The Blackfyre

[LmL]

Jack I should clarify that my comments there went beyond the scope of this thread and mostly were aimed at folks other than yourself. I realize looking back I mixed up things which directly apply to this conversation with things from other conversations. You're not my "least favorite type of person to talk to," I realize I have that impression, so apologies.

I disagree we haven't been given all the pieces we need to solve many things. We had all the pieces we needed to solve RLJ a long time ago, but we still got new hints about it in ADWD. With my astronomy theory, I was the first one to crack it - after 5 books, one world book, D & E, etc. But once I put that one together, I realized that almost everything one needs to connect AA / NN to the origin of dragons / second moon story is presented in the first two books. If someone had been really clever, they could have solved that after book 2. As the series has gone on, he's dropped more and more hints, and in many cases bigger and more obvious hints. I'm sure more will follow.

Basically, I disagree with the notion that we have to wait for all the books to be out to figure out his puzzles. Strongly disagree. Consider the Red Wedding - he gave us plenty of clues about that before it happened. A clever person could have seen it coming, and probably a few did. We DID have all the clues we needed, especially after the HoTU vision. I think it's the same with most of the mysteries - the origins of the Others, the location of Lightbringer, what happened in the Dawn Age to cause the Long Night and end it - I think we have all the clues we need to solve many things.

TWOIAF was the final set of clues we needed for a lot of mysteries, or at least, TWOAIF contained many big helper clues to mysteries that George wants us to solve. There were big clues about A + J = T, Ice Dragons, aquatic humans, the Long Night, Azor Ahai, and many other things.

We will need all he books to see how the story ends, but we don't need all the books so solve RLJ or most other mysteries.

George is so clever, he hides stuff in book 2 that can't even be understood until the right clues were given in TWOIAF. Until we knew about the first usurper of them all, the Bloodstone Emperor, I would never have known to place Robert (the usurper) in the role of BSE, and consider his children (Edric Storm) as potential metaphors for the offspring of AA, whether that's Lightbringer (who was the "offspring" of AA & NN) the sword or an actual person representing Lightbringer (as Jon Snow does). Doing so resulted in some great revelations which match with other clues.

The point being - he's planned ahead a lot more than most people think, and he's been planting clues in the early books he knew could only be harvested after he released book 5 or whatever. He's intending us to be solving this stuff as we go. If you think about it, it would be strange for him to create a bunch of mysteries of seven books and only give us the clues needed to solve in the last book. Instead, he's given us plenty of stuff to chew on and solve.... and even if we solve all of them, we still won't know the ending, but only have a clue about how it might go down. Its not like we can spoil the ending by solving the interim mysteries.

Last word, I also think it's likely we will not get conclusive proof of MANY things, even after the books are finished. I think Martin expects us to be clever and put things together. Revealing everything for certain at the end would ruin the effect. I can even see an ending where nobody in the story, including Jon, ever knows he's Rhaegar's son. He might just be doing magical acts of ice and fire balancing, without knowing why he is able to do so. I certainly do not think Jon will ever make a claim for the throne - the point of RLJ is magical, IMO. This, he doesn't really need to know. Wouldn't that be something - just leave it, and let the 5% of morons who need photographic evidence to accept RLJ spend the next 50 years carping about how RLJ isn't true and nobody can prove it. That would honestly be quote hilarious in a certain light.

[Lord Freypie]

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.

This post should be a sticky.

(Now when people discuss about consequences of this or that theory being true, they can't always add all the "I think", "it seems", etc... that every theory would desserve.

And they may also be tired arguing again about some points. )

[LmL]

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.

My best friend is adopted, and yes, I agree 100% with this notion. Ned will always be Jon's father, no matter RLJ. Your father is the man who raised you. That's why adopted people always add "biological" in front of their natural parents titles. I'm sure most pele realize this, but it's good to stop and consider for a second.

This applies to Tyrion too - I hate the objection to Tyrion Targ that he's Tywins true son in character and so it would be awful if he was Aerys's son. This is terrible logic. Tyrion is Tywin's son because Tywin raised him, and Turion emulated him. He was the smartest child, and learned the most from him, more so than Jaime or Cersei. Tyrion being a Targ won't run that at all, in fact, it makes it very ironic that Tywin raised Aerys's son to be a better ruler than Tywin or Aerys (assuming Tyrion has political greatness in his future, a likely outcome for him).

[LmL]

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.

Tyrion says he appears 15 or 16 or close enough as makes no matter. I don't know how we would have any more specific age for him than that.

[In A Coat of Gold]

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.

Oh you're thick alright, but I'll try to explain it.

The appendix is a place of common knowledge. Authors use it as a reference point for items in a book. In George's case, those items are characters. George saying that Young Griff is 18 years old is canon.

[In A Coat of Gold]

Tyrion says he appears 15 or 16 or close enough as makes no matter. I don't know how we would have any more specific age for him than that.

Tyrion says Jon Snow is 12 in 298. Is that the most specific age for him? Especially considering Tyrion doesn't even know the boy and has no experience raising children anyway.

[LmL]

Sorry In a Coat of Gold, but we've already established that there is unreliable info in the appendix. Therefore, the info in the appendix is no different than any of the other material in ASOIAF - it's subject to the unreliable narrator. The appendix represents the "common knowledge," and we've proven that it contains the same errors common knowledge would - no knowledge of RLJ for example. Thus, fAegon's age is not solidly established based solely on information in the appendix.

So you asked for what important information was in Brienne's trip - I showed two things, the Galladon / Lightbringer stuff as well as the idea of weirwood sacrifice. I noticed you didn't comment on those.

[In A Coat of Gold]

Sorry In a Coat of Gold, but we've already established that there is unreliable info in the appendix. Therefore, the info in the appendix is no different than any of the other material in ASOIAF - it's subject to the unreliable narrator. The appendix represents the "common knowledge," and we've proven that it contains the same errors common knowledge would - no knowledge of RLJ for example. Thus, fAegon's age is not solidly established based solely on information in the appendix.

So you asked for what important information was in Brienne's trip - I showed two things, the Galladon / Lightbringer stuff as well as the idea of weirwood sacrifice. I noticed you didn't comment on those.

The problem is that there is no narrator in the appendix. It is seperate from the characters. The information there is canon. Hell, George didn't even have to give his age, but he did for a reason.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Tyrion says Jon Snow is 12 in 298. Is that the most specific age for him? Especially considering Tyrion doesn't even know the boy and has no experience raising children anyway.

*sigh*

Why do you say Aegon is the same age as Rhaegar's son? Is is because the Appendix to Dance says Young Griff is 18? That's not even worth half a groat. The Appendix also says Rhaegar's son was killed in the Sack of King's Landing. So if the latter is false, how can you put any stock in the former? Tyrion put his age at 15 or 16 "or near enough to make no matter," so Aegon is likelyyounger than 18. I suppose you put stock into Tyrion saying Jon was 12, when Jon was 14? I don't. First, The George may have been setting the reader up for this future scene. Second, Tyrion was guessing his age. Consider the context. Tyrion wasn't guessing; he was trying to take Jon down a peg. He succeeded too, and then felt bad for it. They ended up being friends. Third, if you disagree and think Tyrion was guessing, he should get a pass here since his nephew Joffrey, who was 12, was taller than Jon, and he no doubt saw Robb and Jon as peers (not socially of course, but agewise). And finally, he may have known how old Robb was and assumed that Jon was his younger brother.

[In A Coat of Gold]

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." ;)

but the Azor Ahai story has already been given by Melisandre, and in greater detail. Also, Crabb isn't even the guy that told that story. Brienne does. It has nothing to do with the world building of Crackclaw Point.

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.

No. Brienne's father is the Evenstar. How does Brienne's sword have symbolism of LightBringer? You're reaching.

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]

Jack I should clarify that my comments there went beyond the scope of this thread and mostly were aimed at folks other than yourself. I realize looking back I mixed up things which directly apply to this conversation with things from other conversations. You're not my "least favorite type of person to talk to," I realize I have that impression, so apologies.

I did assume it was a generality and not aimed specifically at me, I just wanted to let you know that while I am difficult on purpose there is a method to my madness!

And yes, I don't think we need all the books to solve individual puzzles - but for the big picture we do need the main series completed before anyone can make definitive statements. And to be fair, how can we be sure our conclusions are correct without knowing the end? We think we've put all the pieces in the right place, but until we see the whole picture we can't be sure. And while RLJ has been pretty much put together but we still don't know what the picture is because there are still pieces missing. Coldhands is a better example of needing more pieces - we have some pieces, enough to know what he's not but not enough pieces to tell us what he is. But yeah, there are little puzzles within the big puzzle - the little puzzles (Red/Purple Wedding) seem to be solvable within a book or two, but others I think (like the Others, hehe) are a big puzzle that won't be completely solvable until the end.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few mysteries left dangling - it would certainly add to the story, I think. But dammit, I better find out if Old Nan's dead or alive next book! It's a little sad that I'm more concerned about her than Jon, isn't it?

[LmL]

Just as I thought, you dismissed these ideas without considering them for more than two minutes. Yet, Mance Rayder who looks nothing like Rhaegar Targaryen and does not wear a ruby to effect a glamour when Jon sees him thoughout books two and three is DEFINITELY Rhaegar.

I think you've proved yourself completely and utterly uncredible, close minded, and logically inconsistent. You're also a bit thick, as we've shown over and over that the appendix has incorrect information in it. If it has some incorrect information in it, any of it could be wrong. Why you keep repeating yourself is beyond me. That's why Lost Melnibonean can answer your comments by simply quoting himself from earlier in the thread, because you haven't said anything new and are failing to integrate new information into you head.

I'm done replying to your comments, you're simply not worth the time. You've contributed nothing to this thread.

[Jak Scaletongue]

Go read his essays man - it'll take him a lot longer to re-type the damn thing than it will for you to click and read. They're pretty good reads simply for entertainment value - but they do make a whole lotta sense, too. Highly recommend them. Don't always agree with them, but I find them enjoyable and interesting.

ETA: I did notice you don't have any comment about the squishers = "dead things in the water" - we were introduced to the idea of squishers before we were confronted with "dead things in the water" - probably with the intention that we'd immediately think of the weird under the sea creatures we learned about in Brienne's chapter.

[LmL]

I did assume it was a generality and not aimed specifically at me, I just wanted to let you know that while I am difficult on purpose there is a method to my madness!

And yes, I don't think we need all the books to solve individual puzzles - but for the big picture we do need the main series completed before anyone can make definitive statements. And to be fair, how can we be sure our conclusions are correct without knowing the end? We think we've put all the pieces in the right place, but until we see the whole picture we can't be sure. And while RLJ has been pretty much put together but we still don't know what the picture is because there are still pieces missing. Coldhands is a better example of needing more pieces - we have some pieces, enough to know what he's not but not enough pieces to tell us what he is. But yeah, there are little puzzles within the big puzzle - the little puzzles (Red/Purple Wedding) seem to be solvable within a book or two, but others I think (like the Others, hehe) are a big puzzle that won't be completely solvable until the end.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few mysteries left dangling - it would certainly add to the story, I think. But dammit, I better find out if Old Nan's dead or alive next book! It's a little sad that I'm more concerned about her than Jon, isn't it?

Im holding out hope for Old Nan too. :)

What you're saying is all true - we can't be sure of anything. I take that as an understood caveat. But after we've said that.... what now? We're back to trying to solve the puzzles. If you're just making the case to remember that we could be wrong, I'm fine with that. True enough. Some people like to make themselves truly miserable, however, by thinking they can refute everyone's theory because there isn't a photo. Have you read any of the anti-RLJ threads? Thousands and thousands of words, and nobody has come up with an alternative to RLJ that fits the clues, fits the narrative, and it's not disproven by other evidence. RLJ has been out for 15 years, and the people most dedicated to discrediting it cannot come up with an alternative. If you ask for one, they will rustle and say they do t need an alternate to question RLJ. I call that meaningless hot air. If RLJ is wrong, there would be another possibility with decent support that is not contradicted by evidence. There is none. Ergo, I'm moving on with that as solved, with the caveat in mind that perhaps there is some brilliantly subtle thing which we've all missed to throw a wrench in it. I highly, highly doubt it, but without a Rhagar Lyanna sextape, there is no definitive proof. I'm ok with that, this is art, not forensics.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

My best friend is adopted, and yes, I agree 100% with this notion. Ned will always be Jon's father, no matter RLJ. Your father is the man who raised you. That's why adopted people always add "biological" in front of their natural parents titles. I'm sure most pele realize this, but it's good to stop and consider for a second.

This applies to Tyrion too - I hate the objection to Tyrion Targ that he's Tywins true son in character and so it would be awful if he was Aerys's son. This is terrible logic. Tyrion is Tywin's son because Tywin raised him, and Turion emulated him. He was the smartest child, and learned the most from him, more so than Jaime or Cersei. Tyrion being a Targ won't run that at all, in fact, it makes it very ironic that Tywin raised Aerys's son to be a better ruler than Tywin or Aerys (assuming Tyrion has political greatness in his future, a likely outcome for him).

Totally agree with the whole thing :)

[In A Coat of Gold]

Why do you say Aegon is the same age as Rhaegar's son? Is is because the Appendix to Dance says Young Griff is 18? That's not even worth half a groat. The Appendix also says Rhaegar's son was killed in the Sack of King's Landing. So if the latter is false, how can you put any stock in the former? Tyrion put his age at 15 or 16 "or near enough to make no matter," so Aegon is likelyyounger than 18. I suppose you put stock into Tyrion saying Jon was 12, when Jon was 14? I don't. First, The George may have been setting the reader up for this future scene. Second, Tyrion was guessing his age. Consider the context. Tyrion wasn't guessing; he was trying to take Jon down a peg. He succeeded too, and then felt bad for it. They ended up being friends. Third, if you disagree and think Tyrion was guessing, he should get a pass here since his nephew Joffrey, who was 12, was taller than Jon, and he no doubt saw Robb and Jon as peers (not socially of course, but agewise). And finally, he may have known how old Robb was and assumed that Jon was his younger brother.

Literally, George is telling you the boy is 18. He rarely even gave ages in this appendix.

I'll continue to play this game with you.

He's not younger than 18 because George RR Martin says so. He is 18, per the appendix.

Yo your second point, Tyrion was guessing Aegon and Jon's age. That's not even a point.

Take him down a peg? Read the damn book, man. He asks Jon his age as a comparison to their sizes. He insults Jon later when he talks about the Night's Watch. It's such a splitting of hairs on your part that it's ridiculous.

[LmL]

Go read his essays man - it'll take him a lot longer to re-type the damn thing than it will for you to click and read. They're pretty good reads simply for entertainment value - but they do make a whole lotta sense, too. Highly recommend them. Don't always agree with them, but I find them enjoyable and interesting.

Thanks for the kind words, Jak. :cheers:

I just can't take seriously someone who says "well, we already heard the AA story once, so why would anything else have anything to do with AA?" Sorry, hate to rude, but that's just a stupid thing to say. So, that one version of the AA story is definitely 100% true and complete? There's nothing else we might need to know about it? We should definitely just take her word that this guy who stabbed his wife with a sword in a blood magic ritual is definitely the hero we are all waiting for. Right.

NO, of course there's more than meets the eye to the single most important character in ASOAIF history. Since when is one side of a story the whole story in ASOIAF? We should be looking for any clues about Azor Ahai and his true nature, that of Lightbringer, etc. Anytime we hear a magic sword story, we should be looking for Azor Ahai clues.

[In A Coat of Gold]

The Squishers are only mentioned by Nimble Dick and no one else. It is pure world building.

[LmL]

The definition of close minded is when one person says something like "I'm seeing a lot of Lightbringer symbolism around Ned's sword," and then someone else who has not looked for Lightbringer symbolism around Ned's sword definitively asserts there is no such symbolism.

Such people have no credibility.

[LmL]

The Squishers are only mentioned by Nimble Dick and no one else. It is pure world building.

Breaking my own rule not to comment, but again you're fabulously and completely wrong. Squishers are just another name for merlings or selkies or Deep Ones. We've been hearing about them since book one. The Ironborn myths are full of fish-people and humans interbreeding. We meet fishy fingered people on the three sisters as well, which is essentially proof that aquatic humans are a real thing in ASOIAF. That's without getting into TWOAIF, which is packed with legends of fish people and actual people with fishy looking appearances and webbed feet and hands.

Every time you assert that something is "just worldbuilding," you're talking out your ass, and nothing more.