aceluby Posted December 9, 2013 Author Share Posted December 9, 2013 But Dany isn't interpreting the prophecy in the HotU when she calls the cloth dragon a 'mummer's dragon', she's describing it. And 'a mummer's dragon' is a known and used term in-world (the Free Cities specifically) to describe a fake dragon used in mummer shows. My point is that this shows there is already a stable definition of 'mummer's dragons' in-world, so when it crops up again from Quaithe we have very good, if not infallible, reason to take it to mean that fAegon is a fake dragon. Again, I'm challenging that interpretation and that it purposefully leads Dany and the reader down a certain path that may not be correct. Even when describing the mummer's dragon it still has at the very least another meaning of a dragon belonging to the mummer. I leave open the probability that you are absolutely correct, I'm just pointing out that this could be word play and giving an alternative that would work given that word play, though I don't have absolute answers as to all the questions. But you have to admit that even the (f)Aegon theory has some holes in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Monkey Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 People take it to mean fake because it's fake. Yeah, I can't think of a good reason to distinguish between a dragon puppet made of cloth and a fake dragon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Again, I'm challenging that interpretation and that it purposefully leads Dany and the reader down a certain path that may not be correct. Even when describing the mummer's dragon it still has at the very least another meaning of a dragon belonging to the mummer. I leave open the probability that you are absolutely correct, I'm just pointing out that this could be word play and giving an alternative that would work given that word play, though I don't have absolute answers as to all the questions. But you have to admit that even the (f)Aegon theory has some holes in it. I'm not sure how far apart we really are here, I agree with you that there is a possibility that readers interpretations might be wrong. I also agree with you that it probably is double world play going on here given Varys' possible past experience as a mummer. But I do want to stand on the point that mummer's dragons = cloth dragons/fake dragons in general, is not subject to interpretation- it is a given definition in-world. I don't think there has even been an in-world interpretation of what the HotU vision or Quaithe's reference means on Dany's part, she certainly hasn't interpreted it to mean she'll be fighting a false Targaryen, not yet at least. The in-world definition, however, constitutes, I think, strong evidence for reader interpretations of fAegon's fakeness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.