Heresy 166

[Mother of Dragons]

Indeed. In fact, I've heard it said that you know nothing...

Where's the like button?!

Btw, VoTFM, don't you have some homework to read??? (Not that I'm reading right now but I want to).

[wolfmaid7]

I don't know... In my opinion, that synopsis is totally irrelevant garbage, which is probably why if found it's way onto the interwebs... If it was accurate, me thinks that it would never have surfaced...

Irrelevant garbage,really ATS??? Even for you that's :bang: Sure the story has grown,certain aspects tweeked here and there.However,if after all these years aspects of the synopsis can be found in the current text,then sorry it aint irrelevant garbage.

Indeed. In fact, I've heard it said that you know nothing...

You sir are on a roll.

[addicted to snow]

Indeed. In fact, I've heard it said that you know nothing...

I know that nothing in the synopsis is consistent with where the story is at today... GRRM has changed everything along the way... The synopsis isn't even kinda, maybe accurate... It's just wrong... IT IS KNOWN....

[Voice]

Where's the like button?!

Btw, VoTFM, don't you have some homework to read??? (Not that I'm reading right now but I want to).

I actually have been reading (well, listening to the audiobook) today... Have you??? Or have you been too occupied in the hedge? At a certain point it's just playing, you know...

You sir are on a roll.

:cheers: LOL

I know that nothing in the synopsis is consistent with where the story is at today... GRRM has changed everything along the way... The synopsis isn't even kinda, maybe accurate... It's just wrong... IT IS KNOWN....

It is known that you, with all due respect, are a prancing jackanapes. And so I name you.

[Black Crow]

I know that nothing in the synopsis is consistent with where the story is at today... GRRM has changed everything along the way... The synopsis isn't even kinda, maybe accurate... It's just wrong... IT IS KNOWN....

Nah, I disagree. That synopsis was sketched out for three volumes way back at the beginning. Over time the story has expanded, roles have been re-assigned and new characters added. It has changed in a lot of ways but yet the underlying structure is still recognisably there.

[Black Crow]

Because the dragons are back, and sometimes it's a calculation of whether or not you'll prosper by throwing your lot in with a particular faction, or find yourself on the losing side. If House Bolton, an old and northern House, could gamble that they'd prosper by aligning with Tywin (a fair bet, before Tyrion put a crossbow bolt in him), why can't others gamble by aligning with "Aegon," or a queen with three dragons in her arsenal?

Besides, most of the Great Houses are still effectively the "kings" of their particular territory, particularly in the isolated north, and the coming of Aegon VI or Daenerys means that certain lesser houses may have the opportunity to become Great Houses. Of course the "foreign" Targaryens will have supporters.

Here's one I prepared earlier

Aerys pops his clogs in King's Landing, along with various other members of the Royal family, so who's next?

1. First off the blocks is Viserys Targaryen, the King's second son. The first son (ungrateful wretch) has gotten himself killed along with his known children so it seems a straightforward claim. Except he's also the Beggar King and as his sister sadly observes, no dragon.

2. Then there's the sister, again a good claim albeit she's a woman, but she does have dragons so there's no doubting she's Aerys' daughter. Trouble is she's in the land of far far away and by all accounts making a complete hash of things.

3. Fear not, up comes number three, Aegon son of Rhaegar and allegedly not dead after all. Great start, unlike 1 & 2 he's actually made it to Westeros, raised his banners and isn't demonstrably mad. In fact looks pretty good all round. OK too good to be true but we're the readers not the actors and real or not he's a better bet than Cersei Lannister.

4. Yes there is a four, because following all historical precedent if no.3 comes to an untimely end as confidently predicted there's too much at stake not for someone else to turn up proclaiming himself the true Aegon, or for that matter if Aegon could be spirited away from that massacre at King's Landing what of his sister, might she too have gotten away and be available? Never mind Perkin Warbeck, there's scope enough for a whole string of False Dimitri claimants.

5. And so we come to Kit Harrington, sorry Jon Snow, the bastard boy from up north. Sorry, who? Another bloody son of Rhaegar? How many more are there out there?

So after all that, after all the blood and treasure lost in supporting one claimant after another, why go through it all again for a nobody with ice in his veins?

[Voice]

Aerys pops his clogs in King's Landing,

There's no need to get graphic here BC.

1. First off the blocks is Viserys Targaryen, the King's second son. The first son (ungrateful wretch) has gotten himself killed along with his known children so it seems a straightforward claim. Except he's also the Beggar King and as his sister sadly observes, no dragon.

"Gotten himself"? Seems like Aerys helped him there a tad wee bit. But yes, and as we now know, Viserys is the heir.

2. Then there's the sister, again a good claim albeit she's a woman, but she does have dragons so there's no doubting she's Aerys' daughter. Trouble is she's in the land of far far away and by all accounts making a complete hash of things.

That, and "...young girls have been known to be fickle."

3. Fear not, up comes number three, Aegon son of Rhaegar and allegedly not dead after all. Great start, unlike 1 & 2 he's actually made it to Westeros, raised his banners and isn't demonstrably mad. In fact looks pretty good all round. OK too good to be true but we're the readers not the actors and real or not he's a better bet than Cersei Lannister.

So far, he's the most likeable Targaryen, and he's probably not even a Targaryen. As GRRM proved with ADWD, we shouldn't judge a book by its cover ;) and, a name is just a name. I can see the little fAeg being a really good king. :D

4. Yes there is a four

At least there isn't a six.

5. And so we come to Kit Harrington, sorry Jon Snow, the bastard boy from up north. Sorry, who? Another bloody son of Rhaegar? How many more are there out there?

So after all that, after all the blood and treasure lost in supporting one claimant after another, why go through it all again for a nobody with ice in his vein

Yup. The awkward teenager with a northern accent and a direwolf would never be taken seriously in King's Landing. He's our favorite bastard and all, but he ain't exactly charismatic (case in point, this... which is practically canon in its accuracy).

[MaesterSam]

Exactly the same is true of the Targaryens. Westeros has a long history and the near 300 year rule of the Dragonlords only accounts for a very short part of that history. They are interlopers and without their dragons their claim to rule is pretty shallow by comparison with a son of Winterfell.

Yes but what do you mean, without their dragons? There were three last time I counted. ;)

The question of the meaning of the Song of Ice and Fire has to be pretty fundamental to the outcome. There's a general assumption in some quarters that Jon fits the bill because if R+L=J is true then he represents the union of Ice and Fire, but is that really what Rhaegar was aiming at.

Seemingly he originally thought that he himself was the chosen one. Beyond that wood witch muttering that the Prince would come of the same line as himself we don't know by what signs he was to be known. However what we do know is that Rhaegar himself was a Dragonlord - he was Fire. Then for some reason he decided it wasn't him after all but was determined to sire the hero and so we have his son Aegon, the child in the House of the Undying Vision and confirmed as such by GRRM. It is of Aegon that Rhaegar declares he has a song; "the song of ice and fire." Now once again young Aegon is a Dragonlord born this time of a Dornish mother, but he is Fire without a drop of Ice in his veins, so when Rhaegar pronounces his to be the song of ice and fire he's not talking of a union but of a battle between the two and that Aegon, he believes, is destined to fight the good fight as the champion of Fire against the Ice.

:agree: Dany is already the Fire champion, with two Targ parents and three dragons. What would be the point of having her counterpart be half and half? If one is pure Fire, the other should be pure Ice. Which means Jon is either a Stark-incest bastard, or the Mance and Lya theory is closer to the truth than we thought. :devil:

He certainly acts entirely like a Stark, looks entirely like one, has no dragon dreams (but wargs a direwolf!), and has been living in the coldest place in Westeros for almost the entire series...

Of course it's possible that Aegon was supposed to help settle the Song that Ice and Fire will be engaging in, once Dany arrives in Westeros. Perhaps this prince was promised as a savior who will end the Song that is destroying the world?

Neither. He was King. Not a jelly-donut king like we saw with Robert, but a real King.

Were his punishments severe? Yes. In this way his justice mirrors that of Stannis. In fact, there are other similarities with Stannis... readers often 'like' Stannis because he promotes based on ability, rather than nobility. Aerys was the same way. One need only look at his appointment of Varys to see that.

Well yes... but also no. I agree that Aerys was less mad than most people believe. Even his final plan may not have been mad: Dany also had a dream where she turned into a dragon. She then started a huge funeral pyre, laid her eggs in it and went to join them - emerging as the Mother of Dragons. Aerys wanted to make all of KL a funeral pyre. But he didn't expect to die- and maybe he wouldn't have. Only death can pay for life- with thousands burned, who knows what sorts of powers would have been released?

That being said- he was clearly emotionally unstable, and there is that whole thing with him not cutting his hair & fingernails in years. A loss of personal hygiene is a key indicator of mental illness. One could say his punishments were no more cruel than what Stannis does, but Aerys burned people not for justice but b/c he enjoyed watching them burn. Rickard wasn't just burned, he was slowly cooked alive in his armor. Aerys burned his own Hand (Chelsted) for quitting on him after he revealed his plan to burn the city.

The man clearly was having some mental difficulties. Was he as batshit crazy as Robert's historians would have us believe? Probably not. But I wouldn't compare him to Stannis who, despite being harsh and unyielding, utilizes rational judgement when making his decisions. He burns not for fun, but b/c Mel gains power from these events; power that ultimately benefits Stannis.

[TheSmallOther]

Was there any justice when Aerys decided to burn Rickard? Well, no. If you choose trial by combat, you'd expect to have at least some chances against your opponent. Against fire your chances are zero. No monarch can expect his vassals to stay loyal to him for long, if this is his way of fair trial. If Aerys thought Starks are traitors, he had to name them as such and punish for it, not pretend he is just. Instead he chose fire, since (as we know from KG) this form of trial made his member hard.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Nah, I disagree. That synopsis was sketched out for three volumes way back at the beginning. Over time the story has expanded, roles have been re-assigned and new characters added. It has changed in a lot of ways but yet the underlying structure is still recognisably there.

I'd say the underlying structure is still recognisably gone. :) But I essentially agree with you, I think, Black Crow - in that we can still see what it should have been. And the original components are still there... they've just been rearranged a bit. It terms of the original three-part threat structure, the second and third "threats" to Westeros have certainly been crammed together toward the back of the story.

My guess is that the most relevant portion of the synopsis letter, as far as we're concerned today, is the redacted bit. And for the obvious reason(s).

[Direwolf Blitzer]

The male line died with Bonnie Prince Charlie though.

Perhaps he might come back again.

[Matthew.]

Here's one I prepared earlier

I wasn't making any commentary about Jon Snow's potential future, I'm very specifically talking about the attitudes of the commoners and the minor lords toward the Targaryens. I don't agree that, to the average Westerosi, they're now the "foreign dragonlords," or that there's any general trend toward rejecting the Iron Throne.

I don't even see why this should be something that needs arguing, Varys' entire scheme is contingent upon the idea that "Aegon VI Targaryen" is a name that carries a lot of weight (the only actual army he has is a mercenary group), and will naturally help him win a following; given that GRRM was, at one point, teasing a Dance with Dragons 2.0 in SSMs, I'm going to hazard a guess that Aegon VI will be seeing a lot of success, until Dany shows up.

[wolfmaid7]

Letting you guys know Heresy 164 is back up.The Mods let me know they were just cleaning up some things so we haven't lost it.

[Voice]

And the original components are still there... they've just been rearranged a bit. It terms of the original three-part threat structure, the second and third "threats" to Westeros have certainly been crammed together toward the back of the story.

Indeed. And while they seem crammed, I think that's mostly because he replaced the 5-year gap with the Meereenese Knot (aka, "stalling").

[Black Crow]

I wasn't making any commentary about Jon Snow's potential future, I'm very specifically talking about the attitudes of the commoners and the minor lords toward the Targaryens. I don't agree that, to the average Westerosi, they're now the "foreign dragonlords," or that there's any general trend toward rejecting the Iron Throne.

The original post was about Jon Snow I'll grant you but the point I was making and still am is that whilst the Targaryens may regard themselves as the rightful lawful kings there's a limit to how far they can take it when dealing with houses that go way back thoudands of years and a limit too to how many Targaryen pretenders people are willing to rise for.

[Black Crow]

Indeed. And while they seem crammed, I think that's mostly because he replaced the 5-year gap with the Meereenese Knot (aka, "stalling").

Yes, I have a strong suspicion that Aegon may have started off dead but has been resurrected by GRRM in order to fill the gap caused by the failure of Danaerys the Dragonlord to arrive in Westeros in a timely fashion.

[Black Crow]

Yes but what do you mean, without their dragons? There were three last time I counted. ;)

Indeed, but they are currently out east and believed to be mythical. I'm talking about a family with only their dragons to "recommend" them, but who otherwise are not so beloved as they might like to pretend.

[Matthew.]

Yes, I have a strong suspicion that Aegon may have started off dead but has been resurrected by GRRM in order to fill the gap caused by the failure of Danaerys the Dragonlord to arrive in Westeros in a timely fashion.

Maybe, but as long-time readers are aware, the return of "Aegon VI" was a fan theory that was over a decade old by the time of ADWD, and did indeed end up being true. We have foreshadowing of the Cloth Dragon as early as aCoK, and a couple SSM's from ~2000ish where GRRM gives very ambiguous answers as to whether or not Aegon was truly dead, as well as hinting at a second Dance of the Dragons. I think he intended Aegon to be a factor at least as early as aCoK, but the story growing in the telling fucked up the execution of both his and Dany's plotlines.

Edit for clarity: I don't mean he intended Aegon to be a factor in aCoK, just that he had already decided he would show up eventually by the time that he'd begun writing aCoK.

[Black Crow]

Maybe, but as long-time readers are aware, the return of "Aegon VI" was a fan theory that was over a decade old by the time of ADWD, and did indeed end up being true. We have foreshadowing of the Cloth Dragon as early as aCoK, and a couple SSM's from ~2000ish where GRRM gives very ambiguous answers as to whether or not Aegon was truly dead, as well as hinting at a second Dance of the Dragons. I think he intended Aegon to be a factor at least as early as aCoK, but the story growing in the telling fucked up the execution of both his and Dany's plotlines.

Edit for clarity: I don't mean he intended Aegon to be a factor in aCoK, just that he had already decided he would show up eventually by the time that he'd begun writing aCoK.

I have a recollection of an SSM in which GRRM confirmed that the child in the House of the Undying vision is dead. That said, I think the decision to revive him came when GRRM found himself entangled in the Mereenese knot and realised way back then that Danaerys wasn't going to make it.

I think that the real question arising out of this centres around her. In the original synopsis book 1 was to see the Starks and the Lannisters tear Westeros apart, then in book 2 just as the Lannisters think they have won up comes Danaerys the Dragonlord like the Devil at prayers. Then comes book 3 and the Others.

Hasn't worked out that way, so, is Aegon just filling in until she gets to Westeros, or is she now not coming? If GRRM is still aiming to wrap this up in two there isn't a lot of time left for her to fight her way halfway across the known world, conquer Westeros and then deal with the horror in the North.

[JNR]

If GRRM is still aiming to wrap this up in two there isn't a lot of time left for her to fight her way halfway across the known world, conquer Westeros and then deal with the horror in the North.

:agree:

Though if he accelerates matters a tad -- by leveraging Vicky's fleet to get her, the dragons, and the Unsullied to Westeros -- I won't even be faintly surprised.

(This would also give him a way to get Dany past every city between Meereen and Pentos without her feeling mysteriously obliged to free the slaves and "rule" for five years in each one for no apparent reason.)