Jump to content

Archived

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

UnmaskedLurker

A+J=T v.6

Recommended Posts

I disagree.
 
Tyrion and Tywin's relationship is true. We know for a exactly what happened between them (not everything, but a lot). The point I tried to make was: If Tywin isn't really Tyrions father (and he would've known) he wouldn't have cared. The reason their relationship is like that is because he is his son. Discussing the fact that this entire struggle doesn't work as good if it turns out he isn't his son, makes a valid point against A+J=T. This isn't based on speculation at all, but based on the current info we have. And IMO, making Tyrion the son of Aerys wouldn't fit the story arc as good, but we've already discussed that.
 
The speculation that he might fly a dragon is based on assumptions. I think those discussions shouldn't be in a topic which is to determine whether a theory is true ore not, because it doesn't add anything to the discussion. It only goes offtopic and it makes the theory weaker on itself, but that last part is just my opinion.


Superman does good, storylines should try to do well.

Sorry, I had to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a huge waste of storyline potential to knock off two dragons from use right away.

 

Who says that if Jon and Tyrion will never ride dragons, nobody else will? We've got a Aegon with targ blood (even if he's a blackfyre he has targ blood) and we've got a dragon horn with obvious magic surrounded by it. Who says Aegon and/or Victarion won't ride a dragon? Better yet, who says a dragon is useless if you can't ride it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I always felt like the backbone of the theory was:

 

- Tyrion is malformed, like many Targaryen babies

- Tyrion dreams about dragons

- "You are no son of mine.", "All dwarfs are bastards in their father's eyes" and other such quotes

- Aerys loved Joanna

 

None of this has to do with dragon-riding. That's just a consequence of the theory if it's true, not something to back it up.

Thank you exactly. There are dragonriding and NON-dragonriding reasons why this theory is true.  If Jon was constantly dreaming of drgaons as Tyrion does, there would be NO question as to why he was.  It would be an obvious nod to RLJ.

 

Also many posters seem to be under the impression that we are seeing something in the novels that doesnt exist, that the author does not intend.  Please see this, it's the App on Joanna Lannister (and it's sanctioned by GRRM, it's a fact, get over it);

 

"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 paternity."

 

Tywin doubts Tyrions paternity and there is only ONE person Joanna could have possibly had an affair with, only one! What more proof does anyone need that this theory is, at the very least, highly possible of being true.

 

 

Jaehaerys II and Aegon II's Jaehaerys lived with mild deformities. Tyrion could well be part of that category rather than the other. And we also don't know anything about the four children of Jaehaerys I or Prince Aegon, the brother of Viserys I and Daemon. Did they die in childbirth or did they live a few years or were carried away by sickness before they reached adulthood? Some of them might have been deformed in some fashion, but Yandel would have had no need to mention that.

 

It is established that there were deformed Targaryens who lived.

um Also Maelys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Superman does good, storylines should try to do well.

Sorry, I had to.

 

Once again, someone who just likes to mock my English. It's not my native language! Be happy I even try. 

 

FFS.

 

Edit because of obvious reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who says that if Jon and Tyrion will never ride dragons, nobody else will? We've got a Aegon with targ blood (even if he's a blackfyre he has targ blood) and we've got a dragon horn with obvious magic surrounded by it. Who says Aegon and/or Victarion won't ride a dragon? Better yet, who says a dragon is useless if you can't ride it? 

Everyone says it.  they are useless without riders. Dany is bonded with Drogon, she cant control the others anymore, not in a battle sense anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, someone who just likes to mock my English. It's not my native language! Be happy I even try. 
 
FFS.
 
Edit because of obvious reasons.


I'm not mocking you, that's not my style. Think of it as education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says that if Jon and Tyrion will never ride dragons, nobody else will? We've got a Aegon with targ blood (even if he's a blackfyre he has targ blood) and we've got a dragon horn with obvious magic surrounded by it. Who says Aegon and/or Victarion won't ride a dragon? Better yet, who says a dragon is useless if you can't ride it?


Many of us believe the Dragon horn is non-functional when it comes to dragons. And again, even if Aegon, Jon, and Tyrion have Targ blood, they can always go the way of Quentyn. It's also quite possible that Aegon isn't even a Blackfyre, for all we know he's the pisswater prince, or some bastard from Lys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suzanna,

 

oh, how could I forget Maelys. Damn Blackfyre name.

 

Yandel doesn't mention any deformities on Aerys' many children, yet that doesn't mean that those who died in the cradle were all healthy and well. They wouldn't have died if that had been the case. Gydayn mentions the deformities of Prince Jaehaerys in TRP, but Yandel doesn't mentions either them nor those of Jaehaerys II (we only get the crippled hand from the picture). Yandel is writing a history of the Targaryen reign, he doesn't give us physical descriptions of every prince that lived, not even of every king (which mean the frailer kings or even the great warrior types could have had some milder deformities - who knows how many toes Aerys I, Maekar, or Prince Rhaegel had?). Not to mention that dwelling on the deformities of royalty would be both distasteful to the readers as well as to the royals themselves. You don't want to be remembered that you are descended from a bunch of cripples - and Robert shares all of Aegon V's Targaryen ancestors - and you would not shower favors on people who describe your ancestors this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Everyone says it.  they are useless without riders. Dany is bonded with Drogon, she cant control the others anymore, not in a battle sense anyway.

 

Doesn't make them useless. 

 

I'm not mocking you, that's not my style. Think of it as education.

 

Good to hear it, but I have to say, you have a peculair way of educating. Maybe I can educate you a little in how to educate someone.

 

It wasn't even clear to me what my mistake was at first (make sure that's always clear)

I didn't even understood you're reference at first. Don't start out with an example, but first explain why something is wrong. After that give an example why it's wrong. 

Give me a try or two to see whether I've learned or not. If not, go back to the start.

 

Good luck! 

 

Many of us believe the Dragon horn is non-functional when it comes to dragons. And again, even if Aegon, Jon, and Tyrion have Targ blood, they can always go the way of Quentyn. It's also quite possible that Aegon isn't even a Blackfyre, for all we know he's the pisswater prince, or some bastard from Lys.

 

It's also possible for non targ blood people too ride dragons. We have no proof that it's a requirement.

Sorry, that's a bit far strechted, but I hope you get my point. This is all speculation and I tend to speak from facts, even though that's hard.

 

Maybe we should get back OT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

so the support for this theory is a another theory that the 3 heads of the dragon have to be dragonrider's. i don't remember that being confirmed. even the idea that all 3 have to be targ blooded is just a theory. we have never seen the prophecy for ourselves and IIRC no one has stated that.

 

and UL - you keep saying that the idea of AJT is only noticed by a small number of readers and in my experience, both lurking here for a while and in talking to other book readers, it's actually obvious and picked up by most readers. at the very least the basic idea that tyrion is not tywin's son is obvious.

the way that the whole atj theory is a red herring is that is distracts from the rlj theory. which is what I propose it's sole purpose is.

you very readily dismiss the idea that character development in a character driven series is meaningless and totally subject to interpretation and I argue that these character arcs are discernable if you bother to look for them. if you then weigh a theory in how it acts on the character's existing arc, how it affects the character's development and how it opens up new arc's for specific characters then you see how this theory makes no sense.

I don't think you are encountering a representative sample of ASOIAF readers. I suspect if you really went out an interviewed the "typical" readers, they would have no clue that Aerys might be the father of Tyrion. But I am not sure it matters to my central point. I am baffled by how AJT can be a red herring for RLJ. I really don't get it. The clues are completely independent. Red herrings really don't work that way. The classic red herring in the series is Wylla (and Ashara and fisherman's daughter). Most of us believe the real answer to the mystery is Lyanna. But to keep the readers distracted, they are told Wylla -- and then suggested maybe Ashara -- and then suggested maybe a fisherman's daughter. These explicitly stated suggestions are in the mold of a classic red herring -- a false solution to a mystery to reduce the likelihood that the readers can easily figure out the real answer to the mystery. Unstated and potentially alternatively explainable clues regarding AJT as red herrings for RLJ is just a leap in logic that I cannot follow it. I just don't see how anyone is less likely to figure out RLJ because they are thinking about clues regarding AJT. Red herrings just don't work that way.

 

As for character development as a source of textual analysis -- I believe in that method entirely. I agree with your position 100% that any theory needs to be explained in terms of how it works regarding how the author is developing the characters and their story arcs. The problem, of course, is that it is quite tricky to know where the author is headed with a character. Many people argue that Tyrion's character would be "ruined" if he is not the son of Tywin. Others see the character development quite differently. Character development analysis, while valid and often useful, is quite subjective. Getting into the "head" of the author on such issues is tricky business. I try to use this form of analysis sparingly given how hard it is to do well. Primarily, I try to see if the character development issue makes a certain theory completely implausible. Many think that Tyrion's character development makes AJT implausible -- I simply disagree. If anything, I think that AJT explains how Tyrion will be able to break out of the stagnation his character has fallen into and move on to be able to be important for the endgame. So if I agreed that AJT made no sense for Tyrion's character given where he is and where he seems to be going, then I would agree that the theory has a problem. I just don't analyze Tyrion's character development the same way that you do.

 

 

 

I have to agree on your idea that Jon shouldn’t change like Beric/Cat did, but the event will influence him. I see several problems with all realistic outcomes, that’s why I’m not convinced of any of them. (Btw, warging into ghost to long will change him aswell, maybe even more than being ‘resurrected’)

 

 

Shireen/Theon being the one who will be sacrificed makes sense (both kings blood), but option one isn’t possible in the show anymore. I know he isn’t ‘dead dead’, and I can even see him not being horribly injured (seen an explanation of GRRM’s word choice somewhere here, which made sense).

 

 

A+J=T in the books being confirmed by Selmy? That doesn’t make sense to me tbh. Why would he wait until Tyrion rides a dragon (if he even does) before revealing the truth? Most of the times, info is being revealed because the person who reveals the info has something to gain with it. I can’t see what Selmy gains with revealing this? Varys on the show makes sense, but wouldn’t work in the books.

 

 

The above is btw also my a big issue that I see with A+J=T, but also with R+L=J. There are several options to reveal these secrets (if they are true), but it’ll be very hard to convince all the families of these claims. Will they accept that riding a dragon shows that you have dragonsblood (and since the only living dragonriders are the Targs, that you are a Targaryen?) I’m not sure.. 

Glad to know we agree on something. Personally, I find arguments regarding how a mystery will be confirmed or revealed to be of little value in analyzing the likelihood of a theory. GRRM is quite a creative guy and he will figure out a way. He is unlikely to make it obvious how a mystery will be revealed -- as that might give away too much. I also don't believe that these mysteries necessarily need to be revealed in a way that become accepted by others -- it only needs to become known to the relevant character and by extension the readers. And if GRRM thinks that having more people come to know the truth, it will become known. Think about the issue of Cersei's children as bastards. Originally, very few people knew. Over time, more people knew, but it never became universally known. RLJ and AJT likely will work the same way.

 

 

 

This again is based on the assumption that he will ride a dragon. I don't like theories based on other assumptions.. 'Tyrion must be a Targ because I believe he will ride a dragon' doesn't really make a strong story. 

I don't think anyone is making this argument. What some people, including myself, have done is built a case based on multiple clues from different angles. I find the argument for Tyrion as the third head of the dragon even more compelling than that he will be a dragonrider. But that conclusion is not based on any assumption. It is based on separate analysis of the clues we have regarding the 3HD prophecy. Sure, people can come to different conclusions regarding what that prophecy means. But I came to an independent conclusion regarding that prophecy and by process of elimination concluded that Tyrion needed to be the third head. The "tell" for me was the death of the three mothers and the lack of any viable alternative candidates. So it is not an "assumption" that Tyrion is a head of the dragon. That conclusion came from separate textual analysis. But that conclusion also bolsters the ATJ theory.

 

Issues that you keep asserting are mere assumptions simply are not assumptions. I really make no assumptions. I take the facts and interpret them and come to conclusions. Those conclusions lead me to other conclusions. But I don't just assume something without having textual support.

 

 

 

I get the same feeling. People just assume that he will ride a dragon (because who else besides Jon and Dany? (I'm not even sure about Jon to be honest)). Because he will ride a dragon (assumption) he has targ (dragon) blood (assumption that this is required, however it is likely). And because he rides a dragon ánd has dragonblood he has to be one of the three heads (assumption again).

 

We don't know if he will ride a dragon

We don't know if you need dragon blood to ride a dragon (however, I have to agree its safe to assume you have to)

We don't know if it's required to 'ride a dragon' to become one of the three heads of the dragon.

We don't know if the three heads of the dragon are literally or figuratively.

 

Yet all these uncertainties are used to backup a theory. That's my entire problem with these 'clues' and all the arguments that are used. It's all assumption on top of other assumption. 

 

 

What I think we disagree upon is whether coming to a conclusion that is not 100% certain can be used as support for another theory. I think it can, as long as there is enough to support the initial conclusion. I think that there is textual evidence that three people with Targ blood will be the 3 heads of the dragon. This is NOT an assumption. This is a conclusion I have come to based on textual support. That conclusion then is one of the clues in favor of AJT -- but not the only clue. If it were, the theory would be much weaker. But I maintain strongly that you are misusing the word "assumption" because everything you assert is an assumption is not an assumption. It is a theory that has been developed from other clues -- even if the theory cannot be proven with 100% certainty does not change the theory into an assumption. And one theory can legitimately be based on conclusions from another theory, even if that theory is not 100% certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Doesn't make them useless. 

 

 

I would say it makes them incredibly dangerous to both sides.  Just like in TRP and PatQ. Dragons can decimate any people around regardless of sides.  Dany is not stupid, she would never loose wild dragons in Westeros, look what they did to Quentyn and she liked him. And anyway that is irrelevant because Viserion and Rhaegal are not leaving SB without riders, end of story.  And if you are going to counter with "oh maybe they could, maybe they would just follow her."  Just think about it for a minute, you really think GRRM is taking the story in that direction? with Dany as the one and only dragon rider and the other 2 are not involved with TWOTD or anything? that does not follow with the rest of the novels or any of the short stories. Dragons are there to be ridden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suzanna,

 

oh, how could I forget Maelys. Damn Blackfyre name.

 

Yandel doesn't mention any deformities on Aerys' many children, yet that doesn't mean that those who died in the cradle were all healthy and well. They wouldn't have died if that had been the case. Gydayn mentions the deformities of Prince Jaehaerys in TRP, but Yandel doesn't mentions either them nor those of Jaehaerys II (we only get the crippled hand from the picture). Yandel is writing a history of the Targaryen reign, he doesn't give us physical descriptions of every prince that lived, not even of every king (which mean the frailer kings or even the great warrior types could have had some milder deformities - who knows how many toes Aerys I, Maekar, or Prince Rhaegel had?). Not to mention that dwelling on the deformities of royalty would be both distasteful to the readers as well as to the royals themselves. You don't want to be remembered that you are descended from a bunch of cripples - and Robert shares all of Aegon V's Targaryen ancestors - and you would not shower favors on people who describe your ancestors this way.

 

Do you have an actual proof of any Targaryen with physical deformities other than the stillborn babies?

 

I mean actual proofs, not wishful thinking. Sorry, the picture of Jaehaerys II does not qualify. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you have an actual proof of any Targaryen with physical deformities other than the stillborn babies?

 

I mean actual proofs, not wishful thinking. Sorry, the picture of Jaehaerys II does not qualify. 

 

Maelys had a second head. I don't think that's normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight:

 

Two important proofs of this theory come from George’s descriptions of Shiera and Jaehaerys II to Amok although none of these were stated in any published material. Is that so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight:

 

Two important proofs of this theory come from George’s descriptions of Shiera and Jaehaerys II to Amok although none of these were stated in any published material. Is that so?

Tell us again how Gerion is Tyrion's father please. talk about lack of proof in published materials  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to know we agree on something. Personally, I find arguments regarding how a mystery will be confirmed or revealed to be of little value in analyzing the likelihood of a theory. GRRM is quite a creative guy and he will figure out a way. He is unlikely to make it obvious how a mystery will be revealed -- as that might give away too much. I also don't believe that these mysteries necessarily need to be revealed in a way that become accepted by others -- it only needs to become known to the relevant character and by extension the readers. And if GRRM thinks that having more people come to know the truth, it will become known. Think about the issue of Cersei's children as bastards. Originally, very few people knew. Over time, more people knew, but it never became universally known. RLJ and AJT likely will work the same way.

 

It isn't really an argument, just a feeling I have with those theories. Again, R+L=J can be revealed in many ways which make sense. I don't see an option at this point for the possible reveal of A+J=T. That's not a lack of recognition for GRRM's writing skill. I think it's more a lack of my imagination.

 

What I think we disagree upon is whether coming to a conclusion that is not 100% certain can be used as support for another theory. I think it can, as long as there is enough to support the initial conclusion. I think that there is textual evidence that three people with Targ blood will be the 3 heads of the dragon. This is NOT an assumption. This is a conclusion I have come to based on textual support. That conclusion then is one of the clues in favor of AJT -- but not the only clue. If it were, the theory would be much weaker. But I maintain strongly that you are misusing the word "assumption" because everything you assert is an assumption is not an assumption. It is a theory that has been developed from other clues -- even if the theory cannot be proven with 100% certainty does not change the theory into an assumption. And one theory can legitimately be based on conclusions from another theory, even if that theory is not 100% certain.

 

I don't disagree on the fact that coming to a certain conclusion can be used to support a different theory. I merely wanted to say that I personally don't think it fits in this discussion. 

 

However, if you use your conclusion to support a different theory, but I don't agree with your conclusion, why can't I call it an assumption? You give me several textual examples to support your theory. I don't agree that those examples are enough to come to that conclusion, because I can see other potentional conclusions. If you after that, use your conclusion to support a different theory, I immediatly take it down, because I still don't think it's legit. 

 

What I think we disagree upon is whether coming to a conclusion that is not 100% certain can be used as support for another theory. I think it can, as long as there is enough to support the initial conclusion. I think that there is textual evidence that three people with Targ blood will be the 3 heads of the dragon. This is NOT an assumption. This is a conclusion I have come to based on textual support. That conclusion then is one of the clues in favor of AJT -- but not the only clue. If it were, the theory would be much weaker. But I maintain strongly that you are misusing the word "assumption" because everything you assert is an assumption is not an assumption. It is a theory that has been developed from other clues -- even if the theory cannot be proven with 100% certainty does not change the theory into an assumption. And one theory can legitimately be based on conclusions from another theory, even if that theory is not 100% certain.

 

This feels like a copy from the part just above here, so I won't reply again. It would be the same reply in different words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you have an actual proof of any Targaryen with physical deformities other than the stillborn babies?

 

I mean actual proofs, not wishful thinking. Sorry, the picture of Jaehaerys II does not qualify. 

As CoHS points out, we have Maelys. But even if we had no examples, we have a potential independent explanation. If Tyrion is the prophecized third head of the dragon and if his mother died to provide the necessary sacrifice to give Tyrion the power to be the third head, then it would explain how Tyrion was able to survive when he was expected to die. Further, the point of the deformities is that the other deformities we hear about are in regards to Targs. The connection does not have to be direct as this is literature. It only has to be an allusion of a connection -- something to bring the readers' minds to the connection. So Tyrion is deformed -- and the other deformities we hear about are Targs. Could be a connection or maybe not. Again, no one clue is dispositive. This clue merely adds to all the other clues.

 

 

 

It isn't really an argument, just a feeling I have with those theories. Again, R+L=J can be revealed in many ways which make sense. I don't see an option at this point for the possible reveal of A+J=T. That's not a lack of recognition for GRRM's writing skill. I think it's more a lack of my imagination.

 

 

I don't disagree on the fact that coming to a certain conclusion can be used to support a different theory. I merely wanted to say that I personally don't think it fits in this discussion. 

 

However, if you use your conclusion to support a different theory, but I don't agree with your conclusion, why can't I call it an assumption? You give me several textual examples to support your theory. I don't agree that those examples are enough to come to that conclusion, because I can see other potentional conclusions. If you after that, use your conclusion to support a different theory, I immediatly take it down, because I still don't think it's legit. 

 

 

This feels like a copy from the part just above here, so I won't reply again. It would be the same reply in different words. 

 

 

As you have stated above, you are not a native speaker, so I will try to explain what I mean as it really becomes a semantic discussion, which is not really very interesting. You certainly can attack the underlying basis upon which a conclusion is formed. If you think that the evidence for Tyrion as a head of the dragon is weak, then obviously it cannot be used to support Tyrion as the son of Aerys. But I don't think that finding the conclusion weak turns it into an assumption. It merely makes it a false conclusion or an unproven or weak theory. My view of the word "assumption" (as a native English speaker, which I am) is that it means a facts which is taken to be true without any basis or support. A theory or conclusion that turns out not to be true is not the same thing as saying that the theory or conclusion was merely an assumption. Sometimes assumptions turn out to be true and sometimes false, but they are a statement without textual support. Tyrion as the third head of the dragon has textual support -- even if you are not convinced by it. But yes, I agree, that if you are right that Tyrion is not the third head, then the AJT theory is badly damaged. We can discuss further, if you want, why I think the text supports Tyrion as the third head. I don't think that discussion is off-topic given that the support for that theory is integrally related to one of the main clues upon which to support AJT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prince Jaehaerys' deformities (additional toes and fingers) are mentioned in TRP. Jaehaera and Vaella being simpletons is also mentioned. When I last looked then from 'lots and lots of stillborn monstrosities' doesn't follow necessarily 'there can't come any cripples who live from that bloodline'.

 

Anyone who has eyes to see will realize that George had Amok conceal the same arm on his portrait that is revealed to be deformed and crippled in the picture of Aegon V and his sons in TWoIaF. That is a sign of continuity, and some of those pictures were reworked again and again according to George's specifics. If you had seen the original versions of Aegon's mistresses and Aegon's coronation you would understand.

 

Oh, and Mithras, just give us an account how the Lannister siblings are descended from Viserys Plumm without using subjunctives or using modal verbs. And try to keep a straight face while doing so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also possible for non targ blood people too ride dragons. We have no proof that it's a requirement.
Sorry, that's a bit far strechted, but I hope you get my point. This is all speculation and I tend to speak from facts, even though that's hard.
 
Maybe we should get back OT.


Unfortunately, we have no evidence whatsoever of non-Valyrians riding dragons. Until we do, I will be hypothesizing under the assumption that Dragon riding is limited to Valyrians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×