three-eyed monkey

Yeah, that's my point. All the theories that suggest Dany is someone else run into problems if you ask me. For me, Viserys blaming Dany for their mother's death is enough to convince me that Dany really is his sister. So if the lemon tree is not in Braavos, and that points to a spoiler, then it's not that Dany is not who she thinks she is.

The question is what does it point to? My understanding of the Lemongate theory is that it essentially points to Dany being someone else. To me that's too broad to be a proper theory. I'd like to know who the proponents of the theory think she is and how it plays into the story and how it stacks up against what the text says. Is she Lyanna's daughter, Jon's twin? Is she Ashara's daughter? Is she someone used by Doran? Is it someone else? Once we answer who we can get into when, where, how and why? Then we'll have a theory to discuss. It is possible that it points to something other than Dany being someone else. It might involve Dorne or it might involve Tyrosh, but whatever it involves Dany could still be Dany.

Yes, there is a cost to Azor Ahai as well. It cost him what he loved best in the world - "bare your breast, and know that I love you best of all that is in this world." Some people think this means Jon and Dany will have to get married and be in love and slide down a rainbow together, but I disagree. I would say it is family and honor that Jon loves best in the world, and doing this duty to save the realm will cost him both. Jon will know he is the son of Rhaegar by the time this occurs, making Dany not just his aunt but the last Targaryen, other than himself. And as I believe Jon will father no children, he'll be presiding over the extinction of his father's house.

Yeah I think Mel just foresees stuff in the flames and then tries to attribute them to her power, like burning the leeches after forseeing the deaths of the three kings, and then claiming it was down to the leeches. Drogo's funeral pyre is not so straight forward. We could certainly argue that the deaths of Drogo and Rhaego and/or the burning of Mirri were part of the death pays for life equation with the dragons. If I recall correctly, GRRM said this was a once-off miraculous event, but that might have been in reference to Dany surviving the blaze? Either way, miraculous events muddy the waters of logic. I still lean towards the idea that the deaths payed for the lives of the dragons. This is because I feel that sacrificing others can bring power. As @SeanF said above, kings sacrifice men all the time in war to achieve victory. There is a theme running through the series that measures the cost of the Iron Throne in the lives of children. The death of Elia's children. Cersei eliminating Robert's bastards. Dany's army of Unsullied, each one costing the life of a child (not to mention a strangled puppy). Stannis asking what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom? The game of thrones costs lives, and the players sacrifice pawns all the time to win. So the sacrifice of others can help you win the throne, but the question is, can it help you save the kingdom? I would say the answer to that question is no. Azor Ahai sacrificed a captured lion, probably symbolic of a king or a kingsblood sacrifice, but it did not work. Nissa Nissa bore her breast willingly and it did work. Saving the kingdom requires self-sacrifice, which is the only form of true sacrifice.

This is a major theme in the story. Only death can pay for life, is one of the recurring lines that demonstrates this concept is important to the story. The thing about themes is that's where the author of a story makes their point. So while GRRM does lay out both sides of the argument, which is how we explore the theme, the characters must then choose a side. The characters that choose one side of the argument will find salvation, while the characters who choose the other side of the argument will find destruction. This is how authors prove which side of the argument is true, making their point through the story itself. So the larger point here is that change requires sacrifice, and anyone who has ever made a positive change in their lives knows how tough that can often be. But this leads to the question of what is meant by sacrifice? Melisandre explains what true sacrifice is, but there is a clear flaw in her logic. Azor Ahai sacrificed his own beloved wife we are told. This is compared to a man who offers the only cow he owns, but a man cannot truly own the life of another. Nissa Nissa's life was not his to sacrifice. Azor Ahai certainly owned a blade, but he did not own Nissa Nissa. He may use the knife to force submission, like slavers do, but that does not change the fact that the only life anyone truly possesses is their own. That is the key. Septon Meribald expands on the point, using the silent sisters as an example. You can only sacrifice what you possess. A vow of silence is no true sacrifice for a mute, no more than giving up the dance is for a legless man. The only life you can truly sacrifice is the one you possess, which is your own. Why she did it, Salladhor Saan could not say. Of course not, he is a pirate and a sellsail. He is not committed to the cause of Stannis or any cause but his own. The concept of self-sacrifice is beyond him. The hero of the Lightbringer legend is not Azor Ahai. The true hero of the story is actually Nissa Nissa, who bore her breast willingly. Nissa Nissa understood that true change requires true sacrifice, and the only true sacrifice is self-sacrifice. When Stannis burns Shireen in an attempt to wake dragons from stone, he will choose the side of the argument that leads to his destruction. Like his glamoured sword, his understanding of true sacrifice is but a false light that will only lead the realm further into darkness. On the other hand, characters who learn to understand that self-sacrifice is the only true sacrifice will find salvation because true sacrifice will bring the change that is needed for the realm to survive.

Well, Targaryen means a member of the Targaryen family bloodline. I never said anything about it meaning Dany has legal legitimacy, because I don't think she does as the Targaryen line was supplanted by the Usurper. I agree it has to do with her bloodline that dates back far beyond Aegon. I agree that she will have to win the throne by right of conquest, that's why she will have to wake the dragon to win the throne. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that she is a secret Targ from Dorne, as opposed to the child of Aerys and Rhaella. So she has the blood of Aegon in her veins but she is not the daughter of Aerys. My question is, what's the point of that? If you really think Dany is not who she thinks she is, then I suggest the other options that make sense are that she is either Rhaegar's daughter by Lyanna, potentially a twin of Jon; or else the daughter of Ashara Dayne by Aerys. In both cases the lemon tree and red door would be in Starfall. Those theories at least makes some sort of thematic sense and keep Dany within the line of Aerys and Rhaella. I'm open-minded to the good points being made by @Mourning Star above, but I'd like to see a more complete theory on the subject.

I agree with this. I'd add one more point, looking at this in the context of Dany's character arc. Dany wants to be a good queen and bring justice to the realm, but she also needs to wake the dragon if she is to ever win the throne. Essentially, Dany has the potential to be like Aerys and Viserys or else be like Rhaegar. She could be a mad queen or a great queen. This choice her character will have to make is reflected in the Targaryen coin toss. Madness and greatness are the two sides of the coin. Whenever a Targaryen is born the gods toss a coin and the world holds it's breath. I feel this element of the story is so much stronger if Dany is a Targaryen.

I believe Varys when he said he had no ill will towards Kevan and it was not done of malice. Kevan was attempting to steady the ship in King's Landing so he simply had to go. Varys wants division and mistrust to eat the ground beneath Tommen's rule while Aegon raises his banner. It seems like a logical strategy for Varys, so it makes perfect sense as a motive for Varys. In my opinion, Varys and Illyrio are simply confidence tricksters, but that's another topic.

I don't see the whole plan as being motivated by vengeance. Varys and Illyrio are probably only in it for their own gain. Connington probably sees it as a mission of justice, to redress the crimes of the usurper, while at the same time a vehicle to his own redemption for failing his silver prince during the rebellion. I think the symbolism you found tells us that Lemore, whom ever she may be, is motivated by vengeance. I shouldn't have even mentioned Ashara, because I knew that's not where you were going with this. Sorry about that. I'm definitely one of the people who believe his game goes deep. Very deep.

Nice, @Sandy Clegg I like it. I think you could take it a step further. If you see a symbolic link between Lemore and Stoneheart then what is the connection? I would say that the connection is vengeance. That's what Lady Stoneheart is all about. So I'd say the symbolic link tells us that Septa Lemore, or should I say Lady Lemore, is someone who is on a mission of vengeance. Putting Rhaegar's son, as Connington and Lemore believe Young Griff to be, on the Iron Throne could be a mission of justice or on the other hand it could be one of vengeance. And while Connington is really seeking some form of redemption, I think this tells us that Lemore is in it for the vengeance. Personally, I'm in the Ashara Dayne camp, mainly because that makes most sense to me, but I know someone will counter with "Tyrion would have mentioned her haunting purple eyes if it was Ashara," and I get that objection, even if it doesn't persuade me.

Dany herself. She replies that her accent may be Tyroshi and her garb Dothraki, but she is from Westeros.

Well, Raff's line might be coincidence, it might be proof of lemongate, or it could be trolling. Except I don't believe in coincidence or lemongate.

This is the source of the whole damned thing if you ask me. The house with the lemon tree was originally set in Tyrosh. Personally, I think Raff's line about orange trees in the Mercy chapter is GRRM trolling the lemongaters.

I think there's another aspect to this that doesn't get discussed as much. We should look at the themes involved here, what the story is trying to say. What's the point? Let's call it the theme of the true king, or twue king if you prefer. This is a central theme in the series and we start to explore it early in the first book, when Jorah told Dany that no one wants to see a man like Viserys on the throne, even if he has the "true king" from a Targaryen perspective. The smallfolk don't care who wins the game of thrones as long as they are left in peace, which they never are. There's a difference between the true claim and the true king. Viserys and Stannis had the true claims to succeed Aerys and Robert, but that does not make them true kings. True kings are made by their actions, not their claim or perceived rights. Davos understands more than he thinks. This point is repeated through the series by people like Dany, Tywin, Cat and the apocalyptic street preacher in King's Landing. A true king protects his people and defends his realm or else he is no king at all. He puts saving the kingdom ahead of winning the throne. A true king puts his duty before his rights and not the other way around. But that's not how the kings on the Iron Throne style themselves. We're familial with how that goes. Rights come first, duty to protect the realm comes last. The point being that the men and women who fight for the Iron Throne because of their perceived rights or their claim or their lust for power are false kings. Their civil wars, rebellions and coups divide the kingdom and the realm always bleeds as a result. A true king unites the realm and protects his people, and legitimacy has nothing to do with it. I think that point is better made if a bastard becomes a true king rather than someone with the true claim, as that way the notion of legitimacy and the stigma of the untrustworthy bastard can be dismantled too. Honor is the quality of knowing and doing the right thing, so if Jon puts defending the realm ahead of winning the throne, then he will prove that bastards can have honor, which is the wound that largely drives his arc. The important thing is that Jon has a claim that he could push. This is the case as the son of Rhaegar, regardless of whether he's a bastard or not. Bastards can push claims and bastards can even legally inherit if there is no one left above them in the line of succession, and there are not too many Targaryens left. Jon must be in a position to push a claim if he is to reject winning the throne and decide to save the kingdom instead. That choice will be an important plot point for his arc. This is one of the points about silent sisters. It's not that they have their tongues removed, they make a voluntary vow of silence. A person without a tongue making a vow of silence is akin to a man without legs giving up the dance. It's not a true sacrifice. Jon needs to have legs when he gives up the dance, and those legs are his claim. A man without a claim to the throne cannot sacrifice his claim to the throne. This is one of the points the other theories, like N+A=J or A+L=J, all miss. So I don't see Jon sitting on the Iron Throne, which is essentially a throne of false kings and probably won't even exist in the end, but I do see him becoming a true king. Jon Snow will be the King of Winter, and his dedication will be to keep his oath and protect the realm, not sit on a throne or wear a crown. When the dawn of spring comes and the realm is safe, his "reign" will come to an end but he will continue to watch over the realm for all the nights to come. Just like the Last Hero, aka Coldhands. Some believe that Jon will become the Night's King, but I see the Night's King and the Last Hero as a reflection of the choice Jon must make. The Night's King made himself a king and became a villain. The Last Hero defended the realm and became a, well, hero.

Aegon would probably poop his swaddling clothes in protest. A greater concern would be Dorne. I doubt an annulment would be well received there. Then again if Rhaegar set Lyanna aside, in the event that she survived childbirth, then he would risk further offending the North. So he was in a bit of a pickle either way. He believed he needed three children to save the realm, but the opinion was that his wife would not survive a third. I think the only solution would be for Rhaegar to replace his father as king, which is why he meant to call a council, and convince the High Septon to grant him permission for a polygamous marriage, based on the prophesied circumstances. There may be no evidence of a wedding but there is set-up for a reveal. Northern weddings in front of a heart tree. Bran seeing past events through the eyes of a heart tree. Wandering septons traipsing the Riverlands and beyond, performing marriages. I think we'll get such a reveal. Married, or at least wedding ceremony, yes. Legit, no, but it won't matter in the end because so-called legitimacy has nothing to do with being a true king.

Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. I would say they did marry. The marriage was not legitimate. Jon was born a bastard, but in the end that won't matter. I think it makes sense that they did wed in or around the Riverlands/God's eye area. Rhaegar relates the three heads of the dragon to the prince that was promised. A prince or princess should be legitimate, all three of them if that's what he believed. And if you're trying to produce someone the realm can trust and unite behind in the fight against the darkness, then slapping the bastard tag on them is not a good start. Of course, any child with Lyanna would not be legitimized without the permission of the king, which clearly would not be forthcoming as long as that was Aerys. So I think Rhaegar had to put the cart before the horse and wed Lyanna in sight of the gods and men and by the grace of the gods old and new, etc., while planning to have the marriage or child legitimized later. We know he meant to call a council and make changes... but it does no good to speak of roads not taken. Even if the marriage was illegitimate that doesn't make it redundant to the story. The question of Jon's mother and his status as a bastard are central to his inner-conflict, which we should expect him to resolve before he can properly play his part in resolving his external conflict, defending the realm. A marriage in front of a weirwood would allow readers see it through Bran, who would then be the person to tell Jon. We've already seen Bran in tree form talk to Jon in Ghost, and we know Jon is going to be in his wolf for a while in Winds. The heart tree in Winterfell would be a poignant location for such a conversation, but I guess any weirwood could suffice. I think it would be important to Jon to know his parents made their vows before a heart tree, even if the marriage was never legally recognized. I think it would also be important for Rhaegar to have covered his bases with the Faith of the Seven. Any future plans of legitimization would probably require the approval of the High Septon. We do have traveling septons who travel from village to village conducting holy services and performing marriages. Meribald told Brienne he's being doing that for twenty years, which fits the right general area at the right time. The High Sparrow has a similar backstory (if you believe him). So we could potentially have a living witness, maybe even the current High Septon himself. As such Bran would see, Rhaegar, Lyanna, the three kingsguard knights, and a septon, which makes six. I feel we should have seven. The septons dog maybe, or potentially Bran who would bear witness across time through the tree. However, Jon's legitimacy or basis for a potential claim are not going to matter because he's not going to want the Iron Throne, or any throne or crown for that matter. If Jon wants to resolve his external conflict he will have to put saving the kingdom ahead of winning the throne. That's his goal. Davos tells us a king defends his people or else he is no true king. It's not his name, bloodline, legitimacy or crown that makes a king, it's what the king does. Jon will choose to defend the realm over the throne and that's what will make him a true king.

Trios and the Trident both have three heads and hold clues towards understanding the mystery of the Three-headed dragon. The colors come from the Trident. The purpose of two of the heads we get from Trios. These are separate clues that need to be put together. They fit well given that the color of the Trident's fork is appropriate to the purpose of the equivalent head, for example the third fork is green and the third head is concerned with rebirth, which brings to mind spring, which is symbolized by the color green. The first fork is red and the first head devours, just as fire devours, and fire is symbolized by the color red. So by following this process we can anticipate that the purpose of the middle head, which we are not told, will be something that is symbolized by the color blue, for example bringing peace and tranquility. Leaving the colors and the Trident aside, if you believe the three heads of the dragon are three people, such as dragon riders or whatever, and you accept that Trios symbolizes the tree heads of the dragon, then it makes sense that the first of these three people will devour what is dying and the reborn will emerge from the third person. Otherwise Trios is similar to the three headed dragon as they both have three heads, but nothing is really being symbolized. The same with the Trident, it has three heads but the symbolism lies in the colors. We already know the dragon has three heads. The question is what does the Trident and Trios, or any other three headed symbolism in the series, tell us about each head of the dragon?

The recurring red, blue and green motif is simply a reflection of a main theme using color symbolism. We are meant to think of the Trident the most prominent version of this, as so much of the story takes place there like the Ruby Ford or the Red Wedding. A trident has three heads, just as the dragon has three heads. One red, one blue, and one green, symbolically at least. In ASoIaF the dragon is the ultimate symbol of power. The head is the part that controls the dragon, and as such the person who controls the power is the king or queen. Therefore the head of the dragon is a king or queen. So we are looking for three monarchs, one red, one blue and one green. Tridents and dragons are not the only thing with three heads. If we cross to Arya in Braavos we encounter a temple to the god Trios and find another piece of the puzzle. The first head, red, devours the dying and the reborn emerge from the third head, which is green. This makes total sense. Red can symbolize danger, or fire and blood. Green is the color of spring and rebirth. We don't know what the middle head's supposed to do but we know it's blue, and blue often symbolizes tranquility and in this series ice. This makes further sense because we are told: So the first head, red, devours the dying. It is Westeros that is dying, bled by the game of thrones and gnawed by the rat-faced kings. When Dany comes to claim her throne, she will be bringing fire and blood. Fire consumes or devours. There are other claimants to this red head, such as Stannis and Aegon, but Dany's the one with dragons so I fully expect her to come out on top. The second head is the blue head. Ice. This is Jon Snow, soon to be the King of Winter. The blue eyed king with a red sword who cast no shadow. The cold preserves, brings tranquility. His sword is red because it is for the first head, the red head. The parallels to the Azor Ahai and Nissa Nissa story need no explanation. But the King of Winter is exactly that, a king of winter. Once the spring returns his reign will end, and he will make way for the third head of the dragon, the green one, the queen of Spring. I believe this will be Sansa, and that she is the blue flower, growing from a chink in the wall of ice and filling the air with sweetness.

I was talking about Transformers.

Margaret Atwoods standards are obviously lower than mine, and I'm not just talking about writing. If there were no true linear scale of good and bad writing then there would be no such thing as a classic. Not everyone will agree with the scale but it does exist. Good writers are good writers because they know what works and what does not. Of course it won't work for everybody, it never does, but if it doesn't work for a really good share of your readers then you're probably not writing very well. You're right to say Transformers was popular but crap. They are two separate things. Doing well at the box office is one thing, advertising and hype have a lot to do with that, but when you look at the characters, plot, etc., it is easy to see that the writing is crap. That doesn't mean there aren't people with lower standards or perhaps an emotional attachment that think it is great and will defend it come what may, but the consensus is that it's crap. Anyway, In my opinion it's a 3.

I'm not speaking for anyone else on the matter. I gave the show a rating of 3, not because I'm butthurt about the books, but because in my opinion the writing is very poor in the show. Storytelling is an art that has been refined over millennia and while everyone is entitled to their opinion, quality of writing is actually quite measurable by a number of metrics. Agents, editors, publishers, critics, academics, and indeed readers, do this every day. If it is your opinion that the show is well written, that's fine, rate it appropriately. We've obviously got different standards. And please, I'm not complaining about Areo being killed or a mute direwolf howling or any of that nitpicky stuff. I'm talking about things like plausibility, character motives, what's driving the plot, etc. In my opinion, the show is weak in all these areas, which comes down to the writing.

No, it boils down to this. Good writing and bad writing. The books are well written, the show is not. Sure you can find some holes in the books if you nitpick it but the holes on the show are glaring. I'm not talking about book v show, I'm looking at the show as it's own entity, and the writing is just rubbish. I'm not complaining about Areo getting killed easily, I'm talking about the total improbability that a bunch of psycho bastard girls could take over Dorne so easily. I'm talking about why they didn't just kill Mycella and Trystane, and Jaime too for that matter, while they were still in Dorne? Why let them on the ship, poison one before the ship has left sight of the Dornish coast and then ride?/sail? all the way to Kings Landing to kill the other on the hope that he will still be accessible in the cabin of his ship and not in say locked away in a Black Cell instead? Are you really attempting to defend that? The show is nonsense. 3 is generous.

I gave it a 3. The writing on the show is just utter nonsense. It's more like a nod to GRRM's time on the twilight zone than it is an adaptation of his novels. On a positive note, I'm pretty confident that TWoW will not be spoiled this season as the show bears little resemblance to the books. Going their own way was the best call D&D ever made. Thanks guys. Oh, I wanna say something about the teleporting sand snakes and how the scene cruelly exposed Trystane as an absolute idiot who would have brought misery to his people if ever he had come to rule... but the words just aren't coming.

Oops. Apologies for the double post.