Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RumHam

R+L=J v. 102

Recommended Posts

Why does R+L=J matter? To anyone other than Jon, i mean.

The last Targ reign wasnt that great and they were overthrown anyway, so no claim better than Tommen or Stannis. There would be a question on his legitimacy as well, i imagine. Is it just someone for danny to play around with? Will it have any effect on his ability to tame or ride a dragon? I wouldnt have thought so.

I see that argument frequently by people who do not understand why Robert was named king after the rebellion. Robert was a usurper because he didn't take his line to the throne, but jumped past all of the other Targaryens. Robert's grandmother was a Targaryen is why he had the better right among the rebels to the throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it, you might be right. I'd have to go through all the prophecies in the books to see, and of course with most of them it's too soon to tell. But I don't think that's how it's supposed to be. Which might make it more likely that one of these major prophecies is due to bite someone's dick off.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Outland_Interview

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Numerous_Questions1

I never said prophecy can't be misleading or confusing...but that doesn't mean there isn't truth in it. The problem comes when people start living their lives to fulfill or in fear of a prophecy- like Rhaegar, Dany, Melisandre or Cersei. Those are the people who will get burned by them. But as the reader, we have an omniscient view of the world that the characters themselves don't have. We can see the signs, large or small. We know all of the characters involved and can make reasonable judgments.

Look at the House of the Undying- some are very easy, some are a bit more muddled and others are impossible to decipher:

A beautiful, naked woman being ravished by four little men who resemble the dwarf servitor. (This is obviously the war of the 5 Kings)

A feast of slaughtered corpses holding cups, spoons, and food, with a dead man with a wolf's head sitting on a throne wearing an iron crown. (This is obviously the Red Wedding)

A tall lord with copper-skin and silver-gold hair beneath a banner of a fiery stallion, with a burning city in the background (This is less obvious. Some people think that this prophecy concerned Rhaego, and will never come to be. But do we know if that can even happen? If a prophecy can be broken? Nothing we've see so far indicates that, and this may very well indicate another Stallion who will mount the world- maybe even Dany herself)

A blue-eyed king who casts no shadow raises a red sword in his hand. (This is obviously Stannis)

A cloth dragon sways on poles amidst a cheering crowd. (This is less obvious...does this mean that Aegon is fake? Does this mean that the Targaryans will rule again? It's too vague)

A blue flower growing from a chink in a wall of ice, filling the air with sweetness. (This is obviously Jon Snow on the Wall)

So, some are obvious to us, as readers...others are less so. But to the characters themselves, like Dany...she wouldn't be able to make heads or tales of most of those because she lacks the information to put them together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said prophecy can't be misleading or confusing...but that doesn't mean there isn't truth in it. The problem comes when people start living their lives to fulfill or in fear of a prophecy- like Rhaegar, Dany, Melisandre or Cersei. Those are the people who will get burned by them. But as the reader, we have an omniscient view of the world that the characters themselves don't have. We can see the signs, large or small. We know all of the characters involved and can make reasonable judgments.

Well there is still a lot that we the readers don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the prophecies are meant to fool the reader. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

A beautiful, naked woman being ravished by four little men who resemble the dwarf servitor. (This is obviously the war of the 5 Kings)

Wait, wouldn't there be five dwarfs then? Not that I have a better interpretation of that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not an arbitrary change at all. It's what Aemon recognizes and tells Sam in Braavos - that "no one ever looked for a girl..." but they should have because "dragons are neither male nor female." The error crept in from the translation, he says - meaning that the word in question was the word for dragon, and translating it with a more gender-specific word ("prince") was a mistake.

Thus - it was a Dragon that was promised, rather than a prince.

The prophecy predates the Valyrians. It has been said to be 6000 years old, and Valyria would not have even been a glimmer in anyone's eyes at that time. Not "Dragon" that was promised. Also, we have the Woods Witch. The Children of the Forest do differentiate male and female, and she said that the Prince that was Promised would come from Aerys and Rhaella's line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, wouldn't there be five dwarfs then? Not that I have a better interpretation of that one.

By the time Dany visited the House of the Undying and saw the dwarves, Renly had already died, and Balon had crowned himself, making the number of Kings in the realm at that moment 4, not 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prophecy predates the Valyrians. It has been said to be 6000 years old, and Valyria would not have even been a glimmer in anyone's eyes at that time.

I don't think we know this for sure, do we?

By the time Dany visited the House of the Undying and saw the dwarves, Renly had already died, and Balon had crowned himself, making the number of Kings in the realm at that moment 4, not 5.

Ah that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we know this for sure, do we?

In one of the Davos chapters in ASOS, Mel says it's over 5000 years old. I suppose there is the possibility that the prophecy isn't that old but has become that old through legend and re-telling of the story, each time making it more and more grand and mythic. But doesn't Ameon says "thousands of years old" to Sam at one point? So it's at least 1000 years old.

This is one of those things where we need the original prophecy to know for sure, I guess (and carbon dating....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one of the Davos chapters in ASOS, Mel says it's over 5000 years old. I suppose there is the possibility that the prophecy isn't that old but has become that old through legend and re-telling of the story, each time making it more and more grand and mythic. But doesn't Ameon says "thousands of years old" to Sam at one point? So it's at least 1000 years old.

This is one of those things where we need the original prophecy to know for sure, I guess (and carbon dating....)

I mean I don't think we know when Valyria was founded. They warred with Ghis "when the world was young." The Targaryens have a dragon skull that is more than three thousand years old. The wiki claims the Ghiscari wars were five thousand years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean I don't think we know when Valyria was founded. They warred with Ghis "when the world was young." The Targaryens have a dragon skull that is more than three thousand years old. The wiki claims the Ghiscari wars were five thousand years ago.

Now that you mention it, I'm not sure...hopefully in the World book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there is still a lot that we the readers don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the prophecies are meant to fool the reader. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Oh, I definitely think we are being deliberately fooled. Look at the prophecy about AAR...we first hear about in in ACoK, and the first thought everyone had was "oh, man, she's so wrong...it's Dany, of course!" Then other books come out, and some of the other characters start filling the prophecy, and people get confused. Then, in book 4, Aemon declares that Dany has to be TPTWP. But then we get book 5, and we are suddenly given a new barrage of clues that point in a completely different direction. So yes, the author is messing with us. We, the reader, have to look at the information we have and make the determinations as to whether we have enough information to make any determinations, and if we don't, make sure we include absolutely everything it COULD be. That's why I wouldn't say that it HAS to be Jon Snow. It could very well be Dany...we know that she has fulfilled more of requirements. However, that doesn't mean that Jon has not. We simply don't know enough about the day of his birth to say for certain. It could even be both of them, or maybe even neither...although I think the latter is very slim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something like Valyrian nobility is my guess for a rough translation of the original text. For years people thought it meant prince, Aemon stated that it might have meant princess. Given the subsequent translation(s), I doubt that dragon was being used in a way that was compatible with bastard.

So, the Valyrian Noble that was Promised? That could be the way it was translated. And then cultural gender assumptions were just overlaid onto that language to rule out any women - and that's why nobody ever looked for a princess?

I don't think that goes far enough. Aemon decides the prophecy could just as accurately be interpreted to refer to a princess (rather than a prince), because "dragons are neither male nor female.... but now one and now the other, changeable as flame."

In this series, they aren't fickle at all. They come true almost 100% of the time. If the Ghost of High Heart says "hey, the Prince that was Promised will come from this line", then it's going to happen.

Calling prophecy "fickle" is not the same as saying prophecies don't come true. It's just a way of saying that they typically don't come true the way you expect.

(Though in hindsight all prophecies come true... otherwise they wouldn't have been prophecies.)

The prophecy predates the Valyrians. It has been said to be 6000 years old, and Valyria would not have even been a glimmer in anyone's eyes at that time. Not "Dragon" that was promised. Also, we have the Woods Witch. The Children of the Forest do differentiate male and female, and she said that the Prince that was Promised would come from Aerys and Rhaella's line.

I agree with your assessment of the age of the prophecy. It's likely to have been translated more than once. And if we hypothesize that it was translated into (and then back out of) a grammatically gendered language along the way, one can imagine how an initiallly gender-neutral word might get typed in error as male. (In Spanish, for instance, "dragon" is a masculine noun.) So it's interesting to consider that in the original prophecy, the word dragon might not refer to Valyrians or Targaryens at all. Perhaps it does not refer to a fire dragon, but to a water dragon instead. Maybe it refers to a Sea Dragon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your assessment of the age of the prophecy. It's likely to have been translated more than once. And if we hypothesize that it was translated into (and then back out of) a grammatically gendered language along the way, one can imagine how an initiallly gender-neutral word might get typed in error as male. (In Spanish, for instance, "dragon" is a masculine noun.) So it's interesting to consider that in the original prophecy, the word dragon might not refer to Valyrians or Targaryens at all. Perhaps it does not refer to a fire dragon, but to a water dragon instead. Maybe it refers to a Sea Dragon...

Ice dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the Valyrian Noble that was Promised?

As I said, the prophecy predates Valyria. There were dragons all over, once. (SSM) The age of dragons or their skeletons do not indicate when Valyria was founded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, the prophecy predates Valyria. There were dragons everywhere, once. (SSM) The age of dragons or there skeletons do not indicate when Valyria was founded.

But where are you getting that the prophecy predates Valyria. I mentioned the Targaryen dragon skull because most of us assume it was kept because it was the first Targaryen dragon. I didn't confirm the wiki's claim that the Ghiscari Wars were around five thousand years ago, but the "when the world was young" thing seems to suggest that Valyria is very old. They weren't always dragonriders, but it's possible they did have the prophetic dreams all those thousands of years ago and that's where the prophecy comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, the prophecy predates Valyria. There were dragons everywhere, once. (SSM) The age of dragons or there skeletons do not indicate when Valyria was founded.

Agreed. As I said in response to J. Stargaryen, I don't think "Valyrian Noble" goes far enough. For one thing, Valyrian Nobles were almost certainly either male or female. Whereas dragons, according to Aemon, are "neither male nor female... but now one and now the other."

The other issue is simply the issue of ambiguity. If you've only got one particular, limited way that a prophecy might be fulfilled - well, you're probably going to be wrong. In the context of these books, the word prince is rather specific - it implies a male character, political power, and (possibly) some form of social or political legitimacy. The word dragon, on the other hand - is much more flexible, and provides Martin with a lot of options. In ASOIAF, the word dragon may or may not refer to a human. If it does refer to a human, it may refer to either male or female, legitimate or illegitimate, prince, princess, or bastard (think red dragons and black dragons...Targs and Blackfyres). And if it doesn't refer to a human at all... then we've got references to fire dragons, ice dragons, and sea dragons. Not to mention the possibility that weirwoods themselves may possibly have been identified as dragons.

So I've been pushing this for a while in other threads, but my recommendation to anyone who cares is that we all reconsider the PtwP as the DtwP - the Dragon that was Promised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But where are you getting that the prophecy predates Valyria. I mentioned the Targaryen dragon skull because most of us assume it was kept because it was the first Targaryen dragon. I didn't confirm the wiki's claim that the Ghiscari Wars were around five thousand years ago, but the "when the world was young" thing seems to suggest that Valyria is very old. They weren't always dragonriders, but it's possible they did have the prophetic dreams all those thousands of years ago and that's where the prophecy comes from.

There was an SSM that GRRM said that the prophecy was more than 6000 years old. Valyria was founded, at most 5000 years ago. though the Valyrians themselves were known to be shepherds before they settled Valyria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it's either a prince or a princess...although the definitions of those are variable in and of themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. As I said in response to J. Stargaryen, I don't think "Valyrian Noble" goes far enough. For one thing, Valyrian Nobles were almost certainly either male or female. Whereas dragons, according to Aemon, are "neither male nor female... but now one and now the other."

The other issue is simply the issue of ambiguity. If you've only got one particular, limited way that a prophecy might be fulfilled - well, you're probably going to be wrong. In the context of these books, the word prince is rather specific - it implies a male character, political power, and (possibly) some form of social or political legitimacy. The word dragon, on the other hand - is much more flexible, and provides Martin with a lot of options. In ASOIAF, the word dragon may or may not refer to a human. If it does refer to a human, it may refer to either male or female, legitimate or illegitimate, prince, princess, or bastard (think red dragons and black dragons...Targs and Blackfyres). And if it doesn't refer to a human at all... then we've got references to fire dragons, ice dragons, and sea dragons. Not to mention the possibility that weirwoods themselves may possibly have been identified as dragons.

So I've been pushing this for a while in other threads, but my recommendation to anyone who cares is that we all reconsider the PtwP as the DtwP - the Dragon that was Promised.

Well, let me point out the fact that every single time that someone in story has thought that they knew who the Prince that was Promised was we have known them to be incorrect. That includes Aemon, Rhaegar, and Melisandre; at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've been pushing this for a while in other threads, but my recommendation to anyone who cares is that we all reconsider the PtwP as the DtwP - the Dragon that was Promised.

I'm fine with that but I don't think it means a literal dragon. Both Dany and Jon (the two candidates everyone seems to agree on/argue over) are both Dragons just metaphorical ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×