Jump to content

Archived

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

Rhaenys_Targaryen

[TWOIAF Spoilers] Inconsistency or Intentional?

Recommended Posts

First Edition, page 151, the Riverlands chapter :

The true history of the riverlands begins with the coming of the Andals. After crossing the narrow sea and sweeping over the Vale, these conquerors from the west moved to make it their own, sailing their longships up the Trident and its three great branches.

The Andals come from the west of Essos, but shouldn't they be considered conquerors from the east rather than from the west ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Ran,



you got that contradiction on the landing point of Harwyn Hardhand on the pages 154 and 186? One states 'forty leagues south of Seagard', the other 'north of Seagard'. Only one can be correct, and you can get the right location if you consult the map...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may have been noticed, but I didn't see it mentioned. First edition pg.319 Baratheon Reign. It shows Joffrey's reign ending and Tommen's reign starting in 299AC, but Joffrey died on the first day of the new year, 300AC.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reference to Drazenko as "the Price Consort of Dorne" confuses me, since spouses in Dorne don't seem to have courtesy titles, at least not at this point.



Mellario isn't called "princess consort", just "Lady Mellario". And Princess Coryanne's husband in the Blood of Dragons material doesn't get a courtesy title either. I know it's not canon, but still.



I'm more than willing to call it a flub or a northern maester thing, but this is exactly the kind of stuff that drives me insane.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of this can be chalked up to Elio and Linda not being on the level of GRRM, and his ability to not have serious plotholes despite such a complex narrative.



The two foresaw this and covered their tracks however, adding in the "unreliable Maesters" excuse.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julia,



That's how George phrased it. Either Drazenko was unusual(Aliandra might have been so smitten she granted him such a title) or male spouses to ruling princesses get the Prince Consort title while female spouses of ruling princes do not. Or, finally, Melarrio's estrangement means she no longer bears the title Princess Consort title.



HouseHarrison,



A lot of these are genuine errors, and it really comes down to the production and editorial process. Some things were completed only at the wire, for various reasons, and time to go through all the earlier material to make sure no contradictions had crept in -- combined with all the other editorial stuff going on -- was limited. Other things were corrected but typos or small errors crept in in the editorial chain, which we have no control of. I think I've noted that I don't even have a file of the book in its final, 1st print form -- some things were fixed (or said to be fixed) after we got the last pre-1st file, and after that there wasn't time. And now still waiting for a fully up to date file so we can check to see what fixes we submitted have made it in correctly or not.



And some things are really just Linda, George, and I missing something. It happens when there's so much disparate material. Hopefully once we get these notes in, e-books will be updated, future prints will be corrected, and people will see which errors were real mistakes and which are intended mistakes.



And then there were things


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And some things are really just Linda, George, and I missing something. It happens when there's so much disparate material. Hopefully once we get these notes in, e-books will be updated, future prints will be corrected, and people will see which errors were real mistakes and which are intended mistakes.

Damned Maesters are "unreliable narrators" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grand Maester Munkun did what he could to heal the king. So, too, did the boy High Septon, but his miracles were at an end. The king joined the Seven in the tenth year of his reign, in 171 AC.

This line indicates Munkun is Baelor I's Grand Maester.

We also know Munkun is Aegon III's Grand Maester.

But...

When Prince Daeron was born on the last day of 153 AC, Grand Maester Alford warned that another pregnancy might kill her.

This line tells that Alford is the Grand Maester in 153 AC. That time Aegon III is on the throne.

WHAT'S THE TRUTH...Is Munkun dismissed some time before 153 AC and Alford get the post, and at some point Alford die or is dismissed and Munkun becomes Grand Maester again?

Do I miss some lines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really curious about these Fire and Blood explanations for Munkin and Gerardys. Is Yandel editing his history to paint the Citadel in a better light somehow? Or are these just honest mistakes that now require a convoluted explanation down the road?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Munkun/Alford thing is a mistake. Something might have occurred that let to Munkun's temporal resignation/dismissal and his eventual reappointment as Grand Maester.



Geradys/Orwyle on the other hand is clear mistake on TRP's part where George/someone apparently failed to introduce whatever better explanation/story was cooked up for 'the Gerardys problem'.



I'd really like to know whether Gerardys from TRP and Orwyle from TPatQ/TWoIaF are now effectively the same person.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is off-topic, but Ran can you tell us if the words of House Forrester really are "Iron from Ice" or if they made that up for the new game?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen this mentioned on the first message and didn't really have the courage to go through the 19 pages of this thread so here goes :


Daemon Velaryon, master of ships under Aegon I dies in battle during the conquest, yet another Daemon Velaryon, master of ships, is mentioned page 58 betraying Maegor I some 40 years later. I reckon namesakes are quite common in these parts but two persons having the same name and position, now that's rare. Is this all this is ?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen this mentioned on the first message and didn't really have the courage to go through the 19 pages of this thread so here goes :

Daemon Velaryon, master of ships under Aegon I dies in battle during the conquest, yet another Daemon Velaryon, master of ships, is mentioned page 58 betraying Maegor I some 40 years later. I reckon namesakes are quite common in these parts but two persons having the same name and position, now that's rare. Is this all this is ?

Daemon seems a common name among the Velaryons and Targayrens, and the position of Master of Ships was very often in the hands of a member of the Velaryon family.

A Daemon Velaryon, Master of Ships is kind of like a Brandon Stark, King of the North. There were several of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP has been updated :)

In my first edition book, there is the sentence,

In 136 AC, Aemon followed. He was as robust as Aegon as an infant, and as beautiful to look upon, but his brothers faults were not in him. He proved the greatest jouster and swordsman of his agea knight worthy to bear Dark Sister.

But I found someone here post following sentence,

In 136 AC, Aemon followed. He was as robust as Aegon as an infant, and as beautiful to look upon, but his brothers faults were not in him. He proved the greatest jouster and swordsman of his agea knight worthy to bear Dark Sister which Prince Daemon, King Jaehaerys I, King Maegor I, and Queen Visenya had each borne before him.

Is it an updated Kindle edition?

Really curious as to whether this was an updated kindle version?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that list of wielders was cut from the print version of the text.



I have the 3rd printing PDF now (in fact, there have been two printings, and a 3rd print was approved a good while ago but is only now going to press), and most of the suggested changes are in there. Many thanks, folks. I'll be able to construct an errata soonishly (aka in a week or two, busy right now). There's a number that will have to wait until the 4th print, or the paperback... or maybe e-texts can be updated before then, I do not know.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear, Ran!! :)






@Rhaenys_Targaryen: what has been updated? Dont know what OP means..




OP = Original Post (or, depending on the context, original poster, the person who started the thread, but I meant the first post of the thread ;) )


Share this post


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

×