Jump to content

Archived

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

Jon Weirgaryen

R+L=J v.103

Recommended Posts

Just in case I've been unclear, we do think he is 1/3 of Azor Ahai reborn. He already has a magic sword that can probably kill Others (I'm of the opinion that dragonsteel is Valyrian steel or very similar. Maybe the spells are different but still forged in dragonflame.) And I think just about everyone expects him to ride a dragon. Lord Varys is just saying he might not be the first rider of his dragon.

I don't think that's what Lord Varys meant at all. I understand that you think there is more than one person to be AAR, but LV has made it very clear that they think Dany is AAR, and only Dany. That's why I was asking the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's what Lord Varys meant at all. I understand that you think there is more than one person to be AAR, but LV has made it very clear that they think Dany is AAR, and only Dany. That's why I was asking the question.

Oh maybe I misunderstood him then, I thought he agreed with me before. In my opinion Jon is as much Azor Ahai reborn as Daenerys is. Though I would have to say she'd done most of the work so far. But as you say Jon is (was?) in a position to actually battle the others, I don't doubt his importance for a second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't get why people are taking it so literally. Might as well say that Mormont's raven can't be foreshadowing anything because it's a raven XD

Mormont's raven was indeed foreshadowing....

"...Jon is the only brother that remains to me. Should I die without issue, I want him to succeed me as King of the North. I had hoped you would support my choice"

"I cannot ," she said. "In all else, Robb. In everything. But not in this... This is folly. Don't ask it."

"I don't have to. I am the king." Robb turned away and walked off..--aSoS BG page 59

"...Lord Balon left chaos in his wake, we hope. I do not intend to do the same. Yet I have no son as yet, my brothers Bran and Rickon are dead, and my sister is wed to a Lannister. I have thought long and hard about who might follow me. I command you now my true and loyal lords to fix your seals as witnesses to my decision"

A king indeed, Catelyn thought, defeated.--aSoS BG page 66

Jon would be "king of the north"... after the red wedding.

If Jon was a king at birth. then the raven would not be foreshadowing anything. The raven would be giving a history lesson.

----By the by... there is a whole other thread about dragonriders...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my point on that whole thing is somewhat murkier. I think Daenerys is clearly the prophesied princess of the Targaryens, the one who brought back the Targaryen dragons. That is sort of a singular feature, which will not be repeated by the other heads of the dragon.



I'd not go as far as stating that 'Azor Ahai' is one hero embodied in three persons - because I am not really convinced that the people who came up with the Azor Ahai prophecy have any clue what the savior of the world (i.e. the Last Hero) actually did - but I agree with RumHum that there is not just one savior coming, but rather three of them.



And what's Jon going to do in the coming books:



He is not going to save the world. He will fail to keep the Others at bay, or else Daenerys, Tyrion, and the dragons would not have to go to Westeros. The very setting of the overall story suggests that he is not going to be lead the last stand. At least not in the position as he is now in. I guess he will survive, retreat, and continue to lead the resistance against the Others in the coming war, but he is not going to win any battles...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible I made that up in my head. I thought I had read that there was a pairing long ago, but maybe not.

Interesting. It's really the third rider that gets debated most often, since obviously one is Dany and most think Jon is going to be one.

There is/was a thread where a theory was presented, with current House Lannister (Cersei/Jaime/Tyrion), House Stark and House Baratheon having Targaryen blood, through recent marriages.

Perhaps that's what you had been thinking of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my point on that whole thing is somewhat murkier. I think Daenerys is clearly the prophesied princess of the Targaryens, the one who brought back the Targaryen dragons. That is sort of a singular feature, which will not be repeated by the other heads of the dragon.

I'd not go as far as stating that 'Azor Ahai' is one hero embodied in three persons - because I am not really convinced that the people who came up with the Azor Ahai prophecy have any clue what the savior of the world (i.e. the Last Hero) actually did - but I agree with RumHum that there is not just one savior coming, but rather three of them.

And what's Jon going to do in the coming books:

He is not going to save the world. He will fail to keep the Others at bay, or else Daenerys, Tyrion, and the dragons would not have to go to Westeros. The very setting of the overall story suggests that he is not going to be lead the last stand. At least not in the position as he is now in. I guess he will survive, retreat, and continue to lead the resistance against the Others in the coming war, but he is not going to win any battles...

That makes absolutely no sense to me, given what we have seen so far from the story. It completely ignores almost everything that happens in the last book entirely.

1. Dany isn't the only Targaryan. She's not the only one capable of bringing back dragons. Melisandre has said, more than once, that "king's blood" is what is needed. Dany was able to birth the dragons because she had "king's blood" in that fire. Her and her dead husband. Jon also has "king's blood" in him. If bringing back the dragons takes both Targaryan blood AND king's blood, then it's entirely possible that Jon could 'wake a dragon'- in a literal or metaphorical sense. I think it's far too early to make pronouncements that Dany is the prophesied one simply because she has dragons. That's looking at one part of the prophesy and ignoring the others.

2. Jon's dream. We know for a fact that Jon has prophetic dreams. For Jon to have THIS particular dream about slaying the dead with a burning sword and not have it come true in some sort of way would be incredibly inconsistent with the rest of the story. You can't simply ignore this dream. How come Jon has this dream and not Dany if she is AAR?

3. Why on earth would Jon not 'win any battles'? And why would he not 'lead the last stand'? The screenwriters stated very bluntly that "Jon's leadership skills would be very important for the endgame of the series". To me that's basically saying "He will be leader in the end".

4. Why would Dany be AAR if the dragons are Lightbringer and there are 3 dragons and she can only ride one? That makes no sense to me. AAR has Lightbringer. Once the other dragons have riders, they will no longer belong to Dany. Those dragons will belong to those riders. Why would Dany's dragon make her AAR moreso than the other dragon riders? And would all of them have to fulfill the prophecy? How could they, if they didn't wake the dragons themselves, according to this interpretation? Clearly, "waking the dragons from stone" and "wielding the red sword of heroes" are very, very different things, but both must be done in the case of AAR.

5. Why is the sword a metaphor for dragon but 'waking the dragon' can't be a metaphor for something else? Why does that part have to be literal?

That's why your interpretation isn't clear at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what's Jon going to do in the coming books:

He is not going to save the world. He will fail to keep the Others at bay, or else Daenerys, Tyrion, and the dragons would not have to go to Westeros. The very setting of the overall story suggests that he is not going to be lead the last stand. At least not in the position as he is now in. I guess he will survive, retreat, and continue to lead the resistance against the Others in the coming war, but he is not going to win any battles...

I think Jon might win a battle or two before the Wall comes crumbling down and he (and the NW) are forced to retreat. If he saved the world in Winds, we'd have no need for Spring. So I agree that's going to be dark before the dawn (pun!) because it's going to take everyone playing large or small roles. But while Tyrion and Dany are doing "X" during the battle (flying dragons and taking down the Wights?), I think it will be Jon who stops the magic of the Others.

There is/was a thread where a theory was presented, with current House Lannister (Cersei/Jaime/Tyrion), House Stark and House Baratheon having Targaryen blood, through recent marriages.

Perhaps that's what you had been thinking of?

Probably.

These thread gets me pumped for the next book so hard.

Welcome to the Boards and RLJ!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These thread gets me pumped for the next book so hard.

We cover a wide range of topics, but hey- it keeps it interesting XD

Welcome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes absolutely no sense to me, given what we have seen so far from the story. It completely ignores almost everything that happens in the last book entirely.

1. Dany isn't the only Targaryan. She's not the only one capable of bringing back dragons. Melisandre has said, more than once, that "king's blood" is what is needed. Dany was able to birth the dragons because she had "king's blood" in that fire. Her and her dead husband. Jon also has "king's blood" in him. If bringing back the dragons takes both Targaryan blood AND king's blood, then it's entirely possible that Jon could 'wake a dragon'- in a literal or metaphorical sense. I think it's far too early to make pronouncements that Dany is the prophesied one simply because she has dragons. That's looking at one part of the prophesy and ignoring the others.

I think either there was something special about Daenerys, or it was a matter of timing, waiting for the comet. Lots of Targaryens tried hatching eggs over the years with no success. We even have an instance where a king died in a fire during an attempt, so that should have done it if kings blood was the missing ingredient.

Of course now that she did that and magic is back, whose to say old eggs wont just start hatching on their own? or for other Targaryens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cover a wide range of topics, but hey- it keeps it interesting XD

Welcome!

Including math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think either there was something special about Daenerys, or it was a matter of timing, waiting for the comet. Lots of Targaryens tried hatching eggs over the years with no success. We even have an instance where a king died in a fire during an attempt, so that should have done it if kings blood was the missing ingredient.

Of course now that she did that and magic is back, whose to say old eggs wont just start hatching on their own? or for other Targaryens.

I think it has more to do with the environment than someone's blood, because without magic in the world, how would there be dragons in the first place?

But if there IS magic in the world, then a person with the right kind of blood would be able to hatch them. The dragons died out when the magic died out, but the Targaryans remained. Then, when the magic comes back into the world, the dragons come back. It's definitely not coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. Why is the sword a metaphor for dragon but 'waking the dragon' can't be a metaphor for something else? Why does that part have to be literal?

Indeed we know that 'waking the dragon' can be a metaphor. I find it interesting that Dany spent her childhood being taught that she didn't want to wake the dragon, and had to come out of Viserys' shadow before she decided that, yes, she did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. We even have an instance where a king died in a fire during an attempt, so that should have done it if kings blood was the missing ingredient.

Maybe king's blood is a red herring? A life for a life: Dany raised three dragons, and sacrificed three lives. Only one of those could have been described as having king's blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think either there was something special about Daenerys, or it was a matter of timing, waiting for the comet. Lots of Targaryens tried hatching eggs over the years with no success. We even have an instance where a king died in a fire during an attempt, so that should have done it if kings blood was the missing ingredient.

Of course now that she did that and magic is back, whose to say old eggs wont just start hatching on their own? or for other Targaryens.

Daenerys is very special. Starting with her very conception. She's the one who overturns the common tropes in every way possible. First, she isn't a child born of love or simply intoo an ordinary royal marriage as most fairytales start. She had the king blood and the dragon blood but she's a product of rape. Second, she was born to a woman of age and with such poor reproductive history that probably no one expected that Rhaella was even able of having another child. In a twisted (because of the rape) way she's a miracle child. It isn't just that no one expected a princess - Dany herself was not expected to ever be born, most likely. Third, she wasn't considered important enough by anyone and didn't get any special treatment, any sage advisor and so on. Fourth, she wants to avenge her family but the justice of her revenge is questionable since her family did some quite questionable things. And out of all Targaryens who dreamed of dragons and tried to wake them, she was the only one who actually succeeded. It doesn't matter who else could have done it. Many others tried and failed. She didn't.

With all this subversions, I believe she is AAR. But I see her as facing the same problem Robert did after winning his fight: he was not meant for ruling. Well, at least she tries to do her best. I suppose that's why I love her. But Robert might have also tried, in the beginning...

All in all, I see Dany as being a failure after the Others are neutralized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe king's blood is a red herring? A life for a life: Dany raised three dragons, and sacrificed three lives. Only one of those could have been described as having king's blood.

Wait, Viserys was a prince or a king depending how you look at it, Drogo a khal and Rhaego a khalakka. I would say they all had kings blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daenerys is very special. Starting with her very conception. She's the one who overturns the common tropes in every way possible. First, she isn't a child born of love or simply intoo an ordinary royal marriage as most fairytales start. She had the king blood and the dragon blood but she's a product of rape.

I'm not sure how being the product of marital rape is a subversion of any trope, to be honest.

Second, she was born to a woman of age and with such poor reproductive history that probably no one expected that Rhaella was even able of having another child.

I don't know what bearing this really has on Dany's story.

In a twisted (because of the rape) way she's a miracle child. It isn't just that no one expected a princess - Dany herself was not expected to ever be born, most likely.

...still not seeing how this is a miracle. Rhaella's husband raped her. She got pregnant. She had a kid and died giving birth. Not very miraculous. A miracle is waking dragons from petrified eggs. A miracle is bringing someone back from the dead. Getting pregnant and having a child is not 'miraculous' in and of itself.

Third, she wasn't considered important enough by anyone and didn't get any special treatment, any sage advisor and so on.

Wait, what? She didn't have any advisors because her family had been deposed and they were broke and had no money. Neither she nor Viserys got special treatment after Darry died and they were kicked out. But then she was treated VERY special when she got married to Drago and even more so when she had some dragons.

Fourth, she wants to avenge her family but the justice of her revenge is questionable since her family did some quite questionable things. And out of all Targaryens who dreamed of dragons and tried to wake them, she was the only one who actually succeeded. It doesn't matter who else could have done it. Many others tried and failed. She didn't.

...how many other Targaryans have tried to wake dragons lately? You know, since magic came back into the world?

With all this subversions, I believe she is AAR. But I see her as facing the same problem Robert did after winning his fight: he was not meant for ruling. Well, at least she tries to do her best. I suppose that's why I love her. But Robert might have also tried, in the beginning...

I really see no subversions, tbh. The only real subversion I see in her storyline is that she WASN'T a great ruler of Mereen and made a mess of it. But her story from page one up until that point was trope after trope after trope.

All in all, I see Dany as being a failure after the Others are neutralized.

I don't think she'll be a failure. I don't think she'll be on the IT. I think she'll go back to Essos and rule there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do so appreciate the frequent use of the term "red herring" as a classification for every piece of text that counters a pet theory..... I would like to add that it is only a "red herring" if the aforementioned theory turns out to be correct. If it does not, the evidence of the theory was in fact the "red herring."



Maybe until the theory is revealed to be true or false we should stick with "clue."



I was also wondering if we have a term for "things we believe are in the text that really are not."



like



Lyanna was opposed to marrying Robert... Lyanna made a statement about Robert's character that was not flattering.



Ned called the kingsguard at the tower of joy a "marvel, a shining lesson to the world"...Ned did say that "once they (kingsguard) were a marvel, a shining example to the world." Throwing in the at the tower of joy is exactly that.



that Hightower was a "stickler for the rules."--Jamie did say that the White bull was loyal to the end.... because he had reminded Jamie it was not his place to judge Aerys for burning Rickard and strangling Brandon.



Ned's dream in chapter 39 was a "fever dream."--- an SSM has it as that, but it also warns dreams are not always literal. and states you must wait for future books to find out more about what happened.



The king must have one kingsguard with him at all times for the kingsguard to be fulfilling their vows. I do not even know where this one is supposed to have come from.




For a time I took to calling such examples ballpoint or number two pencil citations.... the terms did not seem to catch on. I did appreciate Bearqueen's introduction of the term headcanon... However headcanon is aware that it does not have a basis in text.

Share this post


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

×