Casually smashing a theory to pieces....

[UnmaskedLurker]

Besides, you interpret his statement in names and consider he means a bastard or a secret targ is not a targ. That may be true, but whenever he works with magic it is all about blood, not names. So I think when he talks about dragons and Targs he is talking about blood, since it is in a magic context.

I am not sure I understand how this statement addresses my point. Yes, it is about blood and not names--Targ blood is necessary to be a dragon. How can a lion be a head of a dragon--even if a dragonhorn binds a dragon to Tyrion?

[rozemarijn]

I am not sure I understand how this statement addresses my point. Yes, it is about blood and not names--Targ blood is necessary to be a dragon. How can a lion be a head of a dragon--even if a dragonhorn binds a dragon to Tyrion?

Well that's what I said. A+J is not necessarily true because Targ blood is not necessary to ride a dragon, as Martin said. Tyrion can ride a dragon because of the horn. You need horn or you need blood, not both.

[Bael's Bastard]

Well that's what I said. A+J is not necessarily true because Targ blood is not necessary to ride a dragon, as Martin said. Tyrion can ride a dragon because of the horn. You need horn or you need blood, not both.

It is an interpretation that he said Targ blood wasn't necessary. What he said was more along the lines that the third head need not necessarily be a Targaryen. Which, for example, Robert Baratheon wasn't a Targ, but he had Targ blood.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Well that's what I said. A+J is not necessarily true because Targ blood is not necessary to ride a dragon, as Martin said. Tyrion can ride a dragon because of the horn. You need horn or you need blood, not both.

You are making the assumption that head of a dragon = dragon rider. I am not making that assumption. There are many people who may have enough Targ blood to ride a dragon but who are not of House Targ (maybe BBP, for example). Even if the horn can make Tyrion a dragon rider, I don't see how it can make him a head of the dragon. The quote is something along the lines of "the dragon must have three heads." Not that there must be three dragon riders--but that the dragon must have three heads. I don't see how a Lannister--i.e., a lion--can be a head of a dragon. Can he be a dragon rider? Maybe (although I am skeptical--but not relevant to my point here). Even if he can ride a dragon as a full Lannister--he cannot be a head of the dragon. That requires dragon blood--i.e., Targ blood. What else can it mean that "the dragon must have three heads"? What is the dragon if it is not House Targ? And I don't think GRRM contradicted this theory by saying the third head is not necessarily a Targ. He was being cagey. Of course the third head must be of House Targ in some sense--even if not technically a Targ (but rather Tyrion Hill).

[Liver & onions]

I just read the Mad King part of the book and see no way how it "smashes" A+J=J&C.

[J. Stargaryen]

I just read the Mad King part of the book and see no way how it "smashes" A+J=J&C.

Joanna was in Casterly Rock, Aerys wasn't.

[rozemarijn]

You are making the assumption that head of a dragon = dragon rider. I am not making that assumption. There are many people who may have enough Targ blood to ride a dragon but who are not of House Targ (maybe BBP, for example). Even if the horn can make Tyrion a dragon rider, I don't see how it can make him a head of the dragon. The quote is something along the lines of "the dragon must have three heads." Not that there must be three dragon riders--but that the dragon must have three heads. I don't see how a Lannister--i.e., a lion--can be a head of a dragon. Can he be a dragon rider? Maybe (although I am skeptical--but not relevant to my point here). Even if he can ride a dragon as a full Lannister--he cannot be a head of the dragon. That requires dragon blood--i.e., Targ blood. What else can it mean that "the dragon must have three heads"? What is the dragon if it is not House Targ? And I don't think GRRM contradicted this theory by saying the third head is not necessarily a Targ. He was being cagey. Of course the third head must be of House Targ in some sense--even if not technically a Targ (but rather Tyrion Hill).

Yes that is what they say. I don't really think the three heads you are talking about matter that much. For me there are three dragons, each with a person to ride him and I think to fight the others and to bring Westeros back peace you will need all three of them. I think those first three riders are not just three people who can sit up on a dragon and use as a war instrument, but three people who can, especially when they work together, be trusted with power/rule/defeat the others.

I don't think that of every dragonrider, but with those three dragons, at this moment of peril, I think it is a bit meant to be such riders.

For me it is therefore first ride a dragon and then you'll be head anyway, what Dany said: somewhere out there were to people she could trust and rely upon, her brothers to be, the riders of her two other dragons.

I'm sorry but I really don't see it seperately. You mean you can have person a b and c, the heads of the dragon. And the d e and f, the riders? That's like six people? And what would they do? The heads rule and the riders fight? I think, which is also stated in the book, that it makes ruling easier with a dragon because people can't just back off.

It is an interpretation that he said Targ blood wasn't necessary. What he said was more along the lines that the third head need not necessarily be a Targaryen. Which, for example, Robert Baratheon wasn't a Targ, but he had Targ blood.

Of course it is an interpretation. As I said there are two ways to interpret what he says. Blood and name. I prefer the blood interpretation because dragons ate magic and he always connects those two. But it can easily mean he meant name (though I doubt it).

I mean, look at Jon, almost everyone is sure Jon will ride one. But when you talk about the name, he is no Targ he is Snow. So that would mean only one Targ would ride a dragon, Dany? Like one Targ, two bastards? Or maybe she would have to legitimize him? Would he even take it? Do you legitimize him before or after the dragonride?

Or maybe Martin just meant blood and Jon Snow will make something of his life, not because his father was Rhaegar but because of his person. I would like that.

If Martin means blood it is Jon + Dany as natural riders and Tyrion with the horn.

If he means name it will be Dany + a legitimized Jon + bastard Tyrion, all natural riders.

Unless you think Aegon is real of course.

[Toccs]

Joanna was in Casterly Rock, Aerys wasn't.

Joanna was in Casterly Rock when she gave birth true enough, she could have been anywhere at the concpetion though (she had lived in Kings Landing for most of her adult life).

Not for nothing, but Joanna was the first of Rhaella's maids to be sent away from Kings Landing with Rhaella's reasoning being "my husband is turning my handmaidens into his whores" .

Not that I've ever been a believer of the theory, but it certainly was not "smashed to pieces" by the worldbook.

[sertravisredbeard]

With all of those kids of Aerys's being born with deformities, the theory about Tyrion being Aerys's as well gained some steam in my opinion. Plus all the comments about how Aerys was quite the ladies' man, especially with his wife's companions. Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion could all have been Aerys's.

[Dofs]

Joanna was in Casterly Rock when she gave birth true enough, she could have been anywhere at the concpetion though (she had lived in Kings Landing for most of her adult life).

Not for nothing, but Joanna was the first of Rhaella's maids to be sent away from Kings Landing with Rhaella's reasoning being "my husband is turning my handmaidens into his whores" .

Not that I've ever been a believer of the theory, but it certainly was not "smashed to pieces" by the worldbook.

Well, I agree that the theory is not really smashed but it is unlikely because of combination of these:

• Rhaella sent Joanna from KL right after Joanna's wedding with Tywin.

Then Joanna seldom visited KL

The twins were born 3 years after Tywin's and Joanna's marriage

When Aerys found out about the twins, he told that he wanted the kids and Joanna to visit KL because he hasn't seen Joanna for a long time.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Well, I agree that the theory is not really smashed but it is unlikely because of combination of these:

• Rhaella sent Joanna from KL right after Joanna's wedding with Tywin.

Then Joanna seldom visited KL

The twins were born 3 years after Tywin's and Joanna's marriage

When Aerys found out about the twins, he told that he wanted the kids and Joanna to visit KL because he hasn't seen Joanna for a long time.

Yes, Ran (i.e., Elio) admitted that while he viewed this evidence as smashing the theory, others disagreed and he said that maybe a crack still existed. But his interpretation of these passages (which I take it GRRM actually wrote, but Elio was clearly part of the writing process as a co-author) suggested pretty strongly that between the time Joanna left KL (year before the birth of the twins) and the Anniversary Tourney of 272, Joanna and Aerys had no contact. But of course they were not "nailed down" and they could have had a "secret affair" or one of the "seldom" visits could have been just at the right time. But in context, it read to Ran, apparently, as GRRM implying that there was no contact between the two during this period.

[UnmaskedLurker]

With all of those kids of Aerys's being born with deformities, the theory about Tyrion being Aerys's as well gained some steam in my opinion. Plus all the comments about how Aerys was quite the ladies' man, especially with his wife's companions. Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion could all have been Aerys's.

Yes, I agree. Either A+J=T or GRRM loves to troll his biggest fans. Because as a normal red herring, it really does not work. The evidence is too ambiguous to be a red herring and what other mystery is this information trying to distract the reader from? It is no longer plausible as mere coincidence or people seeing what they want to see. The hints are piling up too big.

[rozemarijn]

Yes, I agree. Either A+J=T or GRRM loves to troll his biggest fans. Because as a normal red herring, it really does not work. The evidence is too ambiguous to be a red herring and what other mystery is this information trying to distract the reader from? It is no longer plausible as mere coincidence or people seeing what they want to see. The hints are piling up too big.

Or maybe he just considers it extensions information for the background story of Tywin and Aerys. Which I found very revealing and explaining about Tywins character, without believing A+J.

With all of those kids of Aerys's being born with deformities, the theory about Tyrion being Aerys's as well gained some steam in my opinion. Plus all the comments about how Aerys was quite the ladies' man, especially with his wife's companions. Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion could all have been Aerys's.

Edit: all those mallformed kids of Targaryens (not just Aerys) reminded me of Dany and Rhaego. Perhaps Mirri Maz Duur has overestimated herself, perhaps it runs in the family, or perhaps someone has been trying to curse unborn Targaryens?

[UnmaskedLurker]

Or maybe he just considers it extensions information for the background story of Tywin and Aerys. Which I found very revealing and explaining about Tywins character, without believing A+J.

Edit: all those mallformed kids of Targaryens (not just Aerys) reminded me of Dany and Rhaego. Perhaps Mirri Maz Duur has overestimated herself, perhaps it runs in the family, or perhaps someone has been trying to curse unborn Targaryens?

Only if you look at each piece of evidence in isolation. Taken together, there is just too much that could serve as a "clue" toward A+J=T to be mere backstory.

[Drunkenspeton]

"Just as I thought"? Be nice, homie, i wasn't trying to offend you or be rude at all. we're talking about a make believe book.

i thought i gave a couple of good reasons. She doesn't have notable Targaryen features whatsoever, and the dragon doesn't simply take to her without being trained to, and it takes a long time. I don't recall that as having been the case with anyone else.

The reason Addam, Hugh and Ulf were able to tame the Dragons quicker/easier was a dragon that has previous been ridden will be more amenable to a new rider.

"The most perilous of these were the wild dragons, so it was no wonder that the dragons who had previously accepted riders were the first to find new riders".

Seasmoke, Vermithor and Silverwing had all been ridden previously while Sheepstealer had not.

[cgf]

Only if you look at each piece of evidence in isolation. Taken together, there is just too much that could serve as a "clue" toward A+J=T to be mere backstory.

There's certainly a things hinting at it. But I'd really like to hope that Tywin's hatred is never justified by having Tyrion actually be a bastard sired by his Tywin's ex-friend. Just makes the story so much better to have tyrion being tywin's trueborn son.

[UnmaskedLurker]

There's certainly a things hinting at it. But I'd really like to hope that Tywin's hatred is never justified by having Tyrion actually be a bastard sired by his Tywin's ex-friend. Just makes the story so much better to have tyrion being tywin's trueborn son.

I don't think that GRRM thinks that makes it a better story--obviously there are different judgments on that question. From a modern reader's point of view, Tywin's treatment of Tyrion is horrible even if Tyrion is not Tywin's true-born son. And Tywin only had suspicions--he could not "prove" that Tyrion was not his son. So the treatment was based on a suspicion, not knowledge, that Tyrion was not Tywin's--certainly not a justified reaction (at least in the view of a modern reader). So I don't think GRRM would believe that the story is made worse by such a development, although, of course, some readers won't like it just like some readers won't like a lot of things in the story.

[oursisthefury69]

Who cares? There definition of "smashing a theory" was probably something close to their medical analysis attempting to disprove Tywin being poisoned

[mezmerised]

I don't think that GRRM thinks that makes it a better story--obviously there are different judgments on that question. From a modern reader's point of view, Tywin's treatment of Tyrion is horrible even if Tyrion is not Tywin's true-born son. And Tywin only had suspicions--he could not "prove" that Tyrion was not his son. So the treatment was based on a suspicion, not knowledge, that Tyrion was not Tywin's--certainly not a justified reaction (at least in the view of a modern reader). So I don't think GRRM would believe that the story is made worse by such a development, although, of course, some readers won't like it just like some readers won't like a lot of things in the story.

I often have my modern sensibilities in the back of my mind while reading but I think the absolute importance that all the characters place on blood relations and trueborn sons is something that we just have to accept otherwise the story makes no sense.

As readers we have to believe that it's a matter of absolute importance that Joff and Tommen are not Robert's trueborn sons for example.

If we don't agree with that basic premise then LF looks like the more sensible guy (let Joff become King with Ned as Regent) and Ned looks like the guy who deliberately started the Wo5K. Because Robert wanted his 'heir' Joffrey to follow him on the throne and Ned decided to overrule his King's explicit last wishes by trying to crown Stannis. Even though he knew it meant war with the Westerlands at the very least and maybe other regions that decided to believe their side of the story.

So yes I think if Tywin strongly suspected that Tyrion was Aerys' bastard and if he is posthumously proven right by an A+J=T reveal in the text then his abuse towards Tyrion becomes more explainable particularly from the characters' own perspective.

It doesn't excuse everything he ever did and nothing can excuse what he did to Tysha but it changes their dynamic into a more Tywin-sympathetic direction.

[cgf]

I don't think that GRRM thinks that makes it a better story--obviously there are different judgments on that question. From a modern reader's point of view, Tywin's treatment of Tyrion is horrible even if Tyrion is not Tywin's true-born son. And Tywin only had suspicions--he could not "prove" that Tyrion was not his son. So the treatment was based on a suspicion, not knowledge, that Tyrion was not Tywin's--certainly not a justified reaction (at least in the view of a modern reader). So I don't think GRRM would believe that the story is made worse by such a development, although, of course, some readers won't like it just like some readers won't like a lot of things in the story.

I'm not saying it does make a better story in general, but it's more appealing to me if Tywin's contempt isn't justified in anyway, even if that justification comes from truths that Tywin can only suspect may be so. And while Tywin's a horrible stepfather from a modern viewpoint, even if tyrion isn't his, his loathing the bastard child who serves as a constant reminder of his betrayal at the hands of the only woman he ever loved and the only friend he ever had, a treachery which costs Tywin the life of his love, is much more understandable.

While that makes tywin much more sympathetic, it makes tyrion's story trickier as he loses this undeserved contempt that is such a big part of his character, unless the next two books are about tyrion finding out and coming to forgive his stepfather to some extent as he starts to understand what was really happening behind the mask, like the scene where stannis shows just how much murdering renly weighs on him. And while that could be very interesting, and make tyrion's kinslaying an even more heavy crime, despite making it technically less powerful by making it not actually kinslaying, I just don't see that kind of an arc getting squeezed into what's left of the series.