A+J=T v.7

[Suzanna Stormborn]

In Westeros they will...

Lol I know, everyone in story, out of story, the author, and anyone who has read the books will come to the exact same conclusion. But Mithras will never stop beating that dead horse.

[UnmaskedLurker]

 

Everyone in this thread are waiting for Tyrion to ride Viserion. The moment he does that, people will take that as a confirmation of Tyrion having Targaryen blood through Aerys.

Mithras--

 

I won't try to speak for others -- but as to myself -- I never came to the conclusion that Tyrion was likely the son of Aerys because I thought that (or wanted) Tyrion to ride a dragon. For me, it was the three heads of the dragon prophecy -- and the similarities among Jon, Dany and Tyrion. And then the other clues (like hair color and the Aerys/Joanna connections, etc.) just started piling up as independent evidence. 

 

While I suspect that Tyrion will ride Viserion, I came to that opinion well after I came to the view that A+J=T. And the strength of my view regarding A+J=T is stronger than my belief that Tyrion will ride a dragon.

 

So you can keep insisting that people are just engaging in circular logic because they think Tyrion will ride a dragon. For me, at least, that issue is really one of the least of the reasons I think Tyrion is likely the son of Aerys.

 

Of course, if you think Jon is all three heads of the dragon in one, then I can see how the evidence is less persuasive because there is no need to figure out the identity of the third head.  But even then, all of the non-dragon riding clues still need to be explained. And your attempts in the past to just write them off with "alternative" or "normal" explanations still do not clarify why GRRM would bother to put in so may items that look like clues if they are not really clues.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

^^^ UL, I am sure that you, like me, had no need of 'circular logic' or any other designated  formula to come to the conclusion of AJT.  All you need is common sense and reading comprehension to do it.  Some of us have a desire to change the books to fit our own selfish wants for the story.  For instance, those who hate Targaryens usually like to say (over and over) that Dany is Satan and will kill everyone for no real reason, and that there are no hidden Targs, that this story is not even about Targaryens at all.  Well of course every bit of that is incorrect, and we know this for a fact because all 5 short stories and WOIAF are ABOUT the Targaryens.  They ARE the main focus, without question. Being in continual denial of this fact and posting on this forum 100 times per day to that affect will not change the books, all it does is make said poster look more and more wrong with every passing post.

 

To sum up; 'I hate Targaryens =/= GRRM writing the book to match your Stark desires.'

[UnmaskedLurker]

SS--

 

Watching people debate against AJT is an interesting exercise in people engaging in wishful thinking. GRRM was forced with RLJ to give away too much and make the "mystery" something that is almost impossible to deny once the clues are pointed out (although, as we know, even RLJ has its detractors). So with RLJ, almost any reasonably intelligent person must get used to the idea and more or less accept it. But with AJT there was no need to put in those sorts of clues. No one needs to "lie" about who Tyrion's father is -- Tywin certainly "could" be the father so he is assumed to be. But Ned as the father of Jon creates contradictions given what we know about Ned. And the "promise" creates an immediate mystery to be investigated. So given that some of the clues don't really have reasonable alternative explanation, RLJ gets accepted even by those who would prefer it not to be true (for the most part).

 

But with AJT, GRRM had the luxury to put in clues that always had "alternative" (or as some people put it, the "natural" or "normal") explanation. Whereas with RLJ, some "clues" just cannot really have a reasonable alternative explanation (as much as the detractors have tried -- and even most of the detractors seem to have agreed that Lyanna is the mother and it seems to have changed primarily to a debate over the identity of the father).

 

So what is interesting to me is how people are able to take each and every clue and argue that that specific clue means nothing. And each one certainly is capable of such an explanation -- we have seen RT and Mithras do it. I saw Laddy Blizzardborn on JM's thread regarding Tyrion and dragons make similar arguments.

 

But what none of them can explain, as I noted above, it why GRRM would bother to put in so many clues if it comes to nothing. In the JM thread, LB claimed it was so that when Tyrion rides a dragon, people will assume AJT -- but it won't turn out to be true. I did not respond there because JM wants to keep that thread talking about Tyrion's connection to dragons and not become another AJT thread, but that explanation makes no sense. Many of the clues are not available to people "in-universe" so she presumably means the readers. But what is the point of that? Why would GRRM give clues that almost no one seems to be seeing -- just so that for some period of time people will all of a sudden conclude that Tyrion is a Targ -- just to find out later that they were right the first time, he really is not a Targ. I just don't understand how that can make any sense to her -- but apparently it does. 

 

And I think it makes sense to her because I suspect for whatever reason she just does not want the theory to be true. But this behavior is an interesting examination in how so many people think. And even assuming we are proven correct, it likely won't have any impact in the future regarding them going through the same flawed thought process. The instinct likely is too ingrained. 

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Yes totally agree, and furthermore.  I really dont understand this whole thing about Tyrion will ride a dragon but IS NOT a bastard Targaryen.  If that's true then wtf has all this stuff in the first 5 books and 5 short stories about Targs riding dragons been about? Why waste 2 decades writing about this family of dragon riders at all? It just makes no sense no matter how you look at it. This is the reason 'circular logic' is not required.  I dont need circular logic to tell me the sky is up because the ground is down, it's just fucking obvious.  What I'm saying is that if anyone can ride a dragon or Warg a direwolf then these books have been a waste of time and nothing is special about Jon.  So it is a really dumb pointless argument, it is basically saying 'the books are not the books, blood doesn't matter and magic is not real.'  When clearly these are fantasy novels and magic is real and blood does matter.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Although you know where I stand on this issue, let me try to explain what I think they are arguing on that score of "what is the point" of all this. While issues regarding thing like Warging and Greenseeing have been pretty much unambiguously stated as something to which some is born having that ability -- riding a dragon has been kept potentially unclear. GRRM has refused to say that Targ blood (or before the Doom, dragonlord blood) is necessary to bond with a dragon. And GRRM has taunted the readers with people trying to bond who almost certainly had no Targ blood (and, of course, died trying, but some people point to the trying) and others who bonded (like Nettles) who were not Targ royalty and thus not 100% clear to have Targ blood. So some people like the idea that the ability to bond is broader and the Targs either were arrogantly delusional or engaged in propaganda to keep control of the dragons.

 

But I think one of the main motivations is that GRRM has stated that he finds inner conflict to be the principal issue to analyze. And he has suggested that the choices people make rather than "magical gifts" are more interesting to him. So people want to believe that if someone like Tyrion is a hero, he does not need the "right blood" to do it -- just the right choice in the end. And GRRM also has that "dragon horn" lying around for a reason -- so maybe it is what allows Tyrion to bond and not any Targ blood. That approach would allow Tyrion to be able to bond due to his inner abilities and not "destiny" of having Aerys as a father. 

 

So the "point" would be to show that blood is not what matters -- that GRRM is arguing that anyone who makes the right choices (and obviously has some amount of luck) can accomplish anything -- including riding a dragon and helping to win the big war. After all, did Frodo have any special "blood" that allowed him to deal with the ring in a particular way?

 

While magic may play a part in allowing Tyrion to bond with a dragon, the argument would be that blood does not control destiny, and if someone resolves his or her inner conflict the "right way" then the character can do heroic things.

Well, that is my best attempt at trying to make sense of the "thematic" arguments in support of Tyrion not having Targ blood but still riding a dragon. I am not persuaded by this line of reasoning because for me the clues regarding AJT and the clues regarding dragonriders are too overwhelming to be ignored. But I can see the surface level attraction of a view of the story where magical blood is not required to be a hero.

[Jô Maltese]

There's another difference between RLJ and AJT: everything points at Tyrion riding a dragon very soon now (in WoW), and maybe it should have happened before in GRRM initial writing plan. Conversely, it looks unlikely the same happens to Jon before the very end of the series - if ever. Despite what Mithras says, when Tyrion rides a dragon, AJT will become a very strong probability for everybody - at the same level of RLJ at least, and certainly for the "average" reader. This could be the simple technical reason why there are much more hints at RLJ than AJT?

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

There's another difference between RLJ and AJT: everything points at Tyrion riding a dragon very soon now (in WoW), and maybe it should have happened before in GRRM initial writing plan. Conversely, it looks unlikely the same happens to Jon before the very end of the series - if ever. Despite what Mithras says, when Tyrion rides a dragon, AJT will become a very strong probability for everybody - at the same level of RLJ at least, and certainly for the "average" reader. This could be the simple technical reason why there are much more hints at RLJ than AJT?

I certainly believe that we will get the A+J=T reveal before we get R+L=J in the books.

[MtnLion]

Third child of one of his or her parents (Joanna / Rhaegar / Rhaella) (of children who lived past infancy).

I am not quite interested enough to do the research, so I will propose it too you, for your consideration. How does it work if one assumes a one-year birthdate, i.e. wildling tradition of naming after that date? ;)

ETA Punctuation

[Lord Varys]

The theory/expectation that Tyrion will ride a dragon goes all the way back to AGoT and has essentially little or nothing to do with any theorizing about Targaryen blood. It goes back to Tyrion's interest in dragons, his ability to build special saddles, and his dragon dreams.

 

Later we got the SSM about not all dragonriders (necessary) being Targaryens, adding more fuel that thing (usually Jon Snow is considered a Targaryen even if one assumes he is of illegitimate birth).

 

The whole Aerys thing is a completely different issue, mostly triggered by speculation based on very subtle hints back in the first three books, and then exploding with the whole Joanna tidbits from ADwD and TWoIaF. You can, of course, include Tyrion as Aerys' son in any theory on him becoming a dragonrider, and that fits very nicely, but that doesn't mean that Tyrion has to be Aerys' son to become a dragonrider.

 

AFfC introduced Dragonrider as another plot device and while this could have been a way to keep the door open for 'non-Targaryen-blooded dragonriders' the whole blood magic element in Dragonbinder's user manual suggests that this is not really the case.

[Jô Maltese]

I am not quite interested enough to do the research, so I will propose it too you, for your consideration. How does it work if one assumes a one-year birthdate, i.e. wildling tradition of naming after that date? ;)

ETA Punctuation

2nd sons and 2nd daughter instead of "3rd child" would have more weight IMHO.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I am not quite interested enough to do the research, so I will propose it too you, for your consideration. How does it work if one assumes a one-year birthdate, i.e. wildling tradition of naming after that date? ;)

ETA Punctuation

 

2nd sons and 2nd daughter instead of "3rd child" would have more weight IMHO.

Mtn Lion. I think you are on to something. While they clearly do not adhere to the 1-year tradition -- as they named even their stillborn daughter (Shaena) as well as the infants that did not live past infancy (Aegon, Jaehaerys and Daeron), but it appears they did live less than a year (not 100% clear with Aegon, but apparently so). Thus, it seems that if a child lives less than a year, it is not really considered to have been a "full" child (as demonstrated by them being left off the "official" family tree in WOIAF).

 

JM.  A couple issues. First, Shaena was stillborn, so she really was not a child as she never lived. So Dany is not the second born daughter. Also, the number "three" is more significant in this analysis (comparing the three heads), so where a potential comparison uses "three" I think it is more persuasive than a similar comparison using "two" instead. But basically, I just don't think that Shaena can be considered to have been their first daughter -- even though they gave her a name, she never lived.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Although you know where I stand on this issue, let me try to explain what I think they are arguing on that score of "what is the point" of all this. While issues regarding thing like Warging and Greenseeing have been pretty much unambiguously stated as something to which some is born having that ability -- riding a dragon has been kept potentially unclear. GRRM has refused to say that Targ blood (or before the Doom, dragonlord blood) is necessary to bond with a dragon. And GRRM has taunted the readers with people trying to bond who almost certainly had no Targ blood (and, of course, died trying, but some people point to the trying) and others who bonded (like Nettles) who were not Targ royalty and thus not 100% clear to have Targ blood. So some people like the idea that the ability to bond is broader and the Targs either were arrogantly delusional or engaged in propaganda to keep control of the dragons.

 

But I think one of the main motivations is that GRRM has stated that he finds inner conflict to be the principal issue to analyze. And he has suggested that the choices people make rather than "magical gifts" are more interesting to him. So people want to believe that if someone like Tyrion is a hero, he does not need the "right blood" to do it -- just the right choice in the end. And GRRM also has that "dragon horn" lying around for a reason -- so maybe it is what allows Tyrion to bond and not any Targ blood. That approach would allow Tyrion to be able to bond due to his inner abilities and not "destiny" of having Aerys as a father. 

 

So the "point" would be to show that blood is not what matters -- that GRRM is arguing that anyone who makes the right choices (and obviously has some amount of luck) can accomplish anything -- including riding a dragon and helping to win the big war. After all, did Frodo have any special "blood" that allowed him to deal with the ring in a particular way?

 

While magic may play a part in allowing Tyrion to bond with a dragon, the argument would be that blood does not control destiny, and if someone resolves his or her inner conflict the "right way" then the character can do heroic things.

Well, that is my best attempt at trying to make sense of the "thematic" arguments in support of Tyrion not having Targ blood but still riding a dragon. I am not persuaded by this line of reasoning because for me the clues regarding AJT and the clues regarding dragonriders are too overwhelming to be ignored. But I can see the surface level attraction of a view of the story where magical blood is not required to be a hero.

Well actually he has said it explicitly, Valyrians fly dragons and no one else. He has made it very clear;

 

 

From the introduction to The Sworn Sword...

The lords freeholder of Valyria ruled the greater part of the known world; they were sorcerers, great in lore, and alone of all the races of man they had learned to breed dragons and bend them to their will. 

 

 

The theory/expectation that Tyrion will ride a dragon goes all the way back to AGoT and has essentially little or nothing to do with any theorizing about Targaryen blood. It goes back to Tyrion's interest in dragons, his ability to build special saddles, and his dragon dreams.

 

Later we got the SSM about not all dragonriders (necessary) being Targaryens, adding more fuel that thing (usually Jon Snow is considered a Targaryen even if one assumes he is of illegitimate birth).

 

The whole Aerys thing is a completely different issue, mostly triggered by speculation based on very subtle hints back in the first three books, and then exploding with the whole Joanna tidbits from ADwD and TWoIaF. You can, of course, include Tyrion as Aerys' son in any theory on him becoming a dragonrider, and that fits very nicely, but that doesn't mean that Tyrion has to be Aerys' son to become a dragonrider.

 

AFfC introduced Dragonrider as another plot device and while this could have been a way to keep the door open for 'non-Targaryen-blooded dragonriders' the whole blood magic element in Dragonbinder's user manual suggests that this is not really the case.

I agree that Tyrion and dragons start very early in GOT, but in Jon's first conversation with Tyrion at WF, they say; 

"You are your mothers trueborn son of Lannister"

"Am I?" Please tell my father, he's never been sure"

 

The groundwork was laid from the very beginning. And if Tyrion is the son of Aerys, wouldnt that at least partially account for his obsession with dragons?  Certainly that is where the dreams are coming from.  Just like Dany, dreaming of dragons long before either of them has ever actually seen one.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Well actually he has said it explicitly, Valyrians fly dragons and no one else. He has made it very clear;

 

I meant that in interviews GRRM has hinted at it (like the statement that the dragonlords practiced incest to "better control dragons"), but he never confirmed outright that dragonlord blood is required to bond with a dragon (and I think refused to do so when asked directly). Personally, I think the evidence is overwhelming -- but others people certainly have indicated that they don't agree. 

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I meant that in interviews GRRM has hinted at it (like the statement that the dragonlords practiced incest to "better control dragons"), but he never confirmed outright that dragonlord blood is required to bond with a dragon (and I think refused to do so when asked directly). Personally, I think the evidence is overwhelming -- but others people certainly have indicated that they don't agree. 

Ah!, Oh I see what you mean.  IMO he has to keep some stuff under his hat, I mean he still wants to sell books without giving the game away.  If you ask me this all circles around Jon, Tyrion and fAegon.   1 or 2 of those people are Targaryens and one is the mummer's dragon, it is very possible any of them could encounter dragons long before Howland Reed shows up to tell them their history.  So they will either get eaten or be able to tame/ride without the RLJ or AJT reveal (possibly).   What I'm saying is that GRRM is not going to give away his story.  for instance, if Tyrion rides Viserion in SB before he talks to Dany or Barristan then he will be riding and still not know the truth about Aerys being his father, so obviously GRRM wouldnt give that away in an interview years before publication right? He is allowing his characters to ride or not ride before or after they find out who their parents are. The reveals do not have to come before the ride.

 

Same thing with his SSM about; "Not all Targaryens are fireproof." He has to say that because Jon burned his hand, while Dany seems to continually be uninjured by fire. But he makes it look like he is talking about the whole family, without singling Jon out and giving RLJ away.  He has to say things to keep his secrets safe. Dont you agree?

[UnmaskedLurker]

SS--

 

Of course I agree. Just keep in mind why I brought the issue up. It was not to argue that dragonlord blood is not needed to ride a dragon (you know that I think it is). My point is that because GRRM has left open a little sliver of doubt (such as Nettles and the other "dragonseeds" not being able to be independently confirmed to have Targ blood or the two non-Targ blooded people who tried to bond for Rhaenyra and died), and he refuses to eliminate the doubt in an interview, some people with take these arguments and use them to convince themselves Targ blood is not needed for Tyrion to ride a dragon. And then they use the "theme" that GRRM stated that he is most interested in resolution of inner conflict and personal choice to justify why Tyrion not having Targ blood and riding a dragon is consistent with the themes of the series.

 

So yes, GRRM is not going to give away his story. And yes, a theme of the series seems to be the power of certain bloodlines (Starks with warging/greenseeing and Targs with dragonriding) -- but there are other themes, so Tyrion riding a dragon and not being a Targ can be explained as being consistent with other themes, and the series would not be "a waste of time," as you suggest would be the case, if Targ blood is not needed to bond with a dragon.

[MtnLion]

Mtn Lion. I think you are on to something. While they clearly do not adhere to the 1-year tradition -- as they named even their stillborn daughter (Shaena) as well as the infants that did not live past infancy (Aegon, Jaehaerys and Daeron), but it appears they did live less than a year (not 100% clear with Aegon, but apparently so). Thus, it seems that if a child lives less than a year, it is not really considered to have been a "full" child (as demonstrated by them being left off the "official" family tree in WOIAF).

I did not intend to suggest that the Targaryens ever adhered to wildling traditions. I was just hinting that GRRM put the wildling traditions of waiting a year before naming in for a reason. This seems a likely reason. ;)

[Suzanna Stormborn]

UL,

yeah I understand that way of thinking, but disagree with it.  Mainly because it's not only the dragon riding thing, its the fact that if blood doesnt matter and all that matters is internal conflict then Jon being the actual son of Rhaegar has no meaning.  Any 'good' person should just go take the IT and be done with it, it really does not matter if this person has royal blood or not, since the only thing that matters is the internal struggle......see what I mean?  Taking away blood as an importance really diminishes the entire story, just as it would if you took blood away from the LOTR's.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I did not intend to suggest that the Targaryens ever adhered to wildling traditions. I was just hinting that GRRM put the wildling traditions of waiting a year before naming in for a reason. This seems a likely reason. ;)

Works for me -- and nice to see you in the AJT thread -- usually I only see you on the RLJ thread (and related threads). I always value your input.

 

 

UL,

yeah I understand that way of thinking, but disagree with it.  Mainly because it's not only the dragon riding thing, its the fact that if blood doesnt matter and all that matters is internal conflict then Jon being the actual son of Rhaegar has no meaning.  Any 'good' person should just go take the IT and be done with it, it really does not matter if this person has royal blood or not, since the only thing that matters is the internal struggle......see what I mean?  Taking away blood as an importance really diminishes the entire story, just as it would if you took blood away from the LOTR's.

Yes, I see what you mean. You don't have to convince me. I was just trying to make the best case for the other side and give them the benefit of the doubt. But in the end, that line of thinking is unconvincing. I just think they do have a theory that makes their thinking potentially consistent with "themes" in the series -- that is all. Nevertheless, in the end, a more comprehensive examination of the evidence suggests that Tyrion will need to have Targ blood if he is going to bond with a dragon. But again, if Mithras is reading this post, I do not believe that Tyrion riding a dragon is a central reason why A+J=T is likely to be true.

[Darkstream]

Hey guys, great discussion, it's refreshing to see an intelligent back and forth conversation without the usual Bias and twisting of evidence often seen on some threads.

From the introduction to The Sworn Sword...

The lords freeholder of Valyria ruled the greater part of the known world; they were sorcerers, great in lore, and alone of all the races of man they had learned to breed dragons and bend them to their will.

What I find interesting about this quote is that it doesn't attribute the Valarian's ability to ride dragons to their blood line, but to them finding a way to tame them.

I think it's Obvious that their blood does play a significant role in their control of dragons, but as a result of this magical means in by which they bent them to their will.

Thus, leaving door open for a non Targaryan to ride a dragon. So, I think it's possible for Tyrion, whether he is a Targ or not, to be a dragon rider.