Jump to content

Archived

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

Elessar

Casually smashing a theory to pieces....

Recommended Posts

I think Nettles just showed up one morning thinking she would try her hand at it. Nothing better to do.

I guess your just trying to troll now?

I think Lord Varys pretty much pointed out the reasons why you DO NEED dragon blood to ride a dragon.

I mean the whole five thousand years of ONE single group of people (also as small as 40 families) ever riding dragons I think was supposed to make this pretty clear in itself.

If it was at all possible surely it would have happened CONFIRMED at least once in five thousand freaking years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that such a theory as Aerys + Joanna = Tyrion, or Aerys + Joanna = Jaime and Cersei, or Ashara + Brandon = Allyria, or any other Ashara + ?? = ?? theory, for that matter, will be proven correct. If anything, the world book can proof such theories wrong, (as "smashing a theory to pieces" suggests just that, that it isn't proven, but proven wrong).

If the World book says that A was in location 1 during year X, Y and Z, while B was in location 2, at the other side of Westeros, during those same years, then A+B cannot be C if C was born in year Y or Z for example ;)

If I'm still making sense. :)

Exactly. Everyone is talking about what theory will be proven, but they are missing the simple point that "smashing a theory" means destroying it, hence making it not feasible.

And with the way they were alluding to the Westerlands, Aerys and Tywin, I think it will be proven Tyrion is not a Targaryen but is indeed Tywin's son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And with the way they were alluding to the Westerlands, Aerys and Tywin, I think it will be proven Tyrion is not a Targaryen but is indeed Tywin's son.

You can't prove that. With all the secret Targs out there I always wondered how people think that will be (dis-)proven. While I can see it in Jon's case (Howland Reed) I can't in Tyrion's. Even if Tyrion was a product of rape there is no paternity test. There won't be any proof. Solid proof. Everything will be up to interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video was uploaded in May, I believe.



Perhaps he was referring to the theory according to which, Rickard's mother or grandmother was from Skagos.



In the video, it is mentioned that perhaps GRRM is not even aware of the theory, which is casually smashed into pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, on the whole Targ features (i.e. Nettles) I have to point out that there were other dragon lords besides the Targaryens. Few managed to escape the Doom, but Nettles' ancestors might have been among that select group.



Second, I agree with Danelle but just for fun let us examine the wording of the quote.



Casually: from the Latin word casus, meaning chance; in this case the fourth definition--nonchalantly--is the most likely. So GRRM was being nonchalant. For those who are unaware, nonchalant means 1) without warmth or enthusiasm, or 2) casually indifferent. I'm beginning to see an endless loop in this...



Smashed: my dictionary lists it as probably derived from the word mash which comes from Old English; past tense of the verb "smash; 1) to break into pieces with noise or violence; 2) to hit, collide, or move with force; 3) to destroy or be destroyed. The noun form also gives us: 1) a hard, heavy hit; 2) a violent, noisy breaking; 3) a violent collision; 4) a popular success.



Safe to say the fourth definition of the noun form is out. Given the aforementioned "casually" or "nonchalantly" any defintion including the word violence or variations thereof cannot be considered as being "casually violent" or "nonchalantly violent" would indicate a paradox and best and an oxymoron at worst. Therefore we must conclude that the meaning is either that of defintions 2 or 3 of the verb form, or definition 1 of the noun form of the word. An argument could be made that definition 1 of the verb form works if the smashing was done with noise but not violence. I accept this premise, however since that definition contains the words "into pieces" using that definition makes the end of the phrase redundant.



A: first letter of the alphabet, used as an adjectival indefinite article indicating the quantity of one.



Theory: noun; origin--the Greek word theorein, to view; 1) a speculative plan; 2) a formulation of underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree; 3) the principles of art or science rather than its practice; 4) a conjecture, guess



The first definition is out unless Elio and Linda are referring to something the show planned. The second is not possible as this is fiction and we can't actually "observe" anything in the story, not to mention verifying is also out because...fiction! The third equally does not apply. So we are left with definition four. A guess.



To: preposition; from Old English; I cannot believe my dictionary has so much on this. I'm skipping it. If you need the definition you should probably go back to Kindergarten anyway.



Pieces: noun; from Old French pece; 1) parts broken or separated from the whole; 2) sections of the whole regarded as complete in themselves.



Pretty obvious this is he first one, but the second is more fun.



I shall now string the wrong definitions together to form an entirely accurate yet still incorrect conclusion: GRRM, without warmth, made a popular success of a speculative plan to create sections of the whole regarded as complete in themselves. So he has coldly popularized a bunch of potential sub-theories. Coldly. Must have something to do with the Others. B)



disclaimer: Lady Blizzardborn cannot be held responsible for anything posted while on cold medicine


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lady Blizzardborn, have you considered Elio's addendum to his equally casual tweet - #glee? This has to be something big & popular. :) All in all, :cheers: for your post. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, on the whole Targ features (i.e. Nettles) I have to point out that there were other dragon lords besides the Targaryens. Few managed to escape the Doom, but Nettles' ancestors might have been among that select group.

Sorry but your wrong on your first point. If Nettles does have Dragon Lord Blood which I think was made pretty clear by tying to make it so unclear that she does it is in fact Targ Dragon Blood

GRRM was directly asked in an interview and his response was

[[Were the Targaryens the only Valyrians who rode dragons?]

{"They were the only dragonriders to survive the Doom."}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's R+L=/= J I have a lot of rethinking to do.

You won't be the only one.

But I think GRRM is definitely aware of R+L=J, so it's safe. (I hope.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if that turns out to be true and is somehow revealed in the main series, why should the maester compiling the World book have any knowledge of it? And even if he had heard rumors of Joanna having an affair or being raped, it would be pretty dangerous to put it in the book with Tywin still around and one of the more powerful supporters of the throne.

Even if he desired to make Aerys look bad, he could not do so without touching on matters that would be likely to put him in hot water with Tywin, not to mention Robert's queen, and one of his Kingsguard. I suppose it could be done as a later addition after Tywin died, but the Lannisters are still in power, so why risk it?

Even if Tywin himself suspected, he raised Tyrion as his own rather than deal with him as he brutally dealt with the known children of Rhaegar. In a way, if Tyrion ends up being Aerys' son, Tywin and Ned, on such opposite ends of the spectrum in so many ways, both hid the identity of and raised a Targaryen child that wasn't theirs as their own. Of course, Ned knew, while Tywin might have only suspected.

What I wanted to say is that in TWOIAF we can know that Aerys can't be Tyrion's father because when Tyrion was concived Joanna was far away from Aerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video was uploaded in May, I believe.

Perhaps he was referring to the theory according to which, Rickard's mother or grandmother was from Skagos.

In the video, it is mentioned that perhaps GRRM is not even aware of the theory, which is casually smashed into pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't prove that. With all the secret Targs out there I always wondered how people think that will be (dis-)proven. While I can see it in Jon's case (Howland Reed) I can't in Tyrion's. Even if Tyrion was a product of rape there is no paternity test. There won't be any proof. Solid proof. Everything will be up to interpretation.

This story is fiction. If GRRM wants to make it clear that Aerys was Tyrion's real father, he will have a way to make it clear. Maybe Selmy saw something incriminating. Maybe there is a written "confession" from Joanna that lets Tyrion know his true heritage that becomes found. Maybe when Victarion sides up to him and bonds with him, everyone will figure it out from the other existing evidence. The imagination of GRRM is the only limitation on the ways in which it could become known or accepted that Tryion is really the son of Aerys. And if GRRM intends for Tyrion to be one of the three heads of the dragon, and be able to ride a dragon due to his Targ ancestry, I don't think it will be left unclear in the text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many theories that could be smashed to pieces that I really don't have a guess as to which one is being referred to here, but I don't think it will be a major plot point for either ASOIAF or the D&E tales. Whatever this is, it is something that could already be figured out from what has already been published, but people still debate it. Rather like the debate around Brienne's word, until GRRM himself said it was sword (which is actually somewhat obvious from the text).



GRRM still has at least two more books in the ASOIF series and numerous D & E tales left to write. I find it difficult to believe that he would give away a major plot point to either of these series in a companion publication.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many theories that could be smashed to pieces that I really don't have a guess as to which one is being referred to here, but I don't think it will be a major plot point for either ASOIAF or the D&E tales. Whatever this is, it is something that could already be figured out from what has already been published, but people still debate it. Rather like the debate around Brienne's word, until GRRM himself said it was sword (which is actually somewhat obvious from the text).

GRRM still has at least two more books in the ASOIF series and numerous D & E tales left to write. I find it difficult to believe that he would give away a major plot point to either of these series in a companion publication.

Would you consider clarifying that Nettles is a dragonseed giving away a major plot point? It would certainly affect many theories regarding whether dragon blood is required to ride a dragon, but would it be giving away too much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I wouldn't consider that a major plot point. There is already plenty of material published that strongly suggests that being able to bond with a dragon is an inborn trait peculiar to those of Targaryen heritage (although I leave open the possibility that dragon binder horns are a magical way around this restriction). The only thing such a reveal would do is end the debate of something that is already entirely possible from published text.



However, I wouldn't expect to see the Tyrion=Targ revealed. If Tyrion is a Targ, then it must have some significance to the plot and I don't think GRRM would give that away in this book. If Tyrion is not a Targ, then why would GRRM even bother to correct this mistaken impression? For me, the proof of whether Tyrion is or is not Targ will be if GRRM reaches the end of the books and never mentions it. In other words, if any particular theory is not verified by the end of the series than it was wrong. Does that make sense?



Editted to change the word book to series.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I wouldn't consider that a major plot point. There is already plenty of material published that strongly suggests that being able to bond with a dragon is an inborn trait peculiar to those of Targaryen heritage (although I leave open the possibility that dragon binder horns are a magical way around this restriction). The only thing such a reveal would do is end the debate of something that is already entirely possible from published text.

However, I wouldn't expect to see the Tyrion=Targ revealed. If Tyrion is a Targ, then it must have some significance to the plot and I don't think GRRM would give that away in this book. If Tyrion is not a Targ, then why would GRRM even bother to correct this mistaken impression? For me, the proof of whether Tyrion is or is not Targ will be if GRRM reaches the end of the books and never mentions it. In other words, if any particular theory is not verified by the end of the series than it was wrong. Does that make sense?

Editted to change the word book to series.

Yes, it makes sense. I agree that by the end of the series, any significant "mystery" will be resolved. So if there is never any mention of Tyrion finding out he was really the son of Aerys, then he was not the son of Aerys. There are still many people who think Tyrion will ride a dragon but not be a Targ. Clarifying that Nettles was a Targ would certainly put a dent in those theories (but I guess not "smash" them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Tyrion is not a Targ, then why would GRRM even bother to correct this mistaken impression?

Not intentionally. We could be able to understand in TWOIAF that Tyrion isn't Aerys son with indirect clues that are not supposed to be clues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not intentionally. We could be able to understand in TWOIAF that Tyrion isn't Aerys son with indirect clues that are not supposed to be clues.

That is possible, but GRRM is a pretty cagey fellow. He has been good about not revealing things he doesn't want revealed yet. However, if Tyrion is not a Targ, then he probably wouldn't even bother hiding those clues. Thinking about it, you make a great point. So we could find out if Tyrion =/= Targ, but probably not the reverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×