Jump to content

Who is Azor Ahai?


Recommended Posts

and how you get to decide that GRRM was speaking about dragons when he tells not to take literally ..did he say dont take dragons waking from stone too literal. if so show me the quote

lets see what are the things that shows dany doesnt fit too literally

she was the dragon that woke from stone ..metaphor for dragon and we have whole chapter dedicated for her waking as dragon in AGOT

she drew the dragons out of fire when the red star was bleeding ..
dragons being metaphor for the light bringer which has foreshadowings over ACOK and ADWD

I already provided the quote. Dany fits literally, and people are calling her AA. No one is talking about Dany being woken from stone, but her dragons. 

 

Except that is a literal interpretation of the prophecy. The prophecy doesn't refer to making a sword once, and whenerver there is a dragon in a prophecy it is a metaphor not for a sword, but a Targaryen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I've always been of the thought that there would indeed be three saviors, due to the three-headed dragon talk. However, I've always liked the idea of Jon (Ice and Fire) being the prince that was promised ("...his is the song of ice and fire" alluding to his Stark/Targaryen parentage), Daenerys (Fire) being Azor Ahai (due to her literally fulfilling the prophecy) and Bran (Ice) being the Last Hero.

The evidence for Bran being the Last Hero isn't as strong as the evidence for Dany being Azor Ahai is. However, of all the characters in the books, he is the only one that (knowingly or not) sook out the children of the forest.

Plus, over and over again, he tells himself that he will never be a knight like he had always wanted. It's possible, either by warging or by utilizing a special saddle, that he would fly as a dragon knight. What greater knights are there than those that ride dragons?

I will concede, though, that if the third head is not Bran, then Tyrion makes sense as well. He would throw off the Ice and Fire dynamic at I was going for.

 

I like the idea of an Ice + Fire + Ice-and-Fire (balance) trinity, manifested as Bran, Dany and Jon. I do think the idea of balance is important. My only problem with this theory is that (as it is described here) all three of them are associated with dragons (as the three heads of the dragon or as dragonriders). Dragons are fire creatures, so where is the balance if they are all the heads of the same dragon? 

 

Or do we have to suppose there is another interpretation of the word dragon in the case of the phrase three-headed dragon, which is neither the "magical animal" meaning nor the "true Targaryen" meaning? (Neither real dragons nor Targaryens have three heads, after all, so it might be some further, metaphorical meaning of the word perhaps.)

 

The only way I can imagine this to really work with literal dragons is if the three heroes ride three different types of dragons: a fire dragon, an ice dragon, and something that could be an ice-and-fire dragon.  :dunno:

 

Nobody is Azor Ahai. He's long gone and won't be coming coming back literally. Not even Azor Ahai was Azor Ahai. Clearly his legend was woven together from both truth and falsehood. If ever there was a real hero named  Azor Ahai then he didn't kill his wife, or else he was no hero. A genuine hero does not sacrifice his beloved wife or daughter, but him or herself. I hope that is the kind of hero we'll get at the end of this. Some hero or heroes may be coming, and they may indeed fulfil prophecy. But they must not be anyone who bleeds, burns up or drowns innocent people in the name of some deity or other. 

 

I agree 100% with this. Well said.  :agree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of an Ice + Fire + Ice-and-Fire (balance) trinity, manifested as Bran, Dany and Jon. I do think the idea of balance is important. My only problem with this theory is that (as it is described here) all three of them are associated with dragons (as the three heads of the dragon or as dragonriders). Dragons are fire creatures, so where is the balance if they are all the heads of the same dragon? 
 
Or do we have to suppose there is another interpretation of the word dragon in the case of the phrase three-headed dragon, which is neither the "magical animal" meaning nor the "true Targaryen" meaning? (Neither real dragons nor Targaryens have three heads, after all, so it might be some further, metaphorical meaning of the word perhaps.)
 
The only way I can imagine this to really work with literal dragons is if the three heroes ride three different types of dragons: a fire dragon, an ice dragon, and something that could be an ice-and-fire dragon.  :dunno:
 

Turumarth, on 26 Jul 2015 - 10:46 PM, said:
Nobody is Azor Ahai. He's long gone and won't be coming coming back literally. Not even Azor Ahai was Azor Ahai. Clearly his legend was woven together from both truth and falsehood. If ever there was a real hero named Azor Ahai then he didn't kill his wife, or else he was no hero. A genuine hero does not sacrifice his beloved wife or daughter, but him or herself. I hope that is the kind of hero we'll get at the end of this. Some hero or heroes may be coming, and they may indeed fulfil prophecy. But they must not be anyone who bleeds, burns up or drowns innocent people in the name of some deity or other.


 
I agree 100% with this. Well said.  :agree:

My conclusion after a fair amount of research was that Azor Ahai did live, but he was no hero. Indeed, a true hero sacrifices themselves, not their wives or children. That was always my gut feeling, but when I dug into Azor Ahai everything pointed to him being a bad dude, in fact, I think he's the Bloodstone Emperor. At least, those are both names for the same person. He had more to do with triggering the Long Night than ending it. In theory, of course, but it lines up with people's instinct here about the R'llorists and fire magic practitioners.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My conclusion after a fair amount of research was that Azor Ahai did live, but he was no hero. Indeed, a true hero sacrifices themselves, not their wives or children. That was always my gut feeling, but when I dug into Azor Ahai everything pointed to him being a bad dude, in fact, I think he's the Bloodstone Emperor. At least, those are both names for the same person. He had more to do with triggering the Long Night than ending it. In theory, of course, but it lines up with people's instinct here about the R'llorists and fire magic practitioners.

 

Yes, and this is the conclusion that kind of turns the whole "who is Azor Ahai" problem upside down for me. (Suddenly I'm not so eager for Jon to be AAR, to say just one example  :D - although I know the implications for the BSE and the AE in this respect.) So people are looking for a saviour figure in the books to identify him/her with AA, but it may be the wrong premise to start with. If AA is indeed a champion of R'hllor, then he/she will be a saviour figure from Mel's point of view, but is that really what Planetos needs?

 

Would anyone be interested in examining how the possible AA clues in the novel work out when we start with the premise that AA may be a bad guy (human sacrifice, dangerous monsters etc.)?

 

But then again, perhaps it is also possible that Azor Ahai Reborn (as all other men) has a choice and can actually choose to go down the route of the original AA or to do certain crucial things differently (perhaps with a chance to truly defeat the enemies of mankind this time). Or perhaps the different Azor Ahai candidates can all choose...

 

Hang on, LmL, I've got some (other) thoughts to share with you. :idea: I'll be visiting one of yout threads soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julia:

 

I like that, even if they are somehow destined to be the ones foretold, they still have a choice. Maybe evil comes from taking prophecy too literally and that's what leads people like Melisandre or Stannis to make the awful choices they have made.

 

LmL:

 

AA may have been a bad dude: Interesting, and quite possible, especially if it turns out that the Others aren't  as purely evil as they appear to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot really take a quote referring to a general principle in fiction-writing (prophecies shouldn't be too easy if you want to spoil your own novels - if I remember correctly even Shakespeare knew that much) and then claim that Daenerys fits the prophecy in a too literal way. We don't even know whether the identity of the savior is supposed to be a mystery or whether we should be able to guess or infer who the savior is from all the clues George gives us. 

 

Coming up with TMK as an example doesn't help all that much, either - the very nature of the setting made it impossible for Daemon II to hatch a real dragon egg at Whitewalls. Westerosi history demanded that, as well as that any dragons in prophetic dreams would not actually refer to literal dragons in pre-Daenerys (but post-153 AC) days. The very idea that the 'true meaning' of 'waking dragons from stone' is going to be pitiful variation of the rather ad hoc interpretation of Daemon's dreams done by Brynden Rivers in TMK is quite unlikely if you ask me.

 

Real dragons woken from stone beat any metaphoric interpretation of the same thing by lengths - even if Jon Snow is going to wake some metaphoric dragons in this story nobody would care if he was compared to Daenerys in this fashion, and if nobody cares he would never become the savior (unless he can fulfill his task completely on his own without anyone ever knowing or caring about his parentage).

 

But then, there is no reason to believe that there has to be only one savior while we still don't know the full text of the prophecy, nor is there any indication this series will be able to conclude with only one hero. Bran usually doesn't get covered much in all of that talk because he quite obviously doesn't fit any prophesied stuff but it is quite obvious that he is going to play the most important part in all that simply because magic and knowledge are going to be much more important than swords or even dragons.

 

If George wanted one major hero he'd not have chosen the POV structure and he would also not have established this many heroic POVs who are set up to be part of one big story rather than only dealing with their own petty (and pitiful) arcs. And we know that the main characters will stay there until the very end - according to the original outline Dany, Jon, Tyrion, Bran, and Arya (although I imagine Sansa, Davos, Jaime, and Brienne might also stay until the finale).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is going to be one AA, Daenerys is the most likely based on what the prophecy says and what has happened till now.

 

But I think, there will be more than one (if AA exists in this era).

 

 

 

But then, there is no reason to believe that there has to be only one savior while we still don't know the full text of the prophecy, nor is there any indication this series will be able to conclude with only one hero. Bran usually doesn't get covered much in all of that talk because he quite obviously doesn't fit any prophesied stuff but it is quite obvious that he is going to play the most important part in all that simply because magic and knowledge are going to be much more important than swords or even dragons.

 

If George wanted one major hero he'd not have chosen the POV structure and he would also not have established this many heroic POVs who are set up to be part of one big story rather than only dealing with their own petty (and pitiful) arcs. And we know that the main characters will stay there until the very end - according to the original outline Dany, Jon, Tyrion, Bran, and Arya (although I imagine Sansa, Davos, Jaime, and Brienne might also stay until the finale).

Agree. There will be many heroes, and perhaps many AA's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot really take a quote referring to a general principle in fiction-writing (prophecies shouldn't be too easy if you want to spoil your own novels - if I remember correctly even Shakespeare knew that much) and then claim that Daenerys fits the prophecy in a too literal way. 

 

Why the hell not? Dany fits the prophecy too literally. 

 

We don't even know whether the identity of the savior is supposed to be a mystery or whether we should be able to guess or infer who the savior is from all the clues George gives us. 

 

We do know. The identity of the savior is a mystery for the time being since two candidates were produced to be the one. And if the prophecies do not have a meaningful resolution one way or the other, then it would be a clusterfuck for George.

 

Coming up with TMK as an example doesn't help all that much, either - the very nature of the setting made it impossible for Daemon II to hatch a real dragon egg at Whitewalls. Westerosi history demanded that, as well as that any dragons in prophetic dreams would not actually refer to literal dragons in pre-Daenerys (but post-153 AC) days. The very idea that the 'true meaning' of 'waking dragons from stone' is going to be pitiful variation of the rather ad hoc interpretation of Daemon's dreams done by Brynden Rivers in TMK is quite unlikely if you ask me.

 

Do you have any evidence to back that up or is it your fanwish going against the text? 

 

Real dragons woken from stone beat any metaphoric interpretation of the same thing by lengths - even if Jon Snow is going to wake some metaphoric dragons in this story nobody would care if he was compared to Daenerys in this fashion, and if nobody cares he would never become the savior (unless he can fulfill his task completely on his own without anyone ever knowing or caring about his parentage).

 

It does not matter whether people will know or care. The person who saved Westeros in the Long Night goes anonymous.

 

But then, there is no reason to believe that there has to be only one savior while we still don't know the full text of the prophecy, nor is there any indication this series will be able to conclude with only one hero. Bran usually doesn't get covered much in all of that talk because he quite obviously doesn't fit any prophesied stuff but it is quite obvious that he is going to play the most important part in all that simply because magic and knowledge are going to be much more important than swords or even dragons.

 

Every single prophecy in ASOIAF is about a single hero. There are no multiple heroes in any of the savior myths we know in the story. If Jon is the prophesized savior, will you say that all the people who helped him or saved his life (like Qhorin) are the most important characters? A secondary character might have an important part to play although the prophesied savior is someone else. We do not know Bran will do.

 

If George wanted one major hero he'd not have chosen the POV structure and he would also not have established this many heroic POVs who are set up to be part of one big story rather than only dealing with their own petty (and pitiful) arcs. And we know that the main characters will stay there until the very end - according to the original outline Dany, Jon, Tyrion, Bran, and Arya (although I imagine Sansa, Davos, Jaime, and Brienne might also stay until the finale).

 

None of these opinions necessarily mean that there will not be a single hero. Every character is the hero of their own story. There are many stories in this saga. The Battle for Dawn is only one of them, albeit the most important one. War of the Five Kings was a major part of the saga and neither Jon, nor Dany, nor Bran were the heroes of this story. It is entirely plausible that the Batle for Dawn will require a single hero regardless of how many POVS survive and take part in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, based on all the evidence of the books, SSMs and the overall structure of the series that seems to be setting up Dany and Jon as central figures at opposite ends of the Planetos, that Dany is AA reborn and Jon is the Last Hero reborn.
So who is the Prince that Was Promised? Both? None?


And Tyrion is Lann reborn....


My take on AA is that it must be someone who is REborn, not simply born. In other words the character needs to die, and it is their resurrection that needs to involve salt and smoke.

So while I agree with ealier posts that show how Dany seems to fit with the AA prophesy so far, I am not convinced she will ultimately be AA. Instead I think that she is TPtwP, who is not the same person as AA, because there is actually no evidence at all that these prophesies refer to the same person. Instead there is some obscure Targaryen conviction that a Prince will come from their line, as well as something about three dragon heads. A glimpse of how the three heads thing might work is Visenya, Rhaenys and Aegon, so triarchs of some combination.

IMO Jon's resurrection will involve salt (Theon's sacrifice) and smoke (Mel's fire) and the bleeding star will also be present in some form, whether it is the same comet or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mithras,

 

Dany doesn't fit the prophecy too literally since we don't even know what exactly the prophecy said (unless you have hidden the text up your sleeve and aren't sharing it with us). You have to catch very subtle clues to realize that it is very likely that Dragonstone is the place of smoke and salt, and the great storm heralding Daenerys' birth isn't exactly emphasized on every page as a divine sign identifying her as the savior. More importantly, you have to go to TMK (Egg stating that there is a prophecy foretelling the return of the Targaryen dragons) and catch Selyse's lines that the savior has to wake dragons from stone to realize what's going on. Not to mention that the dragons as Lightbringer are a not-literal reading of the whole Lightbringer part of the prophecy.

 

As to the clues: Well, since Daenerys is obviously the addressee of the Undying in their prophecies (if you doubt that then it might also make sense to doubt whether Maggy was talking about Cersei in her prophecies) her being the Slayer of Lies is a pretty strong hint that she is the real deal if we interpret Stannis, Aegon, and whatever the third visions is as false saviors, and lies in that sense. When last I looked lies could not be slain literally, and thus the best way to slay them metaphorically would be to embody truth, to be the real savior rather than a false one. The fact that Jon does not exactly feature prominently in all that - being merely symbolized as a blue rose on the Wall - doesn't make it likely that he is going to play an important part in all that.

 

When I last read AGoT the setting of the story established that the dragons were dead for 150 years. That means we all knew that Daemon II could not possibly hatch a literal dragon egg at Whitewalls long before we even read that story. Not without a serious retcon involving secret history. And neither could any dragon dream in THK refer to a literal dragon considering that they were all dead at that time, right?

Knowing Dany's miracle hatching in AGoT we know that nobody else if going to pull something similar off in a minor novella, and subsequently any dragon dream foretelling the hatching of a dragon egg isn't going to be fulfilled literally.

 

When I last looked, then Rhaegar believed there were three guys necessary for whatever the promised prince was supposed to do, not just one guy. I doubt that this is in there to be a red herring, too. George really seems to like to confuse people like you since you seem to be seeing a lot of red herrings in hints you don't like to take seriously.

 

This is also one story, not several stories. George says this is supposed to be one huge novel, not several. Robb and Ned could have played their part if they hadn't died, but they weren't the major characters - those are destined to survive until the final and play their part in that, according to the original outline.

 

Avalatis,

 

well, I think we could see Dany as 'reborn' in a metaphorical sense as the Mother of Dragons. At the pyre the dragons were hatched from stone, the bleeding star was there in the sky, a metaphorical Lightbringer was drawn from the fire, and she fundamentally changed which could be considered a rebirth. But then, nothing suggests that a rebirth is actually necessary, especially not in the Targaryen version of the prophecy (and neither in the Azor Ahai thing, as they talk about a reborn Azor Ahai, not a person who is reborn during their lifetime) - and even if it is, rebirth could be nothing but a fundamental change of sorts.

 

An actual rebirth in the sense of the rebirth of a dead person is rather unlikely in Martinworld considering the fact that there is no religion or magical tradition preaching this kind of thing on a regular basis, and neither are there people who actually (claim to) remember their past lives.

 

Jon's resurrection/return to life could be a 'rebirth' in a metaphorical sense if it coincides with the revelation of his true parentage. If not, then he would remain the same guy unless something else changes him fundamentally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting thread... particularly in this subject that's been discussed a thousand times and one :D

 

These days I was thinking the third part of every triad in THotU are all about Jon Snow, who (I think) is the Song of Ice and Fire. So it would be interesting if Jon is trying to carry the world on his shoulders, but then comes Daenerys and "slays the lie" but bottom line she helps him at the same time. I mean she has already a history that supports the theory that states that big crisis produces improvements in the far aftermath. She knows how to kick the beehive, only time will tell how that was an improvement in Astapor and Meereen.

Besides, she has embraced the Fire and Blood at the end of the fifth book. This Azor Ahai reborn could be a "savior" like the Red Priests say, but I don't see it as a peaceful or healer savior, like Jon "Let's save the world" Snow. Dany fits better in this sort of ambiguous figure of dark savior AAR. Maybe this is going too far, but Jon is more like Baelor the blessed and Dany is more like Bloodraven. Jon is trying to do "the right thing" but he messes things up. Dany is kicking asses and shaking the inertia but in a not so "the right thing to do" kind of way. Dany messes things up to fix them.
This is the way I see it, of course I might be wrong, and I think the theories about Jon being AAR are really interesting. I just don't see it that way.

 

 

ETA:

 

PS: In a religious context, people reborn from within. The Red Priests have a religious PoV. That fits Dany "waking the dragon", embracing "Fire and Blood" when she remembers who she is.

The zombie stuff is a kind of tricky. (Like Lady Stark, Lady Stoneheart).
I think that's the usual GRRM style playing the metaphorical and literal game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
The only thing Dany sacrificed in AGoT was MMD. And that is far from being a beloved of Dany.
 
Jon sacrificed his own life for the Realm right from the moment he swore his vows.
 
 
Jon already sacrificed Ygritte as a loved one. My guess is that while he is in Ghost, he will allow Val to sacrifice Ghost's life to heal his own.

Oh no. Please...not that. I love Ghost.

I think, based on all the evidence of the books, SSMs and the overall structure of the series that seems to be setting up Dany and Jon as central figures at opposite ends of the Planetos, that Dany is AA reborn and Jon is the Last Hero reborn.

So who is the Prince that Was Promised? Both? None?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...