Jump to content

Amris

Members
  • Content Count

    538
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Amris

  • Rank
    Noble

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  • Interests
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

2,385 profile views
  1. Yes, yes. But whether you personally see the show as an adaptation of the books does not matter. The fact is: it IS an adaptation of the books. Admittedly a very bad one where the last seasons are concerned. But still. The end will be the same. And it didn't work. So my thinking is GRRM may now be more sensitized to the problems (than he would have been without the show) and take more care with the buildup than he had originally planned or maybe even change a thing here and there.
  2. Maybe the great plot twist is about Cersei & Jaime turning out to be half-Targaryens. I know - we readers have speculated on this in the forums quite a lot and the idea is not new to us. But GRRM says he doesn't read the forums. So maybe he actually had never thought of this before. Until the idea finally came to him too. He said there were 3, 4 characters involved. Well, Aerys, Joanna and Tywin would be a love triangle and make 3. Rhaella would be more indirectly involved so would make the 'maybe 4'. He also said he could see how it could have happened. Well - that would fit too. We also can see how it could have happened. And we know it does not have to have happened. The evidence is circumstantial and quite likely there is nothing to it. But that's exactly how GRRM's statement reads. 'Could' being the operative word. He wasn't even decided whether to run with it or not.
  3. Amris

    (f)dany

    Gargoyles often are depicted with wings. Look at old churches and cathedrals. (Or use the D&D Monster Manual ) As for flying - where do you get that from? The HotU line does not mention flying. It says 'took wing'. You interpret that as flying. The text does not say that though. The gargolye fell ('took wing') at exactly the same spot that Bran fell. And GRRM felt the need to tell us that explicitly. TWICE. And to show us the gargoyles as early as Bran's firsts chapter when he climbs along the top of the First Keep. AND GRRM felt the need to add the fiery winged snake over Winterfell just at the moment that the gargoyle came down. And to remind us of it again books later in a Theon chapter where the gargoyles peeps out of the snow staring into the sky. Just like Bran sees things. House Grafton is not it and the Titan of Braavos has nothing to do with it, sorry. The HotU line is about Bran.
  4. Amris

    (f)dany

    Ah - no. The Smoking Tower was the burning First Keep in Winterfell when Theon set the castle aflame. The Stone Beast that took wing was the gargolye that fell down from the First Keep during the fire. It is an allegory for Bran who fell at exactly the same spot that the gargoyle fell. Correspondingly the fallen gargolye still stares sightlessly at the sky. So that line of the HotU prophecy is Bran.
  5. Amris

    (f)dany

    Yes, please. People coming up with theories (whether true or not) is the main reason I still have fun on this forum. And it is what the forum is for. Yes, most of the theories may be wrong. And some even be a bit over the top. But so what? We have no new book and need to entertain ourselves. Let's all be civil and enjoy the forum and respect the other posters. (Not looking at anyone in particular).
  6. Amris

    (f)dany

    While I am not really on your side - I still think I remember GRRM saying the Mercy chapter is actually old and had been written earlier than Dance but was pushed back from book to book. So theoretically the Raff scene could have originally been meant as foreshadowing for something revealed in Dance.
  7. Amris

    (f)dany

    Yes. (Ok, disclaimer: this is not my theory and in my mind it is not a likely possibility. But if Viseriys did not have a real sister then it would make sense for him to groom a 'sister' as a bargaining chip. He had few enough of those after all. And its not like it had to be his idea. Illyrio might have come up with it. Or Rhaella before her death.)
  8. Amris

    (f)dany

    This is an interesting interpretation of the lemon tree. I had not thought of that and like it. I still have two issues with it: 1) This interpretation means in other words that GRRM put a symbol for the Dorne - Targaryen alliance into Braavos in from of a lemon tree, figuring that the Baratheons and Lannisters are not smart enough to get it but the reader is. Hm. 2) And then: if I am the Prince of Dorne why do I put a lemon tree there at all? Yeah, yeah no one might notice. But then again: it is a hint. Unnecessary risk. You could still be right ofc. But I don't know.
  9. We can rule this out. The reason is that GRRM said that he had 'never thought of this before'.
  10. Amris

    (f)dany

    Rhaegar was born 259 during the Summerhall event. That birth might have had somethiung special to it there. But be that as it may: Between 263 and 274 Rhaella had 8 miscarriages or children that died early. Only Viserys born 276 survived and then no more children til Dany in 282. Although we know from Jamie that the Mad King raped her repeatedly. But didn't get her pregnant. The obvious fact is that Rhaella and Aerys had problems bringing healthy children into the world. And usually didn't. I agree that it wasn't impossible for them, very true, they managed twice before Dany after all - but it most of the time didn't work. This is the one unlikelihood for me. The second unlikelihood is that Dany was conceived - literally - at the very last possible moment. Only days before the sack of KL and Aerys death. Again - that's not impossible, I agree. But the luck of house Targaryen in this is astonishing. Think of it: after 8 miscarriages/stillborns/sickly children that the couple had over 19 years when both were younger and presumably more fertile and after seveal more childless years Rhaella actually has her fertile days of the month exactly in the days before the sack of KL AND manages to conceive a healthy child in this very moment house when Targaryen needs it most. Literally at the last possible chance. It is not that I can't believe this. As I already said I think this default solution is still the most likely. Yeah but it does have those unlikely parts. That's why I keep thinking about it.
  11. Amris

    (f)dany

    1.: Well GRRM could theoretically be stretching the truth in this imfamous SSM. For instance his answer could be about Jon's and Dany's 'official party line' birthdates (but keeping their real ones secret in order to not give his game away). I agree though that that's not likely. 2. Yes. Lyanna can't have been pregnant twice in the time. If Lyanna didn't have twins, (a theory that I like but agree is unlikely) then her only child must have been Jon. Otherwise Ned would not have had to keep Jon secret. Theoretically Dany could have another mother though - for instance Ashara. I'd find that interesting but I can't for the live of me not come up with a theoretical chain of events that would make that likely. So yeah - the default solution of Aerys and Rhaella is still the most logical. If only that didn't have very unlikely parts too. That's why I keep coming back to thinking about it.
  12. Amris

    (f)dany

    yeah, it is strange
  13. Amris

    (f)dany

    The problem with R+L=D for me is that it doesn't explain why Ned hides Jon' identity. Since if Jon isn't Rhaegar's child then Jon wouldn't be in danger from Robert. So Ned would have no reason to give him a false ID and claim he is the father. The only way to reconcile the two (making R+L=D true yet ALSO have Jon be in danger from Robert and needing a false ID would be it the two where twins. However that can't be said out loud or one gets hanged by the community. I am not taking a side here. Just pointing the problem out.
  14. Well I have read the article you referenced but it makes no sense. As I have explained above we have no clue that Arya plays a lowborn girl. The 'm'lord' certainly isn't one. I don't explain why again because I did already. The article also (and especially) makes no sense when it comes to the maiden thing: You say 'Her public testimony is that she was a maiden before Tyrion raped her.' That's true but it does not at all support your claim. On the contrary, it rules it out: That's because the play has her 'raped and murdered' while she still is a maiden. Whereas even Shaes false testimony that the article cites already admits that she was no maiden anymore before for quite a long time before she got murdered. So even if the info about Shae made it over the Narrow Sea (which I doubt) that info would not have led to the scene that Mercy thinks about. Sansa however as daughter of the alleged traitor and hand of the king Ned is prime material for a theatrical drama.
×
×
  • Create New...