, there are several main possibilities (just the main ones to keep it simple enough to write out). 1, Someone randomly drops a cake off at our house. Its the best ever, yay. Prophecy fulfilled! how lucky! 2. My wife decides thats a great idea and bakes a cake (my wife because she likes baking, I'm terrible and hate it, and the kids are too young, not because of some masculine/feminine thing). Its the best ever. Well done wife, yay, prophecy fulfilled. 3. My wife decides thats a great idea and bakes a cake. Its good, but not the best ever. end of story. Prophecy failed. 4. nobody does anything. no cake arrives, prophecy fails. 5. My wife decides thats a great idea and bakes a cake. Its good, but not the best ever. A cake arrives, randomly delivered, it is the best ever. Yay, prophecy fulfilled. To me, the original statement may or may not have been a (divinely inspired) prophecy. We don't know for sure. All 5 options are possible. The most likely way for it to be a prophecy, and for us to get the best cake ever is 2. The least likely way for us to get cake is 4 (or rather 4+1). If we do 4, the most likely result is just 4, not 4+1. Even if my wife tries 2, most of the time she'll get 3, because you can't always make the best cake ever, only once. If it was a true prophecy, then 1, 2 or 5 could apply. Attempting 2 gives us the best chance of fulfilling the prophecy, even if the result ends up being 5 (or 30. Acting 4 and hoping for 1, is the best way for the prophecy to turn out not to have been a divinely inspired prophecy after all.. First point, how do you know what is divinely inspired prophecy, and what isn't? Until it actually happens? Second point, so fate is fixed, no matter what anyone does? Why doesn't everyone stop 'fighting' then and just chill out on a tropical beach somewhere. Fates gonna happen anyway.... Ultimately that belief leads to nihilism and failure. I see prophecy as a glimpse of the future. Not a future that will be, no matter what, but a future that can be, should be, needs to be. Things can be changed. They probably won't, because time is a huge river and little ripples of changes get lost in the general flow all the time. But it can change. A small change can lead to bigger changes and the whole river, or a section of it, can divert. In order for the prophecied future to happen, certain things along the way have to happen. It may be that they happen organically, or it may be that different choices made lead to changes in the flow and the prophecy never comes to fruition, or must wait until another time, another set of circumstances. I do agree that people trying to make it happen or interfere, usually have no real effect - they are in effect mostly just making the 'choices' that were 'forseen' (or part of that forseen paradigm) anyway. But I also see the probability that the 'right' person in the 'right' time and the 'right' place, still needs to make the 'right' choices for the prophesy to successfully manifest. And making the 'wrong' choices will cause the prophesy to fail. It may be that the future forseen in the prophecy actually included the past where the person consciously attempted to "do the right things". In which case they better bloody well do them and not just wait for things to happen!
  3. corbon

    Small Questions v. 10106

    Normally, the proportion of black/dark and white (colour lost). 'Silver' is normally much higher proportion white than 'grey'. In Targaryen terms, it seems to me to be more shiny/metallic (sparkly-shiny more than glossy-shiny. No, I think it should have been more of a sparkly-shiny pale yellow.
  4. Well, some of them are consciously trying, or may be. And most (almost all, if not all) of those fail, falling to the bitten cock/handle-less sword syndrome. But who is to say that the one who 'succeeds' is not one of the 'triers'? No one knows for sure until it happens. 'Trying' will probably not work, but not trying, not taking such opportunities as present themselves, certainly means it won't be you. Put another way, if you want/hope it to be you, you better get out there doing things in the right direction, because staying in bed is going to lead to the end of the world if it really was supposed to be you. Put another way, I think prophecies can fail. They are not absolute certainties. You seem to imply that they cannot fail, no matter what anyone does. I agree absolutely.
  5. Its not the Aemon/Mel interaction where Aemon shows us that tPtwP is the same prophecy as AA. When Aemon finds out about Dany, in Bravos far from Mel, he clearly references tPtwP. Similarly Marwin uses the same reference points when discussing Aemon's beliefs and the Targaryen potenual targets. Yet the markers they use are the same markers as Mel and Benerro (there are no markers not common to both, though not all passages refer to all of the markers). ETA: Strikethrough. I guess that there could be markers no common to both, but becasue they are not common to both we don;t identify them as markers. Darkness, for example, couple be an AA marker, but is not mentioned in the PtwP parts. But I don;t think this is strong enough counter evidence, it just means that tPtwP side isn't emphasising the darkness marker. 5 in common though is too many not to be the same prophecy - even if tPtwP is a derivative, stolen/developed by a different civilisation for their own reasons. Aemon in Bravos about tPtwP: Mel's quote of what is written about AA: Marwin: Benerro: Born (1) of smoke (2) and salt (3) with a red star bleeding (4), and dragons (5), are the markers that tie AA to tPtwP. 5 separate markers, out of 5 covered, are too many to not be the same prophecy, independently discussed in 4 separate locations /people/conversations. Mel+Aemon interacting is extra to this math, not part of it.
  6. No one knows how it works exactly. Cue cock biting, swords without handles, etc Yes. But how? Unless the prophecy is not involving humans, some human help or interference is needed. You can't get a great hero raising dragons from stone or wielding a fiery sword if everyone is just lying in bed thinking "the prophecy will happen on it own anyway". Somewhere, someone, is out there doing stuff, and one of the many people doing stuff turns out to be the prophesied one. They may or may not know about the prophecy, know what they have to do, but unless they are out there doing things, the right things, the prophesied things, then the prophecy can't 'just come to fruition without human help'. I think what you are saying, perhaps I'm wrong, is that the prophecy will happen with or without conscious, deliberate, human help. I agree. If it was 'you' then it will turn out that the things you do without conscious knowledge of the prophecy will be the 'right' things anyway. But consciously doing the 'right' things makes it significantly more likely to be you, than not doing the right things. And possibly (but not necessarily) the only reason that the 'right' things were chosen to be done anyway was, at least in part, conscious choices based on knowledge. Yes, but one of them, prophetically inspired (ie knowing what to do in advance) or not, will end up doing it. If one knows the prophecy and sets about trying to achieve it, they improve the odds of it happening and being them. It may or may not be them. In the majority of cases, it won't be. But in one case, it will be. It certainly won't happen if everyone just lays down and waits for it to happen and does nothing at all out of ennui.
  7. My comfort zone is wherever the logic takes me. I recognise and understand metaphor and allegory etc, I just don't think that everything is always metaphor and allegory etc. If there is a prosaic answer that works, I think its far more likely than a non prosaic answer. In this case, there is no 'real' burning sword. Stannis' is clearly fake. And there is no other close that we have seen. Dany awakening the three dragons out of stone may not be the AA moment, but its by far, faaaar, the most obvious we have. Plus she's a main character that fits most of the other clues and is believable in-story for the most educated person we know in this area. She may not be it but there is no other candidate remotely close to her at this stage. So if its her, whats the burning sword? The dragons fit. Swords can be metaphorical, thats nothing new. Yes, I'm aware that this is happening amongst us (me) too. Yet what else can we do, if we want to discuss what we know and can judge to the best of our current knowledge thus far? Some have said tears, there's also blood (which is salty) or even possibly the general desert, which could be metaphorical (or locally) salt. Prince/Princess isn't the actual word though, is it? Its Dragon. In common with virtually everyone else, Aemon does not expect prophesy to just happen on its own. Dany needs guiding, helping, with those who have the right knowledge, to make sure she (and the prophesy) doesn't fail. Its a flawed and irrational belief system, but common to almost everyone. And so is the alternative (flawed and irrational). If everyone just sits around doing nothing but wait for prophecy to act, then the prophecy can't work - nothing can because nobody actually does anything. I don't recall the philosophical terms, but its basically two opposing philosophies. Do whatever you can and hope that events therefore pan out in your favor, or do nothing in the belief that what will be will be. The latter is a recipe for emptiness and death, so most people embrace the former even though it doesn't always work - at least it works sometimes and makes you feel good about trying. Two of the dragons have red amongst their flames. Drogon, black flames shot with red, sounds like a black iron sword with red flames. Problem is, neither seem terribly relevant as major individuals to the Targaryens (or Rhoynish), nor to dragons, nor to the war for the dawn (though Tyrion may tick some of those boxes, maybe). Dany 'outscores' them by a huge margin in the most apparently important areas. You think a sword can only be a handheld metal weapon forged form ore? Interesting. Sure, but thats backwards. The point isn't who could apply those markers, its that these are the markers out of an infinite list of possible markers that are relevant to two major prophecies. That the prophecies use the same markers show that its the same prophecy, not that it must be the same person that fits those markers that fulfills two independent prophecies. No... We don't know everything, or even necessarily a lot, about the two prophecies. We have a few hints about what they do, each coloured by the individual biases and flaws of those unintentionally giving them too us. You are saying because the hints about what they do are not the same, they must be different. I'm saying the markers to create them are the same, therefore they are the same, the hints of what they do are merely snippets of a larger picture, and 'coloured' snippets at that. Actually far less likely to be accurate (due to the biases etc of those interpreting and using the prophecy) than the markers (which are written down, thus locked for all). AA being a R'hllorist thing is not necessarily true. Its just that the R'hlorrists are the ones pushing their version. Similarly with tPtwP. We are only getting the Targaryen vision of it. If the two 'sides' were pushing mutually exclusive visions, you would have a stronger case. But they are not, each is just emphasising their own area of interest. I find Benero's war for the Dawn v2 part to be the most likely that such a prophecy would be about. I think his added 'yay R'hlorrists' extra benefits for us' parts are added religious bullshit though. Err, yeah, why is this so hard to believe? Humanity (including the Targaryens and their rule) ends unless this hero saves the day. Shit, better make it happen! There is also the whole waking dragons out of stone business, which puts a rather personal and important flavour on it for the Targaryens, at least once they lose their dragons. This is a rather good argument. You are certainly upping the Rhoynish factor's odds in my personal assessment.
  8. Dracarys. Its clear they are one and the same prophecy. Too many identical markers for anything else. So am I. Mel having things wrong doesn't mean she has the wrong base datapoints, just that she's made an interpretational error that suits her aims and locked it in. I'm not so sure she is utterly convinced. She must know that Stannis' sword is not really Lightbringer. Or he's worried about her seeing things in the flames. As Davos found out - she can see direct threats to her in the flames, be forewarned.
  9. Power. He wants to be connected to the ruling family of Westeros, and is backing the Targaryens long term over the Lannisters or Tyrells m or ayone else. It could be prophecy related, but need not be. We have no indication it is so far. Only in respect of he already had a plan for her to marry Visery. Which was a signed pact, if secret. Textually there is no indication that Martell blood is relevant to the prophecy. Other than the fact that the two families have intermarried. Or alternately, the Martell bloodline is irrelevant and Doran is making his decision based on more prosaic reasons. Its a bleeding star, not a falling star. Or one of those associations is not correct? The mistake has deceived them for 1000 years. That predates Barth by a long long time. Its not Dany who was reborn then, its AA. Before the event, she was just Dany. After she was Dany, AA reborn. He's got to make it fit. In his opinion, the dragons prove it, so he's just making whatever he can feel for the markers. He knows Dany was born at dragonstone (salt and smoke). We know (or think) AA was reborn in Dany's pyre (smoke, and salt from blood?) Well, We've seen Benerro and Mel make various claims. Seems to me like thats canon (if locally biased and maybe not correct canon) evidence of the future behaviour of AA/tPtwP. Sure it is. Aemon's behaviour at the wall is before he hears about Dany and her dragons. He doesn't believe Mel's bullshit, so wants Jon to be forearmed. Once he hears about Dany, then his understanding changes. She really is the PtwP, the dragons prove it. But he's no longer in a position to do the same things. He doesn't have access to a Jade Compendium for example. His answer is to try to go to her himself, and he rallies to try to do that. Then when he realises he can't make it he tells Sam to get the citadel to send her a Maester, I guess trusting them to send a Maester who will know about AA/tPtwP.
  10. Sure we do. I can't see the Targaryens dispatching 3 lords to rule each minor city, so the Archons they sent would be singular governors. Which implies the Archons elected to lead themselves (if/when they did) would be singular, like the Roman Dictator, who was elected (as opposed to the Triumvir, who appointed themselves). Old Volantis was allowed to choose its own leader(s). I can see them being required to elect 3 leaders in order to reduce the chance of a single populist leading a revolt against Valyria. Or, as you suggest, its a direct copy of the Valyrian system. Perhaps the Valyrians did send 3 governors (still seems ridiculous to me). Impossible to tell for sure with what we know. The modern Volanteens use the word Archon. They don't commonly use a bastardised Valyrian, rather than High Valyrian, so Archon could be a replacement word for the original High Valyrian. I think Aemon gives us exactly that indication. Its not the Prince that was Promised at all, as thats gendered language, he tells us. They've been making the mistake for 1000 years. It was Dragon that was promised, which can be Prince or Princess, hence Daenerys. Clearly there is a translation from Dragon to Prince, which has misled them all for 1000 yrs. Therefore, it was actually the Dragon that was Promised. Fair enough.
  11. The only point to add is that various people in-world, clearly think of them as dragon riders. And no one things of them as equal rulers. They could be wrong - some of them (like Jorah) clearly don't really know much about the prophecy. But its also possible that they know things we haven't heard yet. I think the references in common are two coincidental to think that they are not one and the same. Aemon clearly references tPtwP to the same markers that Mel and Benerro reference AA to. Mel might be the only one who explicitly connects the two, but the connection is very clear independently of her. Given the connections between Aemon's tPtwP, Benarro's AA, Mel's equation of the two and Marwyn understanding the Dany reference and naming the prophecy markers, it seems to me to be a very safe bet that there is only one prophecy here. And while each may mention or distort the purpose or effects of the prophesied character's appearance due to their own biases or reasons, its clear they are all related to the War for the Dawn v2. So I would say the purpose of tPtwP is to drive away the darkness and winter. Its pretty clear with Mel's reference to "waking Dragons" and Aemon's reference that Dany's "dragons prove it", that Dragons are directly connected in the text. See what I said earlier. Its not Dany's birth 15 years or so earlier that is at issue, its the 'birth', or rebirth, of AA/tPtwP, when the Dragons are reborn under the bleeding star. Given the markers Aemon references to tPtwP I think its quite clear he is implicitly equating tPtwP with AA. Even if he doesn't explicitly state it or think of AA at all. Its clearly the same prophecy. In other word, its not just Mel. Aemon equates tPtwP with AA. To us at least, even if maybe not in his own head.
  12. But if they used the word Dragon to refer to their most senior leader*, then its only the Westerosi Targaryens that have been mislead into the Prince translation. *I wonder if the Valyrian word used for Archon, their temporarily elected leaders/rulers, was Dragon? Is that like the Roman 'Dictator'? Perhaps not since it seemed they also sent Archon's to govern other cities. "Governor" seems to fit better maybe? The Free cities use the word Archon, but they don't use High Valyrian as their primary tongue, so that may be different to the High Valyrian term.. The deceiving themselves can be from the start, Valyrians thinking of a male leader. The language can be misleading them for a 1000yrs with only the later Targs using the word Prince. Well, it's the Dragon that was Promised, its only the later Targs we hear saying Prince. Haha, that doesn't sound very much like the normal Targaryen self-centred worldview. It does fit well that the Targaryens 'stole' the prohecy from a Rhoynish source. I still think though that the prophecy says Dragon, and its only the later Targs that have misunderstood it as Prince.
  13. Well, if you want to fiddle with prophecies, perhaps. But I think treating it as a recipe is asking to get burned - as a number of Targaryens did. A recipe is a set of conditions that cause a certain result. This is more like a list of conditions that will appear congruent with a certain result, but are not in themselves the cause of that result. Matching these conditions will not necessarily cause AA to return. But when he returns, these conditions will have been matched. Well, since according to Mel, AA will wake dragons out of stone, I don't think he's likely to be accidentally killing the wrong dragons. I think its clear that the bleeding star business is related to AA's return, but not specifically to his birth or particular timing. Mel: Aemon: Marwyn: The first quote from Mel actually says something different. Not that the person who will be AAv2 is born under the bleeding star, but that its under the bleeding star that Lightbringer will be drawn. Seems to me that the AA being 'born' bit is really about the timing of that person becoming AAv2 - ie AAv2 being 're-born', not the birth of the person who will become AA. Rhaegar misinterpreted because the sign fitted his misinterpretation. Dany seems to be it, with "lightbringer" being the dragons, her "red sword" that was 'drawn' (born from rock) in the pyre in which she burned Drogo. At that time AA/tPrincesstwP was 'born'. Mel has the clues already. The red sword is not a sword at all. Its the dragons born from stone. Because thats what AA is supposed to do - draw a red sword and birth dragons from stone, apparently the same event in two different passages/translations..
  14. Good question I think its a combination two things. First, the fact that the Targaryens refer to themselves, especially princes and kings, as Dragons. Aegon I "the Dragon" and Daeron I "the Young Dragon" for example, as well as wider generalities. Second, Aemon's statements about the language misleading them. I looked and couldn't find any other relevant reference. So I think you are right, absent something I've missed, that its not actually confirmed that the original language in which Dragon is genderless (properly all languages should have the word dragon as genderless as dragons change genders) and confused with prince is High Valyrian. I still think the most sense is that the PtwP is a old (1000yr+) High Valyrian translation of the older AA prophesies. And the Asshaian prophecy used the word dragon, which the Valyrians translated as Prince, but actually works for beast/dragon, targ prince or Targ princess (in High Valyrian context). But we don't know this for sure.
  15. corbon

    R+L=J v.166

    Sure. Fine in theory, except he wasn't made part of the marital alliance. You claim one reason, I point out another. Correction. He didn't want to marry after Lyanna was taken from him. Which any time from before the war. The binding Lannisters angle places it most reasonably after the Sack, but not necessarily as a result of the reveal of her death. Agreed. It shows that Ned doesn't like to talk about it and when he does, its a somewhat different story to that we hear or elsewhere. I don;t think its a deep secret that Ned keeps, just that he doesn't talk about it, nor does anyone else who was there. So no one knows anything for sure. Even what he did tell Bran was not really about "the fight at ToJ", just the most vague generalism that we think (almost certainly correctly) is about ToJ. Bran doesn't know that. Correct. That wasn't explicitly speaking of the ToJ (or any specific) fight. That was a vague generalism about Arthur Dayne. See how Ned doesn't talk of it, even to Bran? Ned's delivery of Dawn to Starfall is a publicly witnessed and widely acknowledged fact. The deaths of Arthur and his brother KG was private and the only people who know of it don't speak of it. Therefore its not likely to be known at all, let alone widely known. However, the death of Arthur by Ned's hand is easily surmised by anyone and everyone, simply by the public known fact that he returned Dawn to Starfall. What I see from Ned is a very very consistent refusal to speak anything about the ToJ events to anyone. Robert, his King, merely has one peripheral detail relating to it, the name of the wetnurse, whom Robert assumes is the mother - and that datapoint relates as much or more to after Starfall and after, when Ned was known to have a wetnurse with his bastard, as to ToJ. Ned gets angry, or sad, when these things come up, and won't talk any more, even to his King or to his son. So consistent with Ned's behaviour, what I think happened at Starfall is that Ned very respectfully and sorrowfully return Dawn to the Dayne, without telling them virtually anything - at most a "yes, Arthur is dead, I'm sorry. He died most honourably" sort of answer. In one single place, which is not GRRMs direct writing, the death of the three KG is mentioned. Given the way GRRM has written Ned's interactions around this event, I suspect that this one mention is an error, and Yandel does not in fact know this. Unless Ned told someone, which would run counter to both his characterisation and his needs of the moment (such a story invites more interest in a matter he desperately needs to keep secret), I don;t see how Yandel or anyone else could know this. Fair call. I'm not "dismissing" it entirely. I'm saying that I think it likely that this isolated datapoint, which is not from GRRM directly, which stands in direct opposition to Ned's characterisation and needs, is an error. Its the text we have, Anything else is your invention. Would they? There was a war on, or the after effects of one. I don't think they wold insist on Ned telling them full stories. I don't think they would push on their Lord's obvious sadness and loss. I think they would accept the briefest and most basic explanation, exactly as we hear from Lady Barbrey. Especially given Ned's own sadness and losses. Even if you disagree, its just your made up opinion, nothing from the text. These are not murders or missing people. They are warriors who went to war and didn't come back. Their Lord, and friend, says they died honourably and were buried locally, thats enough for almost anyone. Cairns are built to honour the dead. Cairns built in an isolated place that no one goes to, and left unmarked, are not there for everyone else.