The Blackfyre

[Lost Melnibonean]

No. Young Griff and Aegon are the exact same age. That's canon.

Can you cite the source, please?

[Lady Blizzardborn]

A bit of a tangent for the benefit of those people who learn their formal logic from "how to win a debate on the internet" guides for libertarians or creationists...

Yes, you can "prove a negative", a.k.a. disprove a hypothesis. Very easily. Chiefly, but not only, by proving a "positive", lol, that contradicts it.

There are no invisible methane-breathing dwarves in my closet. Why? Because the composition of the atmosphere in my closet does not support the existence of such creatures.

That works with God too. If God is defined as an entity that answers prayers, the effectiveness of prayer can be tested. If God created man from mud 6000 years ago, that can be tested too.

Religious people try to avoid this by positing "God" as an undefined hypothesis, with no properties and no detectable action at all. That such a hypothesis can not be disproved does not help their case one bit because it is neaningless and any such entity does not exist by definition - or more exactly by the lack of one. It's like saying "you can't prove The Sbahjizkir does not exist". Well, no. I can't and I don't have to. It's a menaingless word until you give it a proper definition, at which point its existence can (at least potentially) be disproven.

Thank you for your time, back to the regularly scheduled nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense...

You can't prove or disprove God by the effectiveness of prayer. People have this ignorant tendency to assume that if they don't get what they pray for, their prayer has not been answered. I have news for such people: "No" is also an answer. And the only people who claim that man is only 6,000 years old are those who have tried to, in essence, make God in the image of man.

The only people who find creationism and evolution to be mutually exclusive are the narrow-minded and/or unimaginative. The two actually work quite well together, if you don't impose limits on God or on your own intelligence. Don't take my word for it though, there's a great scene in Inherit the Wind where "Henry Drummond" makes that point brilliantly. Great movie. Spencer Tracy, Frederic March, Gene Kelly. Classic, and well worth watching.

In the future you might want to leave creationists and libertarians out of such things. By the way, the two aren't the same, and neither group is made up of entirely one mindset or way of thinking. Labels are not your friends, Facebookless Man.

I do believe you about the lack of invisible methane-breathing dwarves in your closet though.

[LmL]

Well said and all very interesting, but I'd just like to remind everyone that what we were discussing was the idea of second meanings in the worldbuilding of ASOIAF. My contention is that given that we know George is hiding important information in some of the world-building (if that's not clear to you by now, I don't know what to say), we must remain open to the possibility that any given bit of worldbuilding or scenery description or (dare I say it) description of food may have some second layer of symbolic relevance. George speaks in the language of symbolism from cover to cover, so again it is incumbent on us to pay attention to this second layer of storytelling. George is using symbolism to reveal the past, foreshadow the future, add context and meaning to a scene or character, and very often, create an entire hidden "story within a story" in the form of a complex metaphor. Sansa's snow-castle scene is a well known example of this, and I have dissected a few of them in my astronomy theories. Once you start picking up on these, you realize that no passage of text is innocuous; many are more than they appear to be.

By way of example, we were talking about Crackclaw point. Yes, we got the funny story about the squishers. But we also got a story about a hero with a magic sword which was made by a process involving a celestial maiden losing her heart. Given that magic swords and the legendary characters who wield them are of central importance to the main characters and plot of ASOIAF, any time we hear a story about a magic sword and a maiden's heart, our ears should perk up. George isnt going to tell a story about a magic sword without giving us a clue about Lightbringer. To tip is off, George had someone mention a random "Lord Lucifer Hardy" before launching into the Galladon of Morne story. And of course, "lucifer" means "lightbringer." ;)

In addition to that, Brienne, the daughter of the Morningstar (another translation of lucifer) is wielding a sword made from Ned's sword, which has a lot of Lightbringer symbolism around it, and she kills three people beneath a weirwood tree, feeding the tree their blood and even their corpses (she buried them under the tree). Does anyone think that might be significant? We know making blood sacrifice to a weirwood is part of ancient Northman culture, so the answer is yes, this is something which we might want to look at. Even further, we know that Brienne still has this sword, and has led Jaime down into Stoneheart's lair, a cave shot through with weirwood roots, and she is very likely to do some more killing with Oathkeeper, and the weirwoods will again drink the blood.

So, there's a bit more going on there than travelogue and colorful (but ultimately irrelevant) folktales. As Martin said, we should be paying more attention to Old Nan. The singers and fisherfolk have more of the truth than most maesters. I feel like George has made that abundantly clear.

As for squishers.... "Dead things in the water." :devil:

[Jak Scaletongue]

Woah there. We don't know that. Firstly we don't know he is Rhaegar's son, we could be wrong. But you're also assuming Rhaegar and Lyanna got married, and so far we don't know that. If Aegon is a legit Targ, than he comes before Jon.

Right but fAegon is not a legit Targ, he is (for all purposes) the last Blackfyre, which is what this thread is about.

And I dont get how people can say "We don't know Jon is Rhaegar's son."

Um, I do know it, for a fact 100%, I know it. If others don't know it, then they are wrong.

But that's just it - we don't KNOW, we THINK we know. No one but George KNOWS until the books are finished. In essence, I agree, I *think* Jon is Rhaegar's son. But until GRRM puts that in writing in one of the remaining books, we are simply speculating. Just like some people on this thread *think* Aegon is a Blackfyre (yes, the symbolism, the foreshadowing, all that is there) but until we have more information in the remaining books we are simply speculating. Some people on this thread think Aegon is Rhaegar's son, too - it's certainly been theorized how that could be true as well, but again, until we have more information we are simply speculating. Same with the question of Jon's legitmacy - whether L&R were married or not is all speculation until we have more information. We do not KNOW whether Aegon is legit or not - this thread is *speculating* on the idea that he is not a Targaryen. IF he's legit, Aegon's got a better claim than Dany OR Jon (IF L&R were married - if they weren't he's still just a bastard). Not that anyone's claim will matter by the end, of course - and bastard or not Jon has definitely got the upperhand if/when Aegon & Dany quit their (speculated) pissing contest and pay attention to the real threat coming out of the LOAW.

Basically - unless YOU are writing the story, you can't say you KNOW. You think you know, which is where everyone else is - I *think* I know a lot of things but that doesn't always mean I'm right. Absolute statements like Suzanna's are inappropriate when discussing a series that isn't even finished yet! Hell, in this series, you can't even be certain someone you thought was dead IS dead! How many people expected Catelyn to turn up again? How many said "I know she's dead, of course she's dead, we saw her die" - they were wrong, weren't they? How many people KNEW that Snape was *the* bad guy at the end of HBP? While he's certainly no Prince Charming, we all know *now* that he killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders, not out of loyalty to Voldemort. You can't make absolute statements about a series until the series has been completed. Even "Ned is dead" has detractors.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Well said and all very interesting, but I'd just like to remind everyone that what we were discussing was the idea of second meanings in the worldbuilding of ASOIAF. My contention is that given that we know George is hiding important information in some of the world-building (if that's not clear to you by now, I don't know what to say), we must remain open to the possibility that any given bit of worldbuilding or scenery description or (dare I say it) description of food may have some second layer of symbolic relevance. George speaks in the language of symbolism from cover to cover, so again it is incumbent on us to pay attention to this second layer of storytelling. George is using symbolism to reveal the past, foreshadow the future, add context and meaning to a scene or character, and very often, create an entire hidden "story within a story" in the form of a complex metaphor. Sansa's snow-castle scene is a well known example of this, and I have dissected a few of them in my astronomy theories. Once you start picking up on these, you realize that no passage of text is innocuous; many are more than they appear to be.

By way of example, we were talking about Crackclaw point. Yes, we got the funny story about the squishers. But we also got a story about a hero with a magic sword which was made by a process involving a celestial maiden losing her heart. Given that magic swords and the legendary characters who wield them are of central importance to the main characters and plot of ASOIAF, any time we hear a story about a magic sword and a maiden's heart, our ears should perk up. George isnt going to tell a story about a magic sword without giving us a clue about Lightbringer. To tip is off, George had someone mention a random "Lord Lucifer Hardy" before launching into the Galladon of Morne story. And of course, "lucifer" means "lightbringer." ;)

In addition to that, Brienne, the daughter of the Morningstar (another translation of lucifer) is wielding a sword made from Ned's sword, which has a lot of Lightbringer symbolism around it, and she kills three people beneath a weirwood tree, feeding the tree their blood and even their corpses (she buried them under the tree). Does anyone think that might be significant? We know making blood sacrifice to a weirwood is part of ancient Northman culture, so the answer is yes, this is something which we might want to look at. Even further, we know that Brienne still has this sword, and has led Jaime down into Stoneheart's lair, a cave shot through with weirwood roots, and she is very likely to do some more killing with Oathkeeper, and the weirwoods will again drink the blood.

So, there's a bit more going on there than travelogue and colorful (but ultimately irrelevant) folktales. As Martin said, we should be paying more attention to Old Nan. The singers and fisherfolk have more of the truth than most maesters. I feel like George has made that abundantly clear.

As for squishers.... "Dead things in the water." :devil:

Um, Evenstar. Brienne is the daughter of the Evenstar. Does it have the same meaning? I'm sure you've mentioned this before but I can't remember at the moment.

[In A Coat of Gold]

Can you cite the source, please?

ADWD appendix. Young Griff, a lad of 18 years.

[In A Coat of Gold]

In A Coat of Gold, I could tell you which "world building" elements about the Crackclaw expedition are relevant to the main story, but if you've already made up your mind that none of it is relevant, then what's the point? If you'd really like to know, and have an open mind, I will be happy to take the time to explain what I am seeing there.

Again, I say that on principle, you cannot point to any given world building element and say that it doesn't have a double meaning or some relevance to a main plot line. You simply can't, for the same reasons you cannot prove God doesn't exist - you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove the non-existence of of a deeper meaning, in this case. For you to go around asserting that this or that does not have relevance beyond building atmosphere is therefore tantamount to making baseless and unproveable assertions. And the end result is that you are attempting to disprove other people's theories with these baseless assertions. Say that you don't think something is more than background color, ok, but there's always a possibility that you simply haven't deciphered the right clue or applied the given folktale to the right mystery. If you've been paying close attention to Martin, and you have read the series many times, so that's you, then you should know that Martin loves to hide foreshadowing and clues to puzzles in the background color of a given scene. If I'm getting pissy here, it's because you're being close minded to the level of craftiness which I believe Martin has employed with his "worldbuilding."

I want you to give how the Crackclaw Point world building has relevance on the plot. Please.

[LmL]

I just did above. One of the ways it is relevant is the clues about Azor Ahai and Lightbribger contained in the Galladon story. Another is the weirwood sacrifice... read back a couple of posts.

[Lost Melnibonean]

ADWD appendix. Young Griff, a lad of 18 years.

So then Aegon can't be Rhaegar's son, right? Since the Appendix says Rhaegar's son was killed...

[Suzanna Stormborn]

But that's just it - we don't KNOW, we THINK we know. No one but George KNOWS until the books are finished. In essence, I agree, I *think* Jon is Rhaegar's son. But until GRRM puts that in writing in one of the remaining books, we are simply speculating. Just like some people on this thread *think* Aegon is a Blackfyre (yes, the symbolism, the foreshadowing, all that is there) but until we have more information in the remaining books we are simply speculating. Some people on this thread think Aegon is Rhaegar's son, too - it's certainly been theorized how that could be true as well, but again, until we have more information we are simply speculating. Same with the question of Jon's legitmacy - whether L&R were married or not is all speculation until we have more information. We do not KNOW whether Aegon is legit or not - this thread is *speculating* on the idea that he is not a Targaryen. IF he's legit, Aegon's got a better claim than Dany OR Jon (IF L&R were married - if they weren't he's still just a bastard). Not that anyone's claim will matter by the end, of course - and bastard or not Jon has definitely got the upperhand if/when Aegon & Dany quit their (speculated) pissing contest and pay attention to the real threat coming out of the LOAW.

Basically - unless YOU are writing the story, you can't say you KNOW. You think you know, which is where everyone else is - I *think* I know a lot of things but that doesn't always mean I'm right. Absolute statements like Suzanna's are inappropriate when discussing a series that isn't even finished yet! Hell, in this series, you can't even be certain someone you thought was dead IS dead! How many people expected Catelyn to turn up again? How many said "I know she's dead, of course she's dead, we saw her die" - they were wrong, weren't they? How many people KNEW that Snape was *the* bad guy at the end of HBP? While he's certainly no Prince Charming, we all know *now* that he killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders, not out of loyalty to Voldemort. You can't make absolute statements about a series until the series has been completed. Even "Ned is dead" has detractors.

Well I disagree. If i am sure of something then that's what I am. Even though GRRM has not personally come to hold my hand and specifically tell me that RLJ is true, I still know it is. Literature is funny that way, there are hints and clues which make certain things obvious, like RLJ or fAegon. So while you may not be sure, I certainly am. Yeah I know the series isn't finished, but so what? You think the RLJ reveal will come on the last page of the last book?

Basically I see no reason to discuss the novels with blinders on just because some people are unsure, if you want to deny either of those theories, go ahead, but you'll be wrong. I am not claiming to know everything that will happen but these two things, RLJ and fAegon, I have no doubts, and nor do a boat load of other people.

[LmL]

I tend to agree with Susanna here. This is art, this is literature. And it's particularly puzzle-tastic literature. Meaning, we are supposed to figure things out without concrete photographic evidence. We are supposed to follow Martin's clues and put things together. In fact, one of the most brilliant aspects of his writing is that he treats his readers like adults and does not spoon feed us information. He requires us to think about things in order to figure out what is really going on. That's not "simply speculating," oh no. That's called "solving the puzzle we've been given to solve."

I understand the caveat, "we can't be sure," but I think that's understood. This isn't a criminal case where we expect conclusive forensic evidence or else we can't come to a conclusion - we shouldn't expect that. That's not the standard here.

I myself am mainly interested in interacting with people who want to figure things out and believe that Martin has given us the clues we need to put things together. The "we can't be sure of anything" people who want to pick apart RLJ with legalese but do not have an alternate narrative that makes sense are my least favorite people on the board, right up there with "TWOAIF is just irrelevant worldbuilding" people. These folks miss the point, IMO.

[In A Coat of Gold]

So then Aegon can't be Rhaegar's son, right? Since the Appendix says Rhaegar's son was killed...

The appendix is a knowledge base. It's meant to be spoiler free, which is what Jon is listed as Ned's son. Young Griff is 18. That's canon by George's own writing.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Well I disagree. If i am sure of something then that's what I am. Even though GRRM has not personally come to hold my hand and specifically tell me that RLJ is true, I still know it is. Literature is funny that way, there are hints and clues which make certain things obvious, like RLJ or fAegon. So while you may not be sure, I certainly am. Yeah I know the series isn't finished, but so what? You think the RLJ reveal will come on the last page of the last book?

Basically I see no reason to discuss the novels with blinders on just because some people are unsure, if you want to deny either of those theories, go ahead, but you'll be wrong. I am not claiming to know everything that will happen but these two things, RLJ and fAegon, I have no doubts, and nor do a boat load of other people.

To be fair, a lot more people doubt fAegon than R+L=J. They're not really comparable.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

The appendix is a knowledge base. It's meant to be spoiler free, which is what Jon is listed as Ned's son. Young Griff is 18. That's canon by George's own writing.

By your own words, that means that Young Griff may NOT be 18 in the same way that Jon is NOT Ned's son.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

To be fair, a lot more people doubt fAegon than R+L=J. They're not really comparable.

Well maybe they do, lol, but IMO they are wrong, the backstory is there, this is the 6th Blackfyre Rebellion.

[In A Coat of Gold]

By your own words, that means that Young Griff may NOT be 18 in the same way that Jon is NOT Ned's son.

No. He's 18 by George's own words. It's canon.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

No. He's 18 by George's own words. It's canon.

Jon is Ned's son by George's words. Is that also canon?

Well maybe they do, lol, but IMO they are wrong, the backstory is there, this is the 6th Blackfyre Rebellion.

I agree that there will be a final Blackfyre, but it doesn't absolutely have to be Aegon. I lean 51% to 49% in favor of him being real.

Here's a nice potential decider for us: it's been suggested that Rhaenys went into her kitten Balerion. If that's the case, the cat's behavior toward Aegon will be a hint to his true identity. Cool, huh? Credit to LiveFirstDieLater in the Balerion: Killer of Kittens and Kings thread for the idea.

[Lost Melnibonean]

The appendix is a knowledge base. It's meant to be spoiler free, which is what Jon is listed as Ned's son. Young Griff is 18. That's canon by George's own writing.

I must be thick as a castle wall because that makes no sense to me. I sould change my name to Lost Melnibonean the Lunk.

[Jak Scaletongue]

Well I disagree. If i am sure of something then that's what I am. Even though GRRM has not personally come to hold my hand and specifically tell me that RLJ is true, I still know it is. Literature is funny that way, there are hints and clues which make certain things obvious, like RLJ or fAegon. So while you may not be sure, I certainly am. Yeah I know the series isn't finished, but so what? You think the RLJ reveal will come on the last page of the last book?

Basically I see no reason to discuss the novels with blinders on just because some people are unsure, if you want to deny either of those theories, go ahead, but you'll be wrong. I am not claiming to know everything that will happen but these two things, RLJ and fAegon, I have no doubts, and nor do a boat load of other people.

I tend to agree with Susanna here. This is art, this is literature. And it's particularly puzzle-tastic literature. Meaning, we are supposed to figure things out without concrete photographic evidence. We are supposed to follow Martin's clues and put things together. In fact, one of the most brilliant aspects of his writing is that he treats his readers like adults and does not spoon feed us information. He requires us to think about things in order to figure out what is really going on. That's not "simply speculating," oh no. That's called "solving the puzzle we've been given to solve."

I understand the caveat, "we can't be sure," but I think that's understood. This isn't a criminal case where we expect conclusive forensic evidence or else we can't come to a conclusion - we shouldn't expect that. That's not the standard here.

What can I say except I prefer to err on the side of caution and not assume things. I happily believe things, some more than others, but I'm not willing to stick to absolute statements until the series is finished and we have all the puzzle pieces. I just feel that there is a BIG difference between belief and knowledge and while I'm willing to believe RLJ I'm not willing to tell everyone else they're wrong just because they don't believe. People are free to believe what they will - if they're wrong, they're wrong, it's not my problem or yours and it isn't my place or yours to tell people they are wrong for having a different belief.

That being said, it's a different story if someone's trying to tell you they believe the world is flat because we have scientific evidence proving otherwise. But if someone came up to you and told you that you were wrong because you happen believe Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour - that's inappropriate, because it's not anyone's place to tell you what you should and shouldn't believe. This is fiction and all in one man's head - it doesn't have a whole lot of scientific evidence backing it up so it's all up to each person individual interpretations of the story and some people need things spelt out for them (by the author) before they'll understand.

LmL - honest question, how can we solve the puzzle with missing pieces? I'm all for trying, and I love all the essays that have been put together for the purposes of working them out, but without the entire puzzle we're still speculating on what the completed picture will look like. Sure, we've got the edges and a pretty good idea what the picture looks like, but until the entire puzzle is available we don't know what the hole in the middle holds. It's that hole in the middle that's still speculation - cause there aren't enough puzzle pieces to fill it yet.

I thought the standard around here was respect. It's not respectful to tell people they are wrong if they don't agree with your beliefs. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant. If they're wrong, then they'll figure it out when it's finally spelt out for them - until then, condescending remarks aren't going to convince them otherwise. On the other hand, they need to be more respectful as well - but that seems to be an issue anywhere (in my defense, I call people out for stuff like this in RL, too - manners matter people! Everywhere!).

I myself am mainly interested in interacting with people who want to figure things out and believe that Martin has given us the clues we need to put things together. The "we can't be sure of anything" people who want to pick apart RLJ with legalese but do not have an alternate narrative that makes sense are my least favorite people on the board, right up there with "TWOAIF is just irrelevant worldbuilding" people. These folks miss the point, IMO.

While I do believe that Martin is giving us the clues we need to put things together, I "can't be sure of anything" simply because we do not have all the puzzle pieces. We're still missing 2 books out of the main series (at least 2), we know there's a "Fire and Blood" book once the series is done, and how many more D&E books left? Or is he just trucking along on those until Summerhall? I guess we probably don't know the answer to that. But we can't finish the puzzle until we have all the pieces. At least the main series pieces, anyway. Hell, we can't make any clear cut guesses as to whether Jon's alive or not - how are we supposed to *know* anything that's going to go down in the next books? Will he be dead like Ned, or dead like Catelyn? Or dead like Coldhands? And for the record, I enjoy picking *anything* apart simply because I enjoy playing devil's advocate. I'm perfectly happy putting aside my belief in RLJ to force others to re-evaluate what and why they believe it. Not because I want them to second guess RLJ, but because I want them to actually think about it rather than spout off the party-line. And not just RLJ - I enjoy being contrary! I'm not trying to piss people off, I'm just trying to get them to actually think for themselves.

And irrelevant or not, I thoroughly enjoy world-building for the sake of world-building!

[Jak Scaletongue]

Jon is Ned's son by George's words. Is that also canon?

For all intents and purposes, isn't it generally accepted that the man who raised you, who treated you like their own, who loved you and cared for you IS your father, regardless of biology? It is not incorrect to refer to Ned as Jon's father simply because, for all intents and purposes, he WAS Jon's father. Jon has a 1) biological father, probably Rhaegar and a 2) legal father, Ned, the man who raised him and treated him like a son. Don't see how it's much different than kids nowadays who haven't ever met their bio dad, but happily call the man who has raised them "Daddy." It's semantics - yes, Ned is Jon's father. Someone else might be as well, but Ned is still Jon's father, too.