Jump to content

Archived

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

Chaircat Meow

[TWOIAF Spoilers] Aerys and Joanna II

Recommended Posts

And there is a good chance she thought she was already pregnant, given Tyrion was born in 273, so, no moon tea. From Tywin's point of view, there is always the chance Joanna was wrong to think she was already pregnant (does happen). Tyrion's abnormalities made him suspect this was the case. And as you concede, moon tea is not 100% effective anyway.

Read the page in question and tell me you don't think Joanna was really Aerys's mistress from 259 to somewhere around 264. Pycelle's reason is Tywin would never accept another man's leavings; this is they guy who beds Shae. Pycelle is clearly very wrong.

I don't know what the tiny window of time you are referring to here is.

But so what. Why is Tywin so insulted and Joanna so humiliated to be reminded they were seen naked at their bedding if that happens to everyone. And why was this enough to resign. That makes no sense. It is only humiliating because Aerys had Joanna first (something Pycelle admits is deeply embarrassing to Tywin). Joanna is clearly embarrassed as well.

I'll do what I want buster.

You theory makes no sense, because according to you all Aerys did was remind everyone he'd seen Tywin and Joanna naked at their bedding. Big deal that happens to everyone. This is Aerys's way of putting Tywin in his place is it, and causes him to resign: 'I saw you naked once.' That's stupid.

Why are you so fucking convinced it is totally secret? Tywin publicly offered to resign over it, so some people are likely to figure out what happened. I don't think she was willing either. Why can't he do the business with some KG in attendance? They guard him, they don't judge according to the White Bull.

She wasn't dismissed because of the bedding actually, it was a little while after. We are told ladies get dismissed for being turned into whores, not just for being groped at a bedding (where that thing kind of can happen).

The stuff about Aerys and Joanna is clearly not a red herring either. I don't think it is meant to show Tyrion is Aerys's son but there will be some explanation for it. Do you know what that is?

You're not exactly slaying counterarguments here and you seem rather confused.

I think I’ve slain everyone of your reaches. You can continue on if you wish, but continuing to engage you in this matter is a fool’s errand. You know very little about the overall text of the series, and continue to put all of your eggs in the basket of the world book. Just because it came from Pycelle it must be false?

One final note: You seriously think that something took place between Aerys and Joanna after her marriage to Tywin? You think Aerys made her his whore? Reliance on vague points raised by world book is setting you up for complete failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I’ve slain everyone of your reaches.

Little bit delusion here aren't we, given your ideas are pretty daft on the face of it, as I pointed out in my last post.

You can continue on if you wish, but continuing to engage you in this matter is a fool’s errand. You know very little about the overall text of the series, and continue to put all of your eggs in the basket of the world book. Just because it came from Pycelle it must be false?

Actually, the idea of an Aerys/Joanna dalliance and then a rape is supported by the rest of the text very strongly. GrrM is pretty clear something significant pertains to Aerys and Joanna since Barristan mentions them twice. Tywin and Tyrion both raise questions about whether Tywin really thinks Tyrion is his son. Rape and sexual humiliation are big issues in Tywin and Tyrion's stories, as is the idea of Tyrion being both an abuser and a victim. If Tywin's wife was raped that makes his story parallel Tyrion's very strongly here wrt abuser/victim dynamic and also explains his actions wrt Tysha and the Targaryen women in KL more thoroughly.

No, not everything Pycelle says is wrong. When Pycelle says something obviously biased, and uses very poor reasoning, then we know we ought to believe the contrary of what he says.

One final note: You seriously think that something took place between Aerys and Joanna after her marriage to Tywin? You think Aerys made her his whore? Reliance on vague points raised by world book is setting you up for complete failure.

The implication of her dismissal is that Aerys at least continued pursuing her yes, and that's supported by Barry's account of Aerys's behaviour and comments at the bedding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I think I ceded that moot tea is not 100% effective, as no contraceptive is, but I stand by my assertion that its likely over 90% effective. And she would likely use it of the course of several days for certainty. Using the one of example of Cersei to advance this particular claim just does not stand. Women know when they are pregnant, especially women who have experienced it before. Joanna would have started regimen of moon tea after any encounter with Aerys, unless she knew she was already pregnant, plain and simple.

2. You have nothing but rumors, and nothing concrete, plain and simple. Just because Pycelle dismissed it, it must be true. You are trying to pigeonhole an unlikely event into a tiny window of time.

3. Aerys saw Joanna’s breast at the bedding (hello!!). Everyone present saw them. You do know what the bedding is?

4. First of all, don’t curse me, it shows bad form and limited intelligence. Tywin tried to resign the next day because his beloved wife was humiliated in front of the entire court, beyond the pale. I don’t see what is so hard about that.

This supposed secret encounter is just too unlikely given all the eyes and ears. The King’s Guard is with the King at all times. Why would she willing be summoned by Aerys and in private? After such humiliation? It makes no sense. In present day of the books, the secrets of the Red Keep have been lost to all by Varys.

5. You have a failure to recognize a red herring when you see one. Joanna was dismissed from the Queen’s service due to Aerys’ liberties, and she left due to her husband’s fury and humiliation, in addition to her own.

You can continue to twist and pigeon all you like, it just does not fly.

I guess I'll jump in:

1. You conceded that moon tea is not always effective--and was not effective for Joanna's daughter, Cersei. Then you say that this one example should not suggest anything because the general rule is that moon tea works. You are ignoring that this is fiction and not real life. In real life, I might agree with your logic. But in fiction, these are called clues--clues that Joanna might have tried moon tea, but like her daughter, it was not effective. That is how clues in literature work.

2. Again, GRRM does not introduce these "rumors" for no reason, Given the way in which GRRM presented the information regarding the rumors, attentive readers should realize that the rumors were true.

3. Yes, everyone saw the breasts, which makes the insult more subtle--only those who think about the former affair will understand the true meaning--that is how clever people construct insults like that.

4. Your point 3 undermines point 4. If everyone saw the breasts at the bedding and that is all there was to the insult, then the insult is in no way sufficient to justify trying to resign. Even a reference to a commonly believed former affair is probably not enough to resign. Bedding Tywin's wife--a reason to resign (whether rape or seduction). And the secret passage and power of the king in his own castle makes it quite possible to summon Joanna to his bed--and Aerys would not really care who knew that he did it.

5. A red herring for what? A red herring serves as a distraction from the real "solution" to a mystery. What mystery does this "red herring" serve as a distraction in any way? Even Ran (a co-author of the book) admitted that GRRM added fuel to the fire of A+J=T with WoIaF (although Ran is not a fan of the theory and hopes it is not true but claims not to know one way or the other)

1. Again, using one remote instance in the book to try and prove this particular theory does not follow. You are putting a lot of work in to keep it alive. Joanna had a secret encounter with Aerys, a daily regimen of moon tea did not work, Joanna misdiagnosed her pregnancy, etc,. Its just too big a leap, at best.

2. Maegor had the secret passages commissioned and killed all who knew. We don’t know who he told. Present day, only Varys knows of the Red Keeps secrets. You are again, putting a lot of work in to keep this thing alive. Aerys knew of the secret passages, Joanna was alone in her chambers, she did not scream out at her attacker.

Joanna Lannister is described as having ruled Tywin Lannister at home, not the type of woman to keep silent, I think.

3. Why would his condition cause stubby legs and a jutting forehead? Because thats what deformity does.

As to Betha Blackwood: Her lineage was not reflected in Jaehaeyrs II, Aerys, Rhaella, Rhaegar, Viserys, or Daenerys, but it would simply show up in Tyrion? Sorry, not buying it.

1. Again, this information was book in the book for a reason--to let the readers know that moon tea is not always effective. GRRM needs to put in this information to explain why Joanna was unable to abort Aerys's baby. GRRM has no other reason to include this information. You are grasping when you state that this "one exception" is not a huge clue that Joanna might have tried moon tea and it failed.

2. Certainly some people would have explored the secret passages and knew them--Varys is not the only one capable of figuring them out. But the passages are not really necessary. Aerys is king and probably did not care who knew--if he sent KG to summon Joanna to his bed, no one could stop it no matter how loud Joanna screamed.

3. As to Bertha Blackwood, she was Aerys's grandmother. Traits like her black hair sometime skip a generation or two. Again, that is how clues in literature work. Explanations that might seem remote possibilities in real life turn out to be the real explanation in fiction. GRRM does that quite a bit--that way he makes events that seem otherwise impossible or implausible to be the case. In the real world, the most common situations are the ones that occur over and over again. In fiction, the remote possibilities tend to be the explanations for big mysteries. You are analyzing fiction as if it is a real world circumstance--that method of analysis will lead you down the wrong path over and over again.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are ignoring that this is fiction and not real life. In real life, I might agree with your logic. But in fiction, these are called clues--clues that Joanna might have tried moon tea, but like her daughter, it was not effective. That is how clues in literature work.

An important point, one I was just going to mention. Our friend, the Stallion who mounts Texas does not seem to understand how literary clues work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An important point, one I was just going to mention. Our friend, the Stallion who mounts Texas does not seem to understand how literary clues work.

The only "theory" for which I think GRRM has more or less "boxed" himself into is R+L=J. Too many things in the story just would make no sense unless R+L=J, which perhaps is why that theory gets a pinned thread--there is just so much evidence. But every other mystery in the series only has clues that could have innocent explanations. As with most mysteries in literature, the author wants to keep people guessing and so he provides situations where the most plausible explanation for each individual piece of evidence is something other than the eventual "big reveal" but when all the pieces are put together, an attentive reader can see where the clues are leading. So writing off each individual clues with the alternative innocent explanation proves absolutely nothing--in literature there is almost always an innocent alternative explanation (the red herring) so that the "big reveal" is not too obvious. Treating the clues like clues in a real world crime case just does not work for fiction--especially this genre of fiction.

Which leads me to my question for you. There are many clues that A+J=T. Why would GRRM write the story to include all of those clues--have it made clear at some point that Aerys and Joanna had sex at a time that could have been the time of conception for Tyrion--have Tywin suspect Tyrion might be the son of Aerys--just to have it turn out Tyrion really is the son of Tywin? For what purpose? How does that work better than finding out A+J=T is true, which will explain the parallels among Jon, Dany and Tyrion and explain how Tyrion can be one of the three heads of the dragon? I am just not following how you accept the "rape of 272" but reject A+J=T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only "theory" for which I think GRRM has more or less "boxed" himself into is R+L=J. Too many things in the story just would make no sense unless R+L=J, which perhaps is why that theory gets a pinned thread--there is just so much evidence. But every other mystery in the series only has clues that could have innocent explanations. As with most mysteries in literature, the author wants to keep people guessing and so he provides situations where the most plausible explanation for each individual piece of evidence is something other than the eventual "big reveal" but when all the pieces are put together, an attentive reader can see where the clues are leading. So writing off each individual clues with the alternative innocent explanation proves absolutely nothing--in literature there is almost always an innocent alternative explanation (the red herring) so that the "big reveal" is not too obvious. Treating the clues like clues in a real world crime case just does not work for fiction--especially this genre of fiction.

Which leads me to my question for you. There are many clues that A+J=T. Why would GRRM write the story to include all of those clues--have it made clear at some point that Aerys and Joanna had sex at a time that could have been the time of conception for Tyrion--have Tywin suspect Tyrion might be the son of Aerys--just to have it turn out Tyrion really is the son of Tywin? For what purpose? How does that work better than finding out A+J=T is true, which will explain the parallels among Jon, Dany and Tyrion and explain how Tyrion can be one of the three heads of the dragon? I am just not following how you accept the "rape of 272" but reject A+J=T.

Yes, I agree with your methodology here and I think your posts about A+J=T are persuasive. My point though is GrrM included all the clues about Aerys and Joanna because of their significance wrt Tywin Lannister, his actions and his relationship with Tyrion. An awful lot about his character changes, or would be seen in a different light if Aerys really had raped Joanna in 272 and Tywin suspected (probably wrongly) that Tyrion was Aerys's son. I've said something about how that would work in previous posts, but I'm happy to do so again.

The fundamental take away is Tywin is actually a kind of backwards Tyrion. We begin with a great deal of sympathy with Tyrion, even seeing him as the hero of his story, but humiliation and abuse cause him to become very dark (even though we can see he was far from being a good man before that). My contention is that Tywin's story reads the same if you imagine it going forwards from his early years in the west through his time in Aerys's court. I suspect he was kind of the white knight in the Joanna affair, like Tyrion was wrt Tysha's rapists. By the time he sacks king's landing he has become a monster, although he was always ruthless and self centred of course. He's like a future vision of Tyrion, and becomes a more rounded character as a result.

So, that's my explanation for all the Aerys and Joanna clues: it is character and thematic work for the Tywin and Tyrion story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll jump in:

1. You conceded that moon tea is not always effective--and was not effective for Joanna's daughter, Cersei. Then you say that this one example should not suggest anything because the general rule is that moon tea works. You are ignoring that this is fiction and not real life. In real life, I might agree with your logic. But in fiction, these are called clues--clues that Joanna might have tried moon tea, but like her daughter, it was not effective. That is how clues in literature work.

2. Again, GRRM does not introduce these "rumors" for no reason, Given the way in which GRRM presented the information regarding the rumors, attentive readers should realize that the rumors were true.

3. Yes, everyone saw the breasts, which makes the insult more subtle--only those who think about the former affair will understand the true meaning--that is how clever people construct insults like that.

4. Your point 3 undermines point 4. If everyone saw the breasts at the bedding and that is all there was to the insult, then the insult is in no way sufficient to justify trying to resign. Even a reference to a commonly believed former affair is probably not enough to resign. Bedding Tywin's wife--a reason to resign (whether rape or seduction). And the secret passage and power of the king in his own castle makes it quite possible to summon Joanna to his bed--and Aerys would not really care who knew that he did it.

5. A red herring for what? A red herring serves as a distraction from the real "solution" to a mystery. What mystery does this "red herring" serve as a distraction in any way? Even Ran (a co-author of the book) admitted that GRRM added fuel to the fire of A+J=T with WoIaF (although Ran is not a fan of the theory and hopes it is not true but claims not to know one way or the other)

1. Again, this information was book in the book for a reason--to let the readers know that moon tea is not always effective. GRRM needs to put in this information to explain why Joanna was unable to abort Aerys's baby. GRRM has no other reason to include this information. You are grasping when you state that this "one exception" is not a huge clue that Joanna might have tried moon tea and it failed.

2. Certainly some people would have explored the secret passages and knew them--Varys is not the only one capable of figuring them out. But the passages are not really necessary. Aerys is king and probably did not care who knew--if he sent KG to summon Joanna to his bed, no one could stop it no matter how loud Joanna screamed.

3. As to Bertha Blackwood, she was Aerys's grandmother. Traits like her black hair sometime skip a generation or two. Again, that is how clues in literature work. Explanations that might seem remote possibilities in real life turn out to be the real explanation in fiction. GRRM does that quite a bit--that way he makes events that seem otherwise impossible or implausible to be the case. In the real world, the most common situations are the ones that occur over and over again. In fiction, the remote possibilities tend to be the explanations for big mysteries. You are analyzing fiction as if it is a real world circumstance--that method of analysis will lead you down the wrong path over and over again.

.

1. I understand this is fiction quite well, but every fantasy is based upon facts, especially this one, being inspired by historical events like the War of the Roses. Just because this is a work of fiction does not mean it equals implausibility. We don’t know when Cersei took her moon tea. Did she only take it once? You cannot use her one occasion to prove something else. Does not work.

2. Its introduced for two purposes. To expand upon the books themselves, and continue to fan the flames of this theory. He knows whats going on folks, regarding fan theories.

3. Everyone saw the breast, but no one else would dare to take liberties (thats the real insult here folks).

4. See the point above. She left soon after (could be a day or two, or a week). Tywin likely needed time to excuse his wife from KL without any suspicion from the king.

5. Red herrings are designed to mislead or distract. In this case its being used to mislead you into thinking that Tyrion is Aerys’ biological son.

An important point, one I was just going to mention. Our friend, the Stallion who mounts Texas does not seem to understand how literary clues work.

I’m no friend of yours to be sure, just to be clear. I understand literary clues quite well. Well enough to know that are meant to lead and mislead. The author knows of fools like you who support this theory (Oh I forgot you don’t support A+J= T, or do you? Do you even know?), so he has decided to fan the flames. There is nothing conclusory given.

@ Unmasked Lurker and Hear me Meow, the rest is just round and round. If the world book leads you to find the theory persuasive so be it. I’m not going to convince you otherwise. IMO, this is a red herring plain and simple. I think there is no way Tyrion is anyone’s son, but Tywin, biological or otherwise. I think I have stated my case clearly, on this thread and the old one, let the people decide. Counterpoints can be made from any point, but it does not make them good ones.

Final note (and I do mean final): I appreciate Ran admitting that GRRM has fanned the flames of the theory, but I appreciate even more that he does not support the theory. You are either with it, or against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with your methodology here and I think your posts about A+J=T are persuasive. My point though is GrrM included all the clues about Aerys and Joanna because of their significance wrt Tywin Lannister, his actions and his relationship with Tyrion. An awful lot about his character changes, or would be seen in a different light if Aerys really had raped Joanna in 272 and Tywin suspected (probably wrongly) that Tyrion was Aerys's son. I've said something about how that would work in previous posts, but I'm happy to do so again.

The fundamental take away is Tywin is actually a kind of backwards Tyrion. We begin with a great deal of sympathy with Tyrion, even seeing him as the hero of his story, but humiliation and abuse cause him to become very dark (even though we can see he was far from being a good man before that). My contention is that Tywin's story reads the same if you imagine it going forwards from his early years in the west through his time in Aerys's court. I suspect he was kind of the white knight in the Joanna affair, like Tyrion was wrt Tysha's rapists. By the time he sacks king's landing he has become a monster, although he was always ruthless and self centred of course. He's like a future vision of Tyrion, and becomes a more rounded character as a result.

So, that's my explanation for all the Aerys and Joanna clues: it is character and thematic work for the Tywin and Tyrion story.

I still don't think I understand how this addresses my question (maybe I am just being dense, I acknowledge). Tywin is dead and has been for a while in the story. Why add these AJT clues now--in Book 5 and in WoIaF--just to retroactively change our view of Tywin without having any real impact on the story going forward. And to make ATJ biologically possible--but only known to readers who really search out the clues--just to have it turn out Joanna got "lucky" and Tywin really was the bio-dad, I just don't get it. I don't see the purpose of all of these clues, which make the T/T relationship more complex no matter what the ultimate truth might be (given that during his life, Tywin could never be sure), just to become a sort of "interesting dead end" when it turns out Tywin really is the father. I just don't follow your logic.

1. I understand this is fiction quite well, but every fantasy is based upon facts, especially this one, being inspired by historical events like the War of the Roses. Just because this is a work of fiction does not mean it equals implausibility. We don’t know when Cersei took her moon tea. Did she only take it once? You cannot use her one occasion to prove something else. Does not work.

2. Its introduced for two purposes. To expand upon the books themselves, and continue to fan the flames of this theory. he know whats going on folks.

3. Everyone saw the breast, but no one else would dare to take liberties (thats the real insult here folks).

4. See the point above. She left soon after (could be a day or two or a week). Tywin likely needed time to excuse his wife from KL without any suspicion from the king.

5. Red herrings are designed to mislead or distract. In this case its being used to mislead you into thinking that Tyrion is Aerys’ biological son.

I’m no friend of yours to be sure, just to be clear. I understand literary clues quite well. Well enough to know that are meant to lead and mislead. The author knows of fools like you who support this theory (Oh I forgot you don’t support A+J= T, or do you? Do you even know?), so he has decided to fan the flames. There is nothing conclusory given.

@ Unmasked Lurker and Hear me Meow, the rest is just round and round. If the world book leads you to find the theory persuasive so be it. I’m not going to convince you otherwise. IMO, this is a red herring plain and simple. I think there is no way Tyrion is anyone’s son, but Tywin, biological or otherwise. I think I have stated my case clearly, on this thread and the old one, let the people decide. Counterpoints can be made from any point, but it does not make them good ones.

Final note (and I do mean final): I appreciate Ran admitting that GRRM has fanned the flames of the theory, but I appreciate even more that he does not support the theory. You are either with it, or against it.

I guess I will take my final note as well. It does not work as a red herring. Yes, GRRM could try to trick people into thinking AJT is true--but for what purpose? A red herring is not just a clue leading to a false conclusion--it is a clue leading to a false conclusion for the purpose of distracting from the "real" solution to a mystery. Classically, it is to introduce additional potential murder suspects so that the real culprit is not too obvious. So here, if GRRM is introducing these clues for AJT and the theory is not true--it does not serve as a red herring because there is no other "mystery" for which this theory serves as a distraction. It is just GRRM trolling his most loyal fans--which would be quite petty and not something traditionally done in literature. And again with the moon tea--the point is that we know it does not always work. That is all we need to know to understand that "moon tea" is neither evidence for or against AJT--it is eliminated as an argument against.

Finally, on the Ran point, he does not like the theory personally and hopes it is not true, but he seemed to suggest that it was looking more likely to be true (despite his personal desires). While I don't want to put words in his mouth--that is what I understood him to say (i.e., not that he continues to disbelieve AJT, just that he is not a fan of AJT and hopes it is not true despite the increasing evidence in favor).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't think I understand how this addresses my question (maybe I am just being dense, I acknowledge). Tywin is dead and has been for a while in the story. Why add these AJT clues now--in Book 5 and in WoIaF--just to retroactively change our view of Tywin without having any real impact on the story going forward. And to make ATJ biologically possible--but only known to readers who really search out the clues--just to have it turn out Joanna got "lucky" and Tywin really was the bio-dad, I just don't get it. I don't see the purpose of all of these clues, which make the T/T relationship more complex no matter what the ultimate truth might be (given that during his life, Tywin could never be sure), just to become a sort of "interesting dead end" when it turns out Tywin really is the father. I just don't follow your logic.

Just because a character is dead doesn't mean they cease to be important, and not everything has to advance the plot: these revelations could advance character and themes instead. R+L=J will change people's views of Ned and will be important in that sense as well as for its potential plot/character implications for Jon. Tywin was a very important figure in the books but we didn't actually know a huge amount him: giving us his backstory is valuable in itself. It speaks to a lot of themes in Tyrion's story, like the abuser/victim dynamic. Tyrion clearly thinks at the end of SoS he is turning into his father, and is Tywin writ small. Given that, is it not important to know who Tywin really was?

I don't see this as an interesting dead end because I don't see Tyrion's parentage as ever being the question. I'm not as opposed to A+J=T as some are but I think the implications these revelations could have for the Tywin/Tyrion story are important enough that they explain GrrM's hints and clues.

edit: I agree about your point above red herrings. The Aerys and Joanna thing is clearly not a red herring. It has to mean something: the question is what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because a character is dead doesn't mean they cease to be important, and not everything has to advance the plot: these revelations could advance character and themes instead. R+L=J will change people's views of Ned and will be important in that sense as well as for its potential plot/character implications for Jon. Tywin was a very important figure in the books but we didn't actually know a huge amount him: giving us his backstory is valuable in itself. It speaks to a lot of themes in Tyrion's story, like the abuser/victim dynamic. Tyrion clearly thinks at the end of SoS he is turning into his father, and is Tywin writ small. Given that, is it not important to know who Tywin really was?

I don't see this as an interesting dead end because I don't see Tyrion's parentage as ever being the question. I'm not as opposed to A+J=T as some are but I think the implications these revelations could have for the Tywin/Tyrion story are important enough that they explain GrrM's hints and clues.

edit: I agree about your point above red herrings. The Aerys and Joanna thing is clearly not a red herring. It has to mean something: the question is what.

I get your point now. I still am skeptical that this reason would be enough of a reason for GRRM to put in so many clues--but you make a plausible case. I believe ATJ, however, for separate reasons that when put together with this evidence cause me to conclude AJT. Specifically, I see so many parallels among Jon, Dany and Tyrion, and believe that suggests they are the three heads of the dragon. To me, in order to be "of the dragon" one needs to have a Targ parent. If Tywin is the father, then Tyrion is solely "of the lion" and cannot be "of the dragon" in any meaningful way. But I finally understand your point (even if not entirely convinced by it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your point now. I still am skeptical that this reason would be enough of a reason for GRRM to put in so many clues--but you make a plausible case. I believe ATJ, however, for separate reasons that when put together with this evidence cause me to conclude AJT. Specifically, I see so many parallels among Jon, Dany and Tyrion, and believe that suggests they are the three heads of the dragon. To me, in order to be "of the dragon" one needs to have a Targ parent. If Tywin is the father, then Tyrion is solely "of the lion" and cannot be "of the dragon" in any meaningful way. But I finally understand your point (even if not entirely convinced by it).

So do you. I've enjoyed your posts about A+J=T and I'll keep thinking about it. Maybe I'll become convinced. I think it is also clear that if you have other reasons to believe Tyrion is one of the dragon heads the world book is a big boost. As you noted, you can use my theory to counter those who say Tyrion being Aerys's son ruins the Tywin/Tyrion relationship. I don't think it would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My very last go at this:

1. Moon tea may (or any contraceptive) may not be 100%, but they are usually in the mid to high 90’s. From what we can gather from the reading, its pretty effective. If Joanna Lannister was raped, she would have taken moontea immediately. The only way she would not have is if she knew she was already with her husband’s child.

6. He made that clear after Jaime was free, and after Cersei had poisoned his ear (regarding taking Tommen hostage over a whore) during Tyrion’s illness. He called the Rock “Your brothers birthright.” And you still must venture back to AGOT, after Jaime’s capture via the Whispering Woods, and Ned’s idiotic execution thanks to Joff. Tywin had given Jaime up for dead and recognized Tyrion as all he had left. So he sent him to KL, away from the field and harm.

11. Again, you have to look at the entire conversation and its context. Jaime is free and Cersei has further poisoned Tywin’s ear. Also, it would suggest that Tywin would love for a legit way to get rid of Tyrion. He does not want a son who invokes the very essence of the thing he hates most, laughter. Its just too big of a leap to take that particular phrasing and jump to such a conclusion.

There has been a lot of back-and-forth about this post already, but I didn't get the chance to reply yet and I have some additional points to make:

1. One suggestion (made by others, well before TWOIAF came out) is that Tyrion may be a Chimaera: a real-life condition (through extremely rare) in which a person has 2 kinds of DNA, ostensibly because two foetuses merged. Tyrion could be the child of both Tywin and Aerys, that way. ;)

6. My take on the text of the main books is that Tywin was never willing to make Tyrion his heir. Cersei whispering in his ear has nothing to do with that; putting him in the van in battle was a way to get him killed without causing a scandal. Tyrion was OK to be in charge of plumbing in CR, but not to be lord of the place.

11. Yet again you cannot bring yourself to believe Tywin - he says "I cannot prove you're mine", not "I cannot stand that you are a dwarf". No hidden meanings, you stated, but seems you do see hidden meanings after all. IMO, it's those who insist Tywin could not truly have doubted Tyrion's parentage who are jumping to conclusions. To say it is certain that his hatred of Tyrion was because of the fear of being laughed at is jumping to conclusions, based on thin grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Jaime might have been free when the conversation took place but Tywin will only just have heard about it, from Varys (he knew of the escape two days after it happened, irrc) and Jaime was lost in the war torn riverlands. For all intents and purposes Tyrion was still Tywin's only 'son.'


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of back-and-forth about this post already, but I didn't get the chance to reply yet and I have some additional points to make:

1. One suggestion (made by others, well before TWOIAF came out) is that Tyrion may be a Chimaera: a real-life condition (through extremely rare) in which a person has 2 kinds of DNA, ostensibly because two foetuses merged. Tyrion could be the child of both Tywin and Aerys, that way. ;)

I have heard that theory before and I have always wondered how people thought such a piece of information could become known. There are all sorts of ways to make it known that Aerys could have been father to Tyrion (for example, Selmy may have been the one to bring Joanna to Aerys room that night), and then when he is revealed as a head of the dragon and/or rides a dragon (and it becomes clear that Targ blood is needed to ride a dragon), then the readers can safely conclude that Aerys was the bio-dad. I am not saying that is the only possible way to bring this fact out (although it tends to be my current working theory), but it is an example of how such information could become known.

I am less clear on how anyone could ever make the chimaera conclusion? No such concept has ever been mentioned in the books to this point. How would anyone be able to form such a conclusion or even know that such a condition might exist in-story? If it is just up to the readers to make this conclusion--again, how does the reader get sufficient information to form this conclusion? I don't mind the idea conceptually, and usually I do not agree with people who argue against a theory because there is no way to reveal it in-story (GRRM is more creative than some people give him credit for). But here, I am really asking a genuine question--how could the chimaera theory be demonstrated in a way that the reader understands that this theory is the truth regarding Tyrion's parentage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any kind of confirmation of Tyrion-as-a-chimaera would have to come trough a prophetic/magical vision, I suppose. It's just a fun possibility to consider; I think the meat of the entire story surrounding Joanna and Aerys is that Tyrion will be declared to be a (bastard) Targaryen, with all the impact that will have on the story. This regardless of whether he is truly Tywin's son, Aerys' son, or both.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any kind of confirmation of Tyrion-as-a-chimaera would have to come trough a prophetic/magical vision, I suppose. It's just a fun possibility to consider; I think the meat of the entire story surrounding Joanna and Aerys is that Tyrion will be declared to be a (bastard) Targaryen, with all the impact that will have on the story. This regardless of whether he is truly Tywin's son, Aerys' son, or both.

I like the vision theory--a vision of a lion and a dragon both going after a female lion--and both getting absorbed into the female lion and the three merging. Now that might be a cool vision and could be a way to clue the readers about a chimaera possibility. OK, that was what I was looking for -- well done. I also agree that Tyrion as a mere Targ bastard is more likely--but I really like the vision possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joanna is a power player and wouldn't abort the king's child.

When Dany comes to believe Tyrion is her bastard brother and she sits the IT, legitimation will possibly become an issue for consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shiera had mismatched eyes and she was, as far as we know, no chimaera.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shiera had mismatched eyes and she was, as far as we know, no chimaera.

Oh I don't think Tyrion is a chimaera for a lot of reasons--mainly because I don't see how it serves a purpose for the story. But it is just a fun concept to contemplate--and I did enjoy imagining the vision of the female lion engulfing the male lion and the dragon into one resulting entity. But I never really took the theory seriously. I just wanted to know if anyone had any thoughts on how it might become known if it were true--and the vision idea has some possibilities. So maybe--who know perhaps GRRM wants to indicate that Tyrion got traits from Tywin as well as Aerys and therefore make Tyrion a chimaera. But I really doubt it -- just way too complicated and not enough of an in-story payoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all Tywins children, I thought it more GRRMS irony that it would be clever Tyrion who is most like Tywin~and his son. Neither Cersei, nor Jaime are really clever, (and Cersei is morphing into a cross between both Robert and Aerys).

At this point, I'm getting to the point I don't care anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×