Han Snow Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I get what you are trying to say, and yes there are some things mistranslated but as you say dragon and stone are the constant. Jon telling the world about his heritage isn't really waking a dragon form stone, whoever tells him is the one awakening him from darkness of not knowing about his true heritage. I honestly think that Dany is the PTWP and Jon will turn out to be AAR. Aemon is the one who is right and Benerro calling her AAR is a misdirection. But we disagree, so lets agree to disagree. Isn't that what we do all day on the board anyways. :D Jon who is dead or in a deep coma, placed in the ice cells under the wall (walls are usually made of stone, though in ASIAF ice has been compared to stone on many occasions) will rise/woke/be reborn. And in my opinion the wall as a structure will soon after collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arya kiddin' Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I thought the "pertinent" issue of this particular thread was who Jon's parents were/are. How silly of me. Forgive me, I should've been clearer. What I meant was, if a case for Jon being AA/TPtwP is being discussed, it is entirely valid for the arguments to the contrary being pointed out. Anyway if that discussion is not pertinent to the thread, then the thread should not be derailed in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arya kiddin' Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Jon who is dead or in a deep coma, placed in the ice cells under the wall (walls are usually made of stone though in ASIAF ice has been compared to stone on many occasions) will rise/woke/be reborn. And in my opinion the wall as a structure will soon after collapse. I think the point she is making is the wording of the prophecy is "waking dragons" from stone not being awoken from stone or something. And honestly if we can't take the eact wording of the prophecy to draw coclusions then what else should be the basis for such a discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 That could be, yet it still stands that this person will "wake dragons from stone" and awakening your heritage isn't really waking it from stone. Like I said AAR/TPTWP needs to perform this deed not have it performed on him which is what will happen no when Jon is told about his heritage. They'll be awakening that dragon not Jon.ETA: Fire Eater: I'm sorry but that's really a steach and it makes little sense " to wake your heritage from stone". Not at all when you consider that Jon's mother 'exists' as a stone statue in the crypts of Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Han Snow Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Prophecies are tricky beasts in ASOIAF and not one of them should be taken for granted or word for word. I like Dany as a character but taking her for the ASOIAF messiah (of whom I'm sure there will be just ONE, not three, or two, just one) which is something that even the characters in the books think she is, which in turn considering everything else in these books makes that call very suspicious and in the end most likely to be confirmed plainly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arya kiddin' Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Prophecies are tricky beasts in ASOIAF and not one of them should be taken for granted or word for word. I like Dany as a character but taking her for the ASOIAF messiah (of whom I'm sure there will be just ONE, not three, or two, just one) which is something that even the characters in the books think she is, which in turn considering everything else in these books makes that call very suspicious and in the end most likely to be confirmed plainly wrong. Actually it is not about being a messiah, not every prophecy points out to a good guy - the valonqar one for instance. The point is what other option do we have other than verbatim analysis of the prophecy? How else would you interpret GHH's prophecy about say Sansa? "The words" are all we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Actually it is not about being a messiah, not every prophecy points out to a good guy - the valonqar one for instance. The point is what other option do we have other than verbatim analysis of the prophecy? How else would you interpret GHH's prophecy about say Sansa? "The words" are all we have. Don't mistake taking something at verbatim value as being the same as taking it at literal value. A prophecy may be fulfilled verbatim, but that does not have to imply literalness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyse Stark Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Prophecies are tricky beasts in ASOIAF and not one of them should be taken for granted or word for word. I like Dany as a character but taking her for the ASOIAF messiah (of whom I'm sure there will be just ONE, not three, or two, just one) which is something that even the characters in the books think she is, which in turn considering everything else in these books makes that call very suspicious and in the end most likely to be confirmed plainly wrong.Exactly. Daenerys is a red herring, and in the end, even the crones of Vae Daethrok will also be proven wrong when the true PTWP is revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arya kiddin' Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Don't mistake taking something at verbatim value as being the same as taking it at literal value. A prophecy may be fulfilled verbatim, but that does not have to imply literalness. Yes, I understand that. But still the point stands. AA is someone who wakes dragons from stone. It does translates better for Dany than Jon. I'm aware of your argument about her being a red herring because someone in the the text has come to this conclusion. But how do you explain this then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Yes, I understand that. But still the point stands. AA is someone who wakes dragons from stone. It does translates better for Dany than Jon. I'm aware of your argument about her being a red herring because someone in the the text has come to this conclusion. But how do you explain this then? That it will come to pass metaphorically and not literally. I think that's the entire point of the dragon prophecies that come to pass in D&E; they're symbolic, not literal. (And I'm sure the fact that you hate Jon has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion that it's not him.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arya kiddin' Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (And I'm sure the fact that you hate Jon has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion that it's not him.) Trust me I don't hate Jon. I hate the over glorified board Jon. That being said, it's alright if I make some funny non-sensical comments sometime on a troll thread, but this thread I assume is very serious. I try my best to be totally unbiased at such threads. All I want is an unbiased discussion, without our gut feelings trying to cloud our judgements. I understand the prophecy may turn out to be true metaphorically, I'm not opposed to the idea. But then I should consider it should come to pass because of some hitherto unknown detail - because the evidene so far points only to Dany. Gut feeling is a different thing altogether, so is if something fits thematically better - that too is too dependent on interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Trust me I don't hate Jon. I hate the over glorified board Jon. That being said, it's alright if I make some funny non-sensical comments sometime on a troll thread, but this thread I assume is very serious. I try my best to be totally unbiased at such threads. All I want is an unbiased discussion, without our gut feelings trying to cloud our judgements. I understand the prophecy may turn out to be true metaphorically, I'm not opposed to the idea. But then I should consider it should come to pass because of some hitherto unknown detail - because the evidene so far points only to Dany. Gut feeling is a different thing altogether, so is if something fits thematically better - that too is too dependent on interpretation. Yes dear, that's kind of what makes her a red herring. Especially when you have people in the story saying, "Why yes of course it's her." The evidence points to her so much that she shouldn't need people in-story to "confirm" it. That people do is a "lady doth protest too much" misdirection. As soon as Aemon said it was her in Feast, I had a lightbulb-going-off moment and knew that GRRM was going in a different direction. He was pushing it so hard that it couldn't have been anything other than a false trail. And when I read D&E, it became even more clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arya kiddin' Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Yes dear, that's kind of what makes her a red herring. Especially when you have people in the story saying, "Why yes of course it's her." The evidence points to her so much that she shouldn't need people in-story to "confirm" it. That people do is a "lady doth protest too much" misdirection. As soon as Aemon said it was her in Feast, I had a lightbulb-going-off moment and knew that GRRM was going in a different direction. He was pushing it so hard that it couldn't have been anything other than a false trail. And when I read D&E, it became even more clear. I suppose. I think I'll reconsider all this when I'm re-reading next time. I'm re-reading Dany right now anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teal'c Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Thank you for the segue JS! :) I have just posted a lengthy essay on this very topic on my blog. Because of the length I elected to post it offsite, but as it was inspired by content here I would welcome discussion here. Many thanks to yolkboy, Ygrain and J.Stargaryen for reading in advance and offering feedback and support :) The basic conclusions will come as no surprise to RLJ regulars, but I think we might all be a bit surprised by what Ned's thoughts about Rhaegar have to tell us about his opinion of House Lannister. This essay was awesome, Lady G. Thank you. I had not noticed the proximity of Ned's conversation with Barra's mother and thinking again of Rhaegar and Jon. I agree, this is one more textual reference in which George is ever so subtly telling us that Jon is so much more than he seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teal'c Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Here is your link, dear Ygrain (round 1:30). A little festive 'treat' for all the R+L=J posse. How about 3:42, where he says Jon Snow has a "flame in him" that bubbles up? Not ice, fire... ETA: Lady G beats me by two weeks on this observation. I must stay more caught up on my reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blugenes Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 A theory for consideration - What is Jon Snow was actually Aegon from the beginning with Lyanna as his real mother and the reported "child" of Elia was in fact a Pisswater Prince? -Elia was extremely frail and would be under pressure to produce a male heir as would Rhaegar-Elia suddenly "can no longer have children" after a second child is miraculously male-Lyanna disappears in time for Aegon to potentially be her child-Rhaegar clearly loves Lyanna-Dying in a pool of her own blood could also be caused by bloody flux or other reasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Not this again, please. Aegon is born 282, Jon is born 283.Lyanna disappears only after Aegon is born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 The "bed of blood"/"bloody bed" language is repeatedly used to denote childbirth, specifically. The "bed of blood" phrasing with regards to Lyanna strongly implies that childbirth killed her, and that readers are expected to look at the other mentions of it in the series in order to come to that conclusion. An alternate cause of death like the flux doesn't fit with how GRRM has up to this point used that phrase. And as Ygrain says, the timeline for Jon being Aegon doesn't really work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter's Knight Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Wait, so you're saying that Elia passed off a Flea Bottom boy as her son. Said boy was switched out with another boy from FB and is currently with JonC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Wait, so you're saying that Elia passed off a Flea Bottom boy as her son. Said boy was switched out with another boy from FB and is currently with JonC? Will all the Pisswater Princes please stand up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.