Jump to content

A+J=T v.5


UnmaskedLurker

Recommended Posts

ok I hope you are right. I am worried because what else is the point of showing us about the 2nd life in Varamyr's chapter? It'll have to come into play at some point. And that stuff about Jojen knowing a white wolf kills him does make a lot of sense.

yes I really really hope Kit is lying, or that D&D are lying to him and we are all getting tricked. that kind of international hoax would be OK with me if it means we get Jon back.

Well I was not prepared for Stannis to go down that way, especially not to Ramsay. Ramsay should have no victories. and just the HBO spoiler fact bothered the hell out of me wrt Stannis. This next book had better freaking come out in the next 8 months!!!!!

that's a good point, that bittersweet ending would be better than what I'm picturing lol. GRRM's version of bittersweet could be "oh yeah all the humans died and the white walkers are on the IT now, but there is no more war." or something crazy.

The point of the second life could be to show how the "god hood" of the old gods religion works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly don't think you even can put together all the clues big and small at this point, glad to see the discussion occurring now though.

Just from reading over this last page

1. Hilarious red herring definition exchange.

2. The Moqorro vision is terribly indicative of the spitefully nonsensical manner with which this theory is disputed, where people literally take things like said vision and Aunt Genna's comments to Jaime that're in support of this theory in actuality, yet use them against the theory like "oh well moqorro see's dragons and Tyrion = they're different/Tyrion isn't a dragon." Like no he's being mentioned in the same breath as all the other Dragons/Targs, and noted as casting a large shadow in the midst of them all. How does dwarf cast a large shadow? (which is ftr one of the bigger pieces of evidence in favor going back to like the 2nd Jon chapter in book 1) And whats the alternative to the way its being worded lol? Like you can't buy into it unless GRRM puts it like "dragons..... and you a small man, also a dragon....."

Glad I could amuse you (although I really was being 100% serious). But notice that the poster claiming "red herring" has not come back to answer the question -- nor has anyone else taken up the challenge. Of course, I need to give people more time as opponents of AJT may not frequent this thread very often. But I really have yet to hear a coherent argument for what GRRM really is doing with all these clues. What is the overall point if not to give foreshadowing for AJT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refuse to go into R+L=J. Those threads are a deep dark hole, from which you will never return. But Jon is not going to be wargin Hodor. Neither Hodor nor anybody else are leaving that cave with all those wights about. If they were waiting to ambush Bran's arrival, it would be a gigantic plot hole to remove them and allow Bran's doomed friends to depart. I suppose Meera might try to fight her way free, but...

ok I hear ya. So you think the whole thing with Jojen knowing his own death by wolf is not true either?

Glad I could amuse you (although I really was being 100% serious). But notice that the poster claiming "red herring" has not come back to answer the question -- nor has anyone else taken up the challenge. Of course, I need to give people more time as opponents of AJT may not frequent this thread very often. But I really have yet to hear a coherent argument for what GRRM really is doing with all these clues. What is the overall point if not to give foreshadowing for AJT.

Yes you have given all nay-sayers plenty of opportunities to give any alternative explanation for the multiple clues you mentioned in your post earlier. No one has done it yet :)

As a player of CK2, I'm a big fan of them…but I also know that they were nowhere near as common nor as widespread in history as they are in the game, and there's no indication that Westeros has anything like them.

that's the first thing that came up on Google, Crusader Kings, lol.

Well when Rhaenyra's offpsring took the IT, Aegon III right? Isn't that an example of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well when Rhaenyra's offpsring took the IT, Aegon III right? Isn't that an example of it?

Not necessarily. Aegon III's father is Daemon. Aegon III arguably would have been next in line through Daemon rather than Rhaenyra. Daemon was the younger brother of King Viserys. Aegon II's line was left with no remaining male lines, so the inheritance would have gone back up the chain and down to Aegon III even under a completely male-line analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please go on. A red herring is a misleading clue. Here is the relevant definition from dictionary.com:

something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.

As you can see from this definition, the purpose of a red herring is to divert the reader from figuring out what is really going to happen. For example, assuming RLJ to be true, Wylla or Ashara as the mother serve as red herrings because they give the readers an alternative explanation that make it less likely the reader will consider Lyanna to be Jon's mother. So giving the readers the suggestion that Wylla or Ashara might be Jon's mother fits the definition because the information diverts attention (by making the reader consider that Wylla or Ashara might be the mother) from the real problem or matter at hand (i.e., that Lyanna really is the mother) and thus serves as a misleading clue (making the readers try to figure out between Wylla and Ahara -- when the answer is really neither but actually Lyanna).

So please explain here what is the "real problem or matter at hand" for which the clues for AJT serve? What is the "real mystery" that is less likely to be solved because the readers are thinking that AJT is the case and thus are less likely to figure out the solution to the real mystery?

And note that Wylla and Ashara are not "hidden clues" but rather clues that are out there in the open. Robert speculates that Wylla is the mother and Cat speculates that Ashara is the mother. So the readers don't have to examine indirect clues that have multiple meanings to find the red herring. It is odd for GRRM to make AJT a red herring and then make all the clues in favor of AJT so ambiguous without anyone ever suggesting directly that AJT might be true.

So please -- saying "red herring" is not an argument. Please explain precisely how it works as a red herring.

I'm partial to the "cozincest" theory for Tyrion what with Tywin and Joanna being first cousins and the fact Lannisters going way back were Casterleys. Casterley's being of the "First Men" persusion seem to have some genetic anomoly allowing for "deficiencies". This was intimated by Ygritte to Jon Snow, I think somewhere in SoS paraphrasing here "A man must steal his woman fron another village, it is incest to marry within the village population.

No, no no Jon isn't warging Hodor or Ghost. He is warging WunWun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm partial to the "cozincest" theory for Tyrion what with Tywin and Joanna being first cousins and the fact Lannisters going way back were Casterleys. Casterley's being of the "First Men" persusion seem to have some genetic anomoly allowing for "deficiencies". This was intimated by Ygritte to Jon Snow, I think somewhere in SoS paraphrasing here "A man must steal his woman fron another village, it is incest to marry within the village population.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. What does this statement have to do with my question about the argument that the AJT clue don't seem to qualify as a red herring? Are you saying it is a red herring for Tywin and Joanna being cousins -- but that is not a question -- we know they are cousins. Really, what are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm partial to the "cozincest" theory for Tyrion what with Tywin and Joanna being first cousins and the fact Lannisters going way back were Casterleys. Casterley's being of the "First Men" persusion seem to have some genetic anomoly allowing for "deficiencies". This was intimated by Ygritte to Jon Snow, I think somewhere in SoS paraphrasing here "A man must steal his woman fron another village, it is incest to marry within the village population.

No, no no Jon isn't warging Hodor or Ghost. He is warging WunWun!

^^^ what does that have to do with the 'red herring' discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm partial to the "cozincest" theory for Tyrion what with Tywin and Joanna being first cousins and the fact Lannisters going way back were Casterleys. Casterley's being of the "First Men" persusion seem to have some genetic anomoly allowing for "deficiencies". This was intimated by Ygritte to Jon Snow, I think somewhere in SoS paraphrasing here "A man must steal his woman fron another village, it is incest to marry within the village population.

No, no no Jon isn't warging Hodor or Ghost. He is warging WunWun!

So basically get called out on not knowing what you were talking about and consequently turning to huge troll comments to make it sem like you were trolling the whole time and not actually entirely unaware of the literary device you were speaking towards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I will say the Wun Wun thing has been on my mind.



I have always thought that Sansa and Robin's little snow castle incident was foreshadowing of Wun Wun tearing off the gates of winterfell to let the 'Snow' in. That would be cray if Jon was warging him.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the three above posters I'm suggesting the whole A+J=T versions 1 through 5 is a red herring. It is all in your heads just as my "cozincest" is in mine....



Has anyone ever noted the most telling clue to A+J=T?


AGoT Tyrion's first chapter...walks into the great hall and orders "a rasher of bacon Brunt Black"....now if that doesn't say he is Aerys son, what does?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ now by "in our heads' are you suggesting these things did not happen.....?




“That night TYrion Lannister dreamed of a battle that turned the hills of Westeros as red as blood. He was in the midst of it, dealing death with an axe as big as he was, fighting side by side with Barristan the bold and Bittersteel as dragons wheeled across the sky above them. In the dream he had two heads, both noseless. His father led the enemy, so he slew him once again. Then he killed his brother, Jaime, hacking at his face until it was a red ruin, laughing every time he struck a blow. Only when the fight was finished did he realize that his second head was weeping.” --Tyrion dreaming of dragons



"You are no son of mine"--Tywin Lannister (dying words)



Too rich, thought Tyrion, Too beautiful. It is never wise to tempt dragons. The drowned city was all around them. A half-seen shape flapped by overhead, pale and leathery wings beating at the fog. The dwarf craned his head around to get a better look, but the thing was gone as suddenly as it had appeared.” --DwD



"Since I cannot prove you are not mine" --Tywin lannister



"You are your mother's trueborn son of Lannister."


"Am I? the dwarf replied sardonic. "Do tell my lord father. my mother died birthing me and he's never been sure."--JOn and Ty GOT



App on Joanna


"In later years, Tywin's troubled relationship with Tyrion leads him to tell him that he wished he could prove Tyrion was not his son, suggesting that he is uncertain of Tyrion's parentage."



And of course the endless amount of info on AJT in WOIAF





ETA: And threads on this forum are not Red Herring's, Red Herrings exist in the literature, I think you are confused on what the phrase actually means.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok I hear ya. So you think the whole thing with Jojen knowing his own death by wolf is not true either?

Yes you have given all nay-sayers plenty of opportunities to give any alternative explanation for the multiple clues you mentioned in your post earlier. No one has done it yet :)

that's the first thing that came up on Google, Crusader Kings, lol.

Well when Rhaenyra's offpsring took the IT, Aegon III right? Isn't that an example of it?

Jojen is paste. Meera better hope Bran doesn't ask for a second helping.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suzanna, in my view TWoIaF completely negates any possibility of A+J=T, as far Tyrion's dreams that is exactly what they are dreams not clues, not foretellings, not prescience. What else is Tywin going to say with a bolt in his gut, Good boy? So Drogon flew over the Sorrows, so what? Tyrion talking to a melancholy fourteen old boy on his way what is little else than a monk's existence, yes, yes that is real proof (chuckle). Well, you got me on the app, I don't even own a cell phone. Shucks, why not use AGoT the crabfork fight and Aemon as proofparaphasing here "I think a giant has come among us, here, at the end of the world."And there is Genna saying "Tyrion is Tywin's son".


Oh, and Red Herrings are not just a literary device, they are anything, anywhere in any application meant to distract or mislead....A great example of Red Herring is all over CNN this week in upstate NY



Suzanna, quick rethink here with regards to the dream. If I remember correctly that dream is after Griff's enforced abstinence on Tyrion isn't it? It could prescience, then again it could alcohol withdrawal.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the three above posters I'm suggesting the whole A+J=T versions 1 through 5 is a red herring. It is all in your heads just as my "cozincest" is in mine....

Has anyone ever noted the most telling clue to A+J=T?

AGoT Tyrion's first chapter...walks into the great hall and orders "a rasher of bacon Brunt Black"....now if that doesn't say he is Aerys son, what does?

For now, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not trolling (although my troll detector is starting to rumble a bit).

What you seem to be suggesting is not that the clues are a red herring, but that the proponent of AJT are finding connections when they are not there and GRRM never intended anyone to see these "clues" as clues of anything -- they just are what they are in the story and mean nothing more than what they mean on their surface. Only in our "heads" do we connect these unconnected bits of information and turn them into "clues" for AJT. Is that a fair summary of your point? If it is -- just to be technical -- you are not arguing that the clues are a red herring -- rather you are arguing that there simply are no intended clues from GRRM -- he never expected anyone to think about AJT, and we are just inventing the theory out of bits and pieces of information that simply are not clues for anything. So your reference to red herring is just confusing, as that term means something else entirely.

But as to what I think is your point, I will try to address it head on. Prior to the release of WOIAF, I actually thought maybe I was seeing order from chaos merely because our minds are designed the think that way. I thought maybe I was seeing clues when none were intended. But then WOIAF came out, and any reasonable view that GRRM is not giving clues (I believe "true" clues -- but I cannot 100% guarantee that they are not "false" clues -- I just cannot come up with a reason for them to be false clues) toward AJT. Most specifically, GRRM tells the story of Joanna going to KL in the year prior to Tyrion's birth. GRRM also makes it clear that at a minimum, there were rumors about Joanna and Aerys having an affair while Joanna was in service to Rhaella. Finally, he discloses that a woman with black hair (Betha Blackwood) is married to Aegon V and would be grandmother to Aerys (explaining how Tyrion would have strands of black hair). How can these "clues" just be passed off as unintended back-story from GRRM that he had no idea anyone would connect to the AJT theory? It is implausible. It would just be such an incredible coincidence.

Please elaborate on how all these clues could just accidentally be put in the text if GRRM is not trying to hint at AJT? Please -- and try to give a straight answer rather than just a snarky and sarcastic comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok TWOIAF spells out the relationship Aerys and Joanna had, the affair. How his wife kicked her out of court due to the affair. Then it shows Aerys and Joanna in the same location in the year before Tyrion's birth, and Tywin trying to resign the morning after the tourney where 'something' definitely happened betwixt A and J, what happened exactly, we dont know. But something serious enough to make Tywin try and resign. So what exactly is negated in your view?



Tyrion is having a dragon dream there. Only Targaryens have those.



Tywin could say many things, but for GRRm to waste the great Tywin's last words with a throw-away statement? I have proven that is not like him at all, Showing everyone who has died's last words. Every single one is meaningful.



Tyrion is a dragonlord, Drogon was attracted to him, plus the significance of a POV outside of Meereen seeing Drogon. In literature things matter.



Yeah I know I 'got you on the app', it couldnt be more blatantly telling us something if it spit in our faces.



Crabfork fight? I am not familiar...



Yes Gemma did say that, and you know what Tywin did? He didnt speak to her at all, his sister whom he loved, for 6 straight months, simply because she told him Tyrion is similar to him. Strange reaction for a father no? Gemma is stating that Tyrion is smart like Tywin. Tyrion was raised by Tywin, so it makes sense that he would take after him a little right? Adopted children can still take after the people who raise them.




Right about Red HErrings, but you said, version 1-5 of this thread are red herrings. What are the threads a red herring for? That implies that Unmasked Lurker is making these threads to cover up something else. What pray tell is he covering up by trying to distract other posters with this thread exactly?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suzanna, quick rethink here with regards to the dream. If I remember correctly that dream is after Griff's enforced abstinence on Tyrion isn't it? It could prescience, then again it could alcohol withdrawal.

Incorrect, the dream is on Ilyrio's covered litter ride from Pentos to meet up with Griff, Tyrion is drinking the whole time. Bittersteel was of course a huge proponent of the Blackfyres, obviously, Tyrion has no idea Illyrio is involved with them, but mere days after meeting him, and days before finding out about the GC and fAegon, he is having a dream about dragons and Bittersteel (the founder of the GC). And you think that is all stupid coincidence? I would say it's willful ignorance on your part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unmasked, We have both read TWoIaF and we come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Oh, and remember under whose name wrote TWoIaF. Yandel makes the dedication to...Robert then Joffrey and finally Tommen. TWoIaF has a definite Baratheon/Lannister bent to it from say 259 onwards.


I see absolutely no possibility of Joanna allowing Aerys to get anywhere near her while at KL in 272. I am not female however I'd be as far way as I could get if I were in Joanna's position. after Aerys insulting/humiliating words.


There is never a suggestion that Aerys and Rhaella had malformed children, yes, there were stillbirths, premmies, and short term survivors but none that Yandel expressly suggests deviant.


The three surviving Aerys children would under most considerations be more than handsome.


It would make more sense if in fact Aerys and Joanna got together that say Jamie and Cersei would be the offspring rather than Tyrion.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few reasons why Moqorro would refer to Tyrion as a man but the other only as dragons. What I think KVT IV is suggesting -- and it makes sense to me -- is that when Moqorro sees someone in a vision that he actually has met, the person appears as himself (or herself) in the vision. For people that Moqorro has never met, they only appear as a symbol. Moreover, it is also possible that perhaps Moqorro sees Tyrion as a dragon in the vision, but understands that this dragon is Tyrion and so references that dragon as Tyrion to Tyrion. Moqorro simply might decide not to be explicit in telling Tyrion that he appears as a dragon in the vision but leaves that information ambiguous. And arguably Moqorro DOES refer to Tyrion as a dragon explicitly, depending on how people view the word "And" (as discussed by others up-thread).

The bottom line is that each and every clue has an alternative explanation. GRRM will NOT at this point make an clue consistent ONLY with AJT. GRRM wants the readers not to be 100% sure and does not want to leave a clue that could reasonably be understood ONLY to mean AJT. And the OP acknowledges this fact. When I wrote the OP (go back to my original OP from v.2 of this thread (before consigliere edited it and made it more user friendly) and see that this language relating to Moqorro has basically been the same for each version of this thread), I was careful to acknowledge that Moqorro's vision could be read to mean that Tyrion merely was among the other dragons and was not a dragon.

The point of the OP is to give anyone who is interested all the basic information in the text of the various books that could be understood to point toward AJT. But as I have stated many times before, every single clue has an alternative "innocent" explanation. No one clue is consistent ONLY with AJT. While some are harder to explain away than others, not one has been presented in a way that doesn't give GRRM an "out" if it turns out that AJT is not true. The argument essentially is that the accumulation of evidence is what makes the theory so powerful -- not any one "sliver bullet" that serves as "proof" of the theory.

Why would GRRM put in so many clues that reasonably could be interpreted to mean that AJT is true? Tyrion's parentage is never explicitly presented as a mystery and no one ever speculates out loud that Aerys might be the father of Tyrion -- so these clues don't fit the normal definition of a red herring. As Ran stated, the revelations in WOIAF regarding Joanna at KL in the year prior to Tyrion's birth added "fuel to the fire" of AJT. Why would GRRM do that? Is it just an accident and GRRM really was just adding an interesting "world building" side anecdote that "accidentally" points in favor of AJT and GRRM really was not thinking about AJT at all when he wrote that part of WOIAF? Is GRRM simply "punking" his loyal fans to give them something to obsess about before WoW is published because GRRM likes to get people discussing stupid theories that will not be true?

It is easy to pick apart each individual piece of evidence as not "proving" AJT. Destruction is always easier than construction. No one has asserted that any one piece of evidence is "proof" of AJT. The question is why are there so many pieces of evidence that suggest that Tyrion is a dragonseed? Why does GRRM give Tyrion hair color different than the other Lannisters? Why does GRRM only have 3 main characters who have mothers who die in childbirth -- Dany (a known Targ), Jon (who almost certainly will be revealed to be a Targ) and Tyrion? Why does GRRM have Tyrion fascinated with dragons when no other non-Targ character seems to be described as having this fascination? Why does GRRM bother to let the readers know that Joanna was in KL the year prior to Tyrion's birth?

Could these all be innocent coincidences? I really don't think so -- GRRM is too careful a writer for that. Could they be a red herring? I don't think so -- as explained above, it does not fit the normal definition of a red herring. Could it be misdirection of a different kind? I don't think so -- misdirection needs a purpose and I don't see what these clues could be misdirection for. Could it be GRRM is just having fun misleading some readers? Maybe, but GRRM seems to be more serious of a writer than to lay out a bunch of clues (some going back to the first book) just to have it go nowhere in order to fool a handful of hard core fans.

So my challenge to you -- or any other opponents of AJT -- is the following. Don't be destructive -- be constructive. Don't pick at individual clues to show they don't "prove" AJT is correct. We all know that each individual clue can have an "innocent" explanation. And while the "story arc" type analysis (such as it "ruins" the Tywin/Tyrion relationship) is valid, it is completely subjective (some think it enhances the Tywin/Tyrion relationship, for example, and we have no idea which side GRRM really is on) and avoids addressing the mounting evidence in favor of AJT. So my basic challenge is for someone to give an alternative explanation for why GRRM would put all of the clues outlined in the OP into the story if most of these clues will amount to nothing.

I won't have the time for a few days, but I just wanted to say that I'm going to respond to this in detail.. I'll even write it on a post it or something so I won't forget (if it seems like I did, feel free to remind me). A busy week or two ahead, so it might be a while..

I felt I had to respond to this, at least, because I figured I could not respond to Suzanna without responding to this post of yours, UL. :)

ok I hope you are right. I am worried because what else is the point of showing us about the 2nd life in Varamyr's chapter? It'll have to come into play at some point. And that stuff about Jojen knowing a white wolf kills him does make a lot of sense.

yes I really really hope Kit is lying, or that D&D are lying to him and we are all getting tricked. that kind of international hoax would be OK with me if it means we get Jon back.

Well I was not prepared for Stannis to go down that way, especially not to Ramsay. Ramsay should have no victories. and just the HBO spoiler fact bothered the hell out of me wrt Stannis. This next book had better freaking come out in the next 8 months!!!!!

that's a good point, that bittersweet ending would be better than what I'm picturing lol. GRRM's version of bittersweet could be "oh yeah all the humans died and the white walkers are on the IT now, but there is no more war." or something crazy.

What? Jojen killed by a white wolf? Could you quote that for me? I can't recall that part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...