Jô Maltese Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I have a stupid question : is it known for a fact that Aerys died before Aegon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiasyd Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Let's suppose even Aerion Brightshit had these dreams though, and it compelled him to spectacularly drink wildfire. Accepting that even the most magnificently idiotic Targs have a rational basis to their madness due to misunderstanding and obsession with dragon dreams, then there really is no "Targaryen madness" to speak of. I don't understand how "Paranoid-Obssessive behavior due to dragon dreams" differs from "Targaryen madness", except in terminology. Usually, an insane person sees herself as reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Arryn Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Hey, whatever you want to believe.You too :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oursisthefury69 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 its simple ill go with a shorter one. Within this thread alone you display a very one dimensional/innacurate view of both Danaerys and Aerys. In addition you provide little to no signifigant textual evidence for the claim which is somehow supposed to be used to create further importance behind jons character, in attempt to further propagate your favorite idea of how Jon is everything and is all 3 heads of the dragon; Even though the only thing that even lead to Jon's conception was prophecy's rhaegar knew to be true. He knew 2 things to be true VIA PROPHECY by the latter part of his life 1. his son would be tptwp 2.there would need to be 2 more "heads"(people not neccesarily dragon RIDERS) Where he was wrong in each instance was that he thought aegon was tptwp(anticipating 2 accompanying daughters) but his next son really was, and was correct that 3 heads will be needed to save westeros (in the same sense 3 were needed to initially conquer it) but wrong that they'd all be his kids. Which is the signifigance of him looking at Dany in one of his only direct lines of the series and says "there must be one more" If he didn't KNOW 3 were needed the same way he KNEW HIS SON TO BE TPTWP, then he would've been content with the 2 children elia was capable of delivering and there'd be no Jon. MY POINT BEING that without the 3 heads prophecy there'd be no jon to begin wth; so it doesn't make sense to then supplant that prophecy with jon's 3 names/personality changes/titles/favorite colors, and while those trinitys exist it doesn't mean there only needs to be Jon and NO One else to help save the realm. My true and final point being that the idea you base most of your theories on "Jon Snow is the 3 headed dragon" is about as WRONG and untextually supported as this one, but like this on ot attention bcause you have 20,000 posts. And what energy have you used up on me? The amount it takes to sit behind a computer and type nonsense, you seem like ya got enough time to give my comments a read ( didn't end up being shorter but u could use the insight of someone who doesn't agree wioth everything u say on here and yet again ik u have no shortage of time to read this) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Rahvin Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Actually, that's not how succession works. There is something called the "crown line," which runs through first born sons. So, the king's first born son is the heir, then the heir's first born son is 2nd in line, and so forth. I thought with Rhaegar's death it would pass to Viserys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 That quote is ambiguous though. Each brother died from dragon dreams, but their own discrete dragon dreams, or by acting on something Daeron/ perhaps Egg relayed? It's not answering whether each brother was individually haunted by dreams he personally had-- that was really the root of my query on whether there was anything to distinguish in terms of hatching or becoming, and I don't know if it's even salient. Let's suppose even Aerion Brightshit had these dreams though, and it compelled him to spectacularly drink wildfire. Accepting that even the most magnificently idiotic Targs have a rational basis to their madness due to misunderstanding and obsession with dragon dreams, then there really is no "Targaryen madness" to speak of. It's nothing more than the same Maggy the Frog obsession driving Cersei mad. Which is fine and could make sense, but it implies 2 things that might be a bit controversial: the Targs really are special by their prophetic nature, as even the most monstrously ludicrous are blessed by foresight, and 2. madness is nothing more than a Targ's reaction to this divine gift, or potentially, sane Targs don't have these dreams at all (I have no idea if that's true, but for the sake of argument). I mean, I'm fine with the notion that the myth of Targ madness might be shattered by this, and it sort of makes sense if madness and greatness are 2 sides of the same coin (how it all comes down to an individual's reaction to a divine gift). But moreso than Jon's parentage, I think shattering the myth of Targ madness is the conclusion one might need to draw from this if we're accepting that dragon dreams are the cause of the these Targ Darwin awards. Hmm, I'm not sure I agree that Maester Aemon's quote is ambiguous. I guess it could be read that way. As a slight misdirection by GRRM perhaps. Still, I favor the straight read. Not that I'm saying Maester Aemon is definitely correct, mind you. He also claims that Dany is tPtwP, so it's not as if he's infallible. It's just that, it does line up nicely with the OP. Take that for what you will. The rest of your post is pretty interesting, and I'm going to give it some more thought. I thought with Rhaegar's death it would pass to Viserys? I used to as well. But no, it's like I explained it in the previous post. Let's look at the Targaryen succession prior to Jon's birth (so that we don't derail the thread with a legitimacy argument). King Aerys 1) Rhaegar 2) Aegon 3) Viserys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 I thought with Rhaegar's death it would pass to Viserys?No. It would pass to Aegon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Rahvin Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Your understanding of the succession is not correct. ETA: Ninja'd by J. Starg.After Aegon I, his son Aenys I, then Aenys brother Meagor not Aenys son... Jaehaerys, came AFTER Meagor??? IDK just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Rahvin Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Was this prior to the Rules of Succession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 After Aegon I, his son Aenys I, then Aenys brother Meagor not Aenys son...Jaehaerys, came AFTER Meagor??? IDK just saying.Which was considered unusual. Jaehaerys SHOULD have come before Maegor, but didn't for whatever reason. That doesn't change the fact that your idea of succession is wrong. Aegon comes before Viserys. It's even occurred in real history: Edward the Black Prince died before his father Edward III, and his son became Richard II. Edward III's grandson succeeded him, not one of his other sons. Prince William is ahead of Prince Andrew in the succession, even if Prince Charles dies before the queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I don't understand how "Paranoid-Obssessive behavior due to dragon dreams" differs from "Targaryen madness", except in terminology. Usually, an insane person sees herself as reasonable. It's more objective than an insane person seeing their own actions as rational I think. The way Targ madness was described is a kind of genetic coin toss-- either you're predisposed to be great or a raging lunatic. The manifestation of some predisposed insanity was what I was referring to being a myth, if the findings of this thread were adopted, I mean. If we accept that every weird disaster a Targ performs is caused by the very real stimulus of dragon dreams (i.e. not delusions but prophetic dreams), then it means they aren't predisposed one way or another by a coin toss. It simply means that these indiscretions are instigated by real stimuli they aren't just hallucinating, and that the disasters are caused merely by misinterpretation/ obsession, which is a very human error, and not an indication that they are genetically damned. It might mean they need to just train themselves to understand/ ignore prophesy better. More controversially perhaps, it means that Dany might not end up crazy or incompetent at all in the event she overcomes obsession with all those prophesies. Or conversely, that her failure to overcome them might be what does her in. But the point I was going for is more that the madness would stem from real stimuli rather than some predisposed trait, which makes it something one can overcome rather than written in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oursisthefury69 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 yea idk why anybodys answer about targ succession would be so concrete, considering they're the ones who established the rules and don't even conform to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Another thing to note here: all of clues towards Jon's parentage so far have been very "in-story" subtle: Ned musing about lies, Meera telling the story about KOTLT, Dany seeing blue flower at the wall of ice, Lyanna extracting Promise me from Ned etc. None of these actually advance the plot directly, but provide interesting tidbits of information which reader then uses to shape his own conclusions. The theory, if it were true, would completely shatter that dynamic. It would put huge story-telling element (Aerys planning to mass murder 500 000 people) into the service of a simple prophecy. In a way, it horribly downgrades that whole part of the plot. :dunno: Any normal theories deserve discussion about their merits and downfalls. Same applies for crackpots and possible crackpots. I'm not really sure how this wouldn't be subtle. In fact, it's apparently so subtle that a lot of people are insisting quite vehemently that they don't see the connection. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Arryn Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Another thing to note here: all of clues towards Jon's parentage so far have been very "in-story" subtle: Ned musing about lies, Meera telling the story about KOTLT, Dany seeing blue flower at the wall of ice, Lyanna extracting Promise me from Ned etc. None of these actually advance the plot directly, but provide interesting tidbits of information which reader then uses to shape his own conclusions. The theory, if it were true, would completely shatter that dynamic. It would put huge story-telling element (Aerys planning to mass murder 500 000 people) into the service of a simple prophecy. In a way, it horribly downgrades that whole part of the plot. :dunno: Any normal theories deserve discussion about their merits and downfalls. Same applies for crackpots and possible crackpots. I agree enough has been given for us to know of Jon's parentage. Aerys probably just burnt KL cause he was mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oursisthefury69 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I love how I was repeatedly told to not dare mention glass candles( which're clearly relevant to a dream thread) and told to stay on the subject, and you're now discussing British royalty and their succession style. So its more so talk about anything you want as long as it doesn't directly clash with your motives and opinions, and definitely go outside the subject as long as its properly timed to change the course of the discussion and everybody's growing realization that number of posts doesn't correspond with intelligent insight into these book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 You know, the fact that Baelor apparently manifested as a HUGE dragon, size-wise, might mean something too. He had the character to be seen as a dragon, period, but apparently he was so outstanding that his visual representation as a dragon was enormous. That, or the consequences of his death were enormous. I can see it either way. Mostly I just like the idea of the "worthy" Targs, the "real" dragons, being the not-asshole ones. : P Dragons and their wings are often associated with shadows, it seems to me. So this could well be a metaphor for Baelor casting a large shadow. “I dreamed of you and a dead dragon, you see. A great beast, huge, with wings so large they could cover this meadow. It had fallen on top of you, but you were alive and the dragon was dead.” - THK “I see them in my dreams, Sam. I see a red star bleeding in the sky. I still remember red. I see their shadows on the snow, hear the crack of leathern wings, feel their hot breath. My brothers dreamed of dragons too, and the dreams killed them, every one. Sam, we tremble on the cusp of half-remembered prophecies, of wonders and terrors that no man now living could hope to comprehend... or...” - AFfC, Samwell III Shadows on the snow, heh. Dany hit him. “No,” she screamed, swinging the lash with all the strength that she had in her. The dragon jerked his head back. “No,” she screamed again. “NO!” The barbs raked along his snout. Drogon rose, his wings covering her in shadow. - ADwD, Daenerys X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiasyd Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 More controversially perhaps, it means that Dany might not end up crazy or incompetent at all in the event she overcomes obsession with all those prophesies. Or conversely, that her failure to overcome them might be what does her in. But the point I was going for is more that the madness would stem from real stimuli rather than some predisposed trait, which makes it something one can overcome rather than written in stone. I see your point. One could argue that Maester Aemon has better control over the prophetic stimuli (though, it seems the Wall helped). Still, in this case, I would just rename "Targ Madness" for "Targ weakness of will". Anyway, I'm drifting to semiotics and semantics here, completely off-topic. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I love how I was repeatedly told to not dare mention glass candles( which're clearly relevant to a dream thread) and told to stay on the subject, and you're now discussing British royalty and their succession style. So its more so talk about anything you want as long as it doesn't directly clash with your motives and opinions, and definitely go outside the subject as long as its properly timed to change the course of the discussion and everybody's growing realization that number of posts doesn't correspond with intelligent insight into these book Dude, sorry that you didn't get an answer you liked in the beginning of the thread, but get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 I agree enough has been given for us to know of Jon's parentage. Aerys probably just burnt KL cause he was mad.I don't think it's JUST about Jon's parentage, which I agree there's already plenty of evidence for. That's part of it, sure, but I think ultimately the "Jon as a dragon" motif is the overarching emphasis here. And obviously he wanted to burn it down because he was mad. But part of this line of thinking is digging further to see if that madness had done other root cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Rahvin Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Dude, sorry that you didn't get an answer you liked in the beginning of the thread, but get over it.I didn't like the answer I got either, but unfortunately I think u guys are right...so, oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.