Legal Advance Review of TWOIAF

[anonnyscouse]

If it's either A+J theory (which I doubt) it will be the twins not Tyrion, a maester's history is unlikely to contain information about an affair a king may have had, but might mention if a king used the first night right.

[Victarion Chainbreaker]

Didn't we already know there was going to be a 'surprising Lannister ancestor' revealed in this book?

[Mithras]

I don't know whether such kind of a book is able to provide hints for A+J=T or R+L=J. If Tyrion having Targ blood is the theory, TWOIAF is better suited to confirm a past marriage of a Lannister and a person with Targ blood.

[Danelle]

If it is the A+J=T theory I would be so happy!

It is one of my favourite theories!

It is also possible that the controversial theory is that in order to ride a dragon one needs to be related to the Targaryens or the Valyrians.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I don't know whether such kind of a book is able to provide hints for A+J=T or R+L=J. If Tyrion having Targ blood is the theory, TWOIAF is better suited to confirm a past marriage of a Lannister and a person with Targ blood.

Or simply to provide a picture of the timeline, where it is currently still unknown.

Should the book state, for example, that the few years before the birth of Cersei & Jaime, or in the few years before Tyrion's birth, Aerys was on one side of Westeros, and Joanna on the other side, then there wouldn't be a possibility that C, or J, or T are Aerys' kids.

At the same time, should the book tell us that timeline wise, it is possible, that could be a hint..

Didn't we already know there was going to be a 'surprising Lannister ancestor' revealed in this book?

And the Westerland reading seems to have revealed her

Lady Rohanne, Lord Gerold Lannister's wife, and the mother of Tybald, Tion, Tytos and Jason. She's most likely Rohanna Webber from

the Sworn Sword.

[Barty]

I get the feeling I am going to be very disappointed with this book - Seems like there is very little info about the Starks.

[DanaKz]

I find it hard to believe that a book written by a maester for Robert Joffrey Tommen would include gossip about the potential bastardry of any of the Lannisters.

:agree:

This.

And this book was meant as a gift for Robert in the beginning. Do you think maester will be dumb enough to hint something like R+L= TRULURVEFRVERRRRR+BABY+SUCKITBOBBY? :dunno:

[Hangover of the Morning]

I get the feeling I am going to be very disappointed with this book - Seems like there is very little info about the Starks.

Yeah, I was quite surprised (and won't lie disappointed) to find out that half of the book is about the Targaryen dynasty. Isn't George planning to have that as a separate book in the future? Is he just going to rehash the info from AWoIaF and add a bit extra and call it the Fire and Blood?

[Starkfaithful85]

it will be either varys or illyrio is a blackfyre

[Moondancer]

Hm... We have -

1) Popular theory being casually smashed

2) Popular theory that's about to grow stronger muscles

Even though there's nothing that would point that these 2 are connected or same I find it interesting that the reviewer somehow missed the smashing part. While Ran can choose what to tease, and if it's really about Tyrion, skip on the opportunity to offer new information (or vestige of it) - what happened to hardcore fan?

[Ran]

More like 25-30% is about the Targaryens... or rather, about the whole of the Seven Kingdoms as ruled by the Targaryens. Other houses -- Lannisters, Starks, Tyrells, Martells, etc. -- will figure throughout that.

About 33% is the region-specific material, but then, after the Conquest the Targaryens will appear throughout that as well. And I guess about 25% is the material outside of Westeros (not counting the early history at the start of the book).

Other than Aegon's Conquest, none of George's writing for the book appears in full and unredacted form -- it's been heavily paraphrased, for the most part, or rewritten to suit the format, with only some quotes and snippets in sidebars of the original text. He wrote some 200,000 words in the course of writing this stuff, and in the Targaryen section we only used 7,000 words or so directly. The book GRRM has talked about maybe doing -- Fire and Blood -- would be all the original Targaryen material he wrote that has not (but for Aegon's Conquest) been published in this book.

[Hangover of the Morning]

More like 25-30% is about the Targaryens... or rather, about the whole of the Seven Kingdoms as ruled by the Targaryens. Other houses -- Lannisters, Starks, Tyrells, Martells, etc. -- will figure throughout that.

About 33% is the region-specific material, but then, after the Conquest the Targaryens will appear throughout that as well. And I guess about 25% is the material outside of Westeros (not counting the early history at the start of the book).

Other than Aegon's Conquest, none of George's writing for the book appears in full and unredacted form -- it's been heavily paraphrased, for the most part, or rewritten to suit the format, with only some quotes and snippets in sidebars of the original text. He wrote some 200,000 words in the course of writing this stuff, and in the Targaryen section we only used 7,000 words or so directly. The book GRRM has talked about maybe doing -- Fire and Blood -- would be all the original Targaryen material he wrote that has not (but for Aegon's Conquest) been published in this book.

Thanks a lot for the clarification Ran.

[Moondancer]

I got a copy early and have read it. I greatly enjoyed it,but I doubt it will affect conversation about theories involving the present day series very much...with a couple very notable exceptions. Expect lots of tidbits, added context, and some new possibilities being opened up rather than shocking revelations or debunkings.

Ok, this settles it.

I dislike A+J=T theory so much, I tried to assimilate the aforementioned theories into one - so that way the soon to be raging theory is actually the debunked one. :lol: "No, no feldman, you misinterpreted it!"

[Free Northman Reborn]

The nice thing about the Stark regional chapter is that the Targs will not feature much in that section, seeing as they seem to have stayed the hell out of the North for the most part, other than Aegon's initial humiliation of Torhenn, and Allysane's visit that we the Northerners had to put up with a hundred or so years later.

So with a bit of luck most of the Stark regional chapter will actually be about the Starks and their fellow Northmen, and few pages will be taken up by MORE Targ worship.

Sadly for the Lannister, Tyrell, Dornish and other regional fans, most of their histories appear to be intricately linked with the Targs for the last 300 years or so. Not much chance of escaping their interference (and precious page count allocations) for these regions.

[naseridrl]

The nice thing about the Stark regional chapter is that the Targs will not feature much in that section, seeing as they seem to have stayed the hell out of the North for the most part, other than Aegon's initial humiliation of Torhenn, and Allysane's visit that we the Northerners had to put up with a hundred or so years later.

So with a bit of luck most of the Stark regional chapter will actually be about the Starks and their fellow Northmen, and few pages will be taken up by MORE Targ worship.

Sadly for the Lannister, Tyrell, Dornish and other regional fans, most of their histories appear to be intricately linked with the Targs for the last 300 years or so. Not much chance of escaping their interference (and precious page count allocations) for these regions.

At least with the Dornish they seemed to be the only one who somewhat dictated to the Targs.

[Free Northman Reborn]

True. Until they married them. Then their stories intertwined rather intricately, leading to the present day plotting in Sunspear.

[Consigliere]

Probably R+L=J

I would hardly call R+L=J controversial.

Yes. Without a doubt.

ETA: I still don't think it's true. But I've heard ... stuff ... that leads me to believe Aerys/Joanna gets a nod.

ETA 2: Weirdly enough, it's actually because Aerys/Joanna allegedly gets a nod that I think the Tyrion thing isn't actually true. It comes off like GRRM's dangling it too much, if that makes sense. It's almost baiting. It could also be a case where the book mentions Aerys/Joanna but stops short of implying an affair, leading people to conclude that the book says something that it actually doesn't, sort like how everyone thinks a Stark dishonored Ashara at Harrenhal when that isn't actually what was said.

Agreed.

The info probably provides a window of opportunity but will not confirm anything. I see the info possibly placing Aerys at CR or Joanna in KL around the time of Tyrions conception.

[MoIaF]

It is also possible that the controversial theory is that in order to ride a dragon one needs to be related to the Targaryens or the Valyrians.

This would be my first guess, my second would be A+J=T.

[RumHam]

If it is the A+J=T theory I would be so happy!

It is one of my favourite theories!

It is also possible that the controversial theory is that in order to ride a dragon one needs to be related to the Targaryens or the Valyrians.

The two things are related. The main reason I buy into A+J=T is because I think Martin wants Tyrion to ride a dragon. Otherwise I'd probably think it was an attempt at misdirection.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Rather than Martin trying to tease us down a false path, I think his concern may rather be the opposite - namely that the hints of Tyrion's true parentage are not apparent enough in the main series, for the casual reader. And that Tyrion suddenly popping up as a bastard Targaryen, just in time to ride a dragon, might come across as a bit contrived to readers who don't study the text to the level of detail that we do in this forum.

Of course, it is patently obvious that Tyrion is Aerys's bastard. It is just the people that absolutely hate the very idea of it that need to accept that they were wrong all along. They will come around, eventually.