Jump to content

Archived

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

UnmaskedLurker

A+J=T v.8

Recommended Posts

I think the thing that blows my mind the most, is that because R+L=J is so widely held true that it seems to have the affect on A+J=T because there could not possibly be a second "hidden" Targaryen.

Even though it is foreshadowed in Tyrion and Jon's meeting in the first book "All dwarfs are bastards in their father eyes"/ "Most of my kin are bastards"

Then, on top of that, GRRM introduces another former "secret" Targaryen in fAegon, clearly meant to be a contender (pretender) for one of the heads of the Dragon, but also clearly having questionable authenticity issues. GRRM obviously DOES NOT have a problem with characters with hidden origins/ parentage.

I dont get the argument that Tyrion would be "too many" secret Targaryens for the story.The entire book is filled with characters with secret parentage issues (Jon, Joff, Tommen, Myrcella, fAegon...)

Black or red, a dragon is still a dragon. Even if he's Aerys's son, Tyrion's a sort o' brown dragon Targaryen, the way I see it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black or red, a dragon is still a dragon :)

I don't think that anything KVT IV said precludes fAegon from being a dragon of sorts -- just that he is a red herring as a head of the dragon and has authenticity issues (is not really the son of Rhaegar and Elia).

But I agree he probably is a dragon (Blackfyre and maybe also Brightflame descent), and I would not be surprised if he does bind with Rhaegal -- making it appear as though he must be authentic -- just for him to die and for the truth to come out some how (not sure in which order). That would make the battle between Dany and fAegon to be a combination of DoD 2.0 and Blackfyre Rebellion 6.0 (or whatever number -- depending on how you count the different wars with the Blackfyres).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that anything tha KVT IV said precludes fAegon from being a dragon of sorts -- just that he is a red herring as a head of the dragon and has authenticity issues (is not really the son of Rhaegar and Elia).

But I agree he probably is a dragon (Blackfyre and maybe also Brightflame descent), and I would not be surprised if he does bind with Rhaegal -- making it appear as though he must be authentic -- just for him to die and for the truth to come out some how (not sure in which order). That would make the battle between Dany and fAegon to be a combination of DoD 2.0 and Blackfyre Rebellion 6.0 (or whatever number -- depending on how you count the different wars with the Blackfyres).

I believe the second dance of the dragons will be fought between Daenerys truely born of House Targaryen, an old house, on the black dragon waiving a bright red dragon on her banner, and Aegon falsely born of House Blackfyre, a much newer house, on the green dragon with a dark black banner locked in one of six chests from Pentos. Snarling in the midst of both of 'em, we'll find Tyrion, who, much like Ulf the White, will betray the dragon-riding gal for all the gold of Casterly Rock and cause the white dragon to fight on Aegon's side. 

As to the three heads The George told us to look for way back in Clash, the first is Daenerys who will devour the dying. Vision Rhaegar was looking right at her. Jon will be reborn as the third one. Vision Rhaegar knew his son would be one, but he didna know which son. We don't know what the second head's supposed to do, but black or red a dragon is still a dragon. Since we pretty much know that black or red Aegon is a dragon, I'm going with him. If Tyrion does turn out to be a sort o' brown dragon Targaryen, and he actually rides a dragon, I'll give it another thought. But while I think you have to ride a dragon to be one of Rhaegar's heads I don't think riding a dragon makes you one of Rhaegar's heads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the second dance of the dragons will be fought between Daenerys truely born of House Targaryen, an old house, on the black dragon waiving a bright red dragon on her banner, and Aegon falsely born of House Blackfyre, a much newer house, on the green dragon with a dark black banner locked in one of six chests from Pentos. Snarling in the midst of both of 'em, we'll find Tyrion, who, much like Ulf the White, will betray the dragon-riding gal for all the gold of Casterly Rock and cause the white dragon to fight on Aegon's side. 

As to the three heads The George told us to look for way back in Clash, the first is Daenerys who will devour the dying. Vision Rhaegar was looking right at her. Jon will be reborn as the third one. Vision Rhaegar knew his son would be one, but he didna know which son. We don't know what the second head's supposed to do, but black or red a dragon is still a dragon. Since we pretty much know that black or red Aegon is a dragon, I'm going with him. If Tyrion does turn out to be a sort o' brown dragon Targaryen, and he actually rides a dragon, I'll give it another thought. But while I think you have to ride a dragon to be one of Rhaegar's heads I don't think riding a dragon makes you one of Rhaegar's heads. 

Obviously, I agree that riding a dragon does not make someone a prophetic head of the dragon -- after all, I hypothesized that fAegon would ride a dragon, but would die and would not be a head of the dragon. As to your point about Tyrion betraying Dany -- maybe -- initially -- but I think in the end he must come around because I think they need to work together to win the War for the Dawn 2.0.

As to fAegon as a "head of the dragon," it does not make sense to me for 2 of the heads to be 2 of the main characters -- but the third head -- rather than being a 3rd main character -- is a character who in introduced in book 5 and is not a POV and who the readers barely empathize with. Being a head of the dragon is too important a role to be played by such a minor character in the story as fAegon. Which means that jof the other main characters (Tyrion, Bran, Arya and Sansa), Tyrion is the most logical choice for the third head of the dragon (or second head if you prefer) -- which also means he is "of House Targ" to be a head "of the dragon" which means . . . (I think you can complete that sentence yourself -- just look at the title of the thread if you need a hint).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to fAegon as a "head of the dragon," it does not make sense to me for 2 of the heads to be 2 of the main characters -- but the third head -- rather than being a 3rd main character -- is a character who in introduced in book 5 and is not a POV and who the readers barely empathize with. Being a head of the dragon is too important a role to be played by such a minor character in the story as fAegon. Which means that jof the other main characters (Tyrion, Bran, Arya and Sansa), Tyrion is the most logical choice for the third head of the dragon (or second head if you prefer) -- which also means he is "of House Targ" to be a head "of the dragon" which means . . . (I think you can complete that sentence yourself -- just look at the title of the thread if you need a hint).

Plus, if the Three Heads are Daenerys, fAegon and Jon, you have a leadership issue.

So in that case fAegon marries Daenerys and is King? What is Jon's Role? Does Daenerys marry both and is Queen? Who puts aside their ambition for the Throne? Who puts aside their place in the line of succession? What IS the line of succession? etc...

But, in the case of Jon, Daenerys and Tyrion, being that Tyrion is a bastard Targ and would be more inclined to be Hand or Lord of Casterly Rock that just leaves Jon and Daenerys. It is much tighter and cleaner in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, if the Three Heads are Daenerys, fAegon and Jon, you have a leadership issue.

So in that case fAegon marries Daenerys and is King? What is Jon's Role? Does Daenerys marry both and is Queen? Who puts aside their ambition for the Throne? Who puts aside their place in the line of succession? What IS the line of succession? etc...

But, in the case of Jon, Daenerys and Tyrion, being that Tyrion is a bastard Targ and would be more inclined to be Hand or Lord of Casterly Rock that just leaves Jon and Daenerys. It is much tighter and cleaner in the end.

I don't think The George is aiming for cleaner and tighter. I think he's aiming for bitter and sweet. Why should we assume that the three heads will join to fight the Others? The first Targaryen we met who still lives will devour the dying. The reborn will emerge from the third when when Jon's true parentage is revealed. The second, who is actually a Blackfyre, will fight Daenerys, but Drogon will devour him. Meanwhile, the twisted little demon monkey will flee into the Riverlands into the jaws of Nymeria. 

At least that's the way I see it. But rest assured I enjoy reading y'all's perspective too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think The George is aiming for cleaner and tighter. I think he's aiming for bitter and sweet. Why should we assume that the three heads will join to fight the Others? The first Targaryen we met who still lives will devour the dying. The reborn will emerge from the third when when Jon's true parentage is revealed. The second, who is actually a Blackfyre, will fight Daenerys, but Drogon will devour him. Meanwhile, the twisted little demon monkey will flee into the Riverlands into the jaws of Nymeria. 

At least that's the way I see it. But rest assured I enjoy reading y'all's perspective too.

The Three Heads of the Dragon is not a prophecy, it is a motto or unwritten rule for the House Targaryen. It is meant to be the three leaders of the House.

All three need to work together and be on the same side, IE Aegon and his sister wives.

So, while there may or not be more than 3 dragon riders, that does not mean they are all the "Three Heads"

and just for the record this is how I see it shaking down

Daenerys = Drogon

Tyrion = Viserion

Jon = Sheepstealer

Maybe fAegon does ride Rhaegal (I have long though that Rhaegal dies), it make sense that fAegon dies on the back of the dragon named after his (false) father in a battle with Daenerys (& Tyrion?) in a Dance of the Dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Three Heads of the Dragon is not a prophecy, it is a motto or unwritten rule for the House Targaryen. It is meant to be the three leaders of the House.

All three need to work together and be on the same side, IE Aegon and his sister wives.

So, while there may or not be more than 3 dragon riders, that does not mean they are all the "Three Heads"

and just for the record this is how I see it shaking down

Daenerys = Drogon

Tyrion = Viserion

Jon = Sheepstealer

Maybe fAegon does ride Rhaegal (I have long though that Rhaegal dies), it make sense that fAegon dies on the back of the dragon named after his (false) father in a battle with Daenerys (& Tyrion?) in a Dance of the Dragons.

I think I disagree a bit.

Based on what Rhaegar says in the HoTU and what Aemon says about being too old when he thinks that Dany is TPTWP, the three heads is part of the prophecy. It is not just about Aegon I and his sisters. The prophecy seems to have something suggesting that the dragon must have three heads to win the War for the Dawn 2.0 (or whatever the prophecy is talking about). 

I also don't see how Sheepstealer comes into play -- it is not even mentioned in any of the main books to my knowledge and there is no indication it is still alive -- someone would have seen it by now. I think Jon rides Rhaegal -- but who knows.

I think we more or less agree on the rest of the scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least one dragon will die. Or even two. 

Euron got one then aegon got it from him then dany ran to him to ask her dragon back then they fight then one dragon dies. A dance of dragons 2.0.

grrm always had a soft spot for tyrion, so I think he will get viserion. 

Rhaegal had to die. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to pop in for the first time in months and comment on all this hand-wringing about BBF's polls.  I don't get it - maybe it's just the contrarian in me, but I'd be happy if I firmly believed in a theory that was in the decided minority.  Of course, ironically, my contrarian ways are why I always enjoyed coming here and arguing with y'all.  While I've said since the World Book this is the most likely (non-obvious) and well-supported theory after RLJ - and perhaps a catchall 'Aegon is some type of Blackfyre' - that doesn't mean I would have voted for it.  Actually, I think in some post over the summer I put the percent likelihood of AJT at 40 percent, which is fairly close to BBF's data.  So, this doesn't mean everyone hates the theory, although that certainly is a significant aspect of it.

Also, wouldn't the majority being 'against it' make you feel smarter if you're right?  At least if that's what you're worried about, cuz if you're wrong, really, no one is going to care.  Just look at 'experts' who predict stuff across all types of media.  I mean, unless you're like on Bill Kristol levels of shamelessly wrong and refusing to admit it after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to pop in for the first time in months and comment on all this hand-wringing about BBF's polls.  I don't get it - maybe it's just the contrarian in me, but I'd be happy if I firmly believed in a theory that was in the decided minority.  Of course, ironically, my contrarian ways are why I always enjoyed coming here and arguing with y'all.  While I've said since the World Book this is the most likely (non-obvious) and well-supported theory after RLJ - and perhaps a catchall 'Aegon is some type of Blackfyre' - that doesn't mean I would have voted for it.  Actually, I think in some post over the summer I put the percent likelihood of AJT at 40 percent, which is fairly close to BBF's data.  So, this doesn't mean everyone hates the theory, although that certainly is a significant aspect of it.

Also, wouldn't the majority being 'against it' make you feel smarter if you're right?  At least if that's what you're worried about, cuz if you're wrong, really, no one is going to care.  Just look at 'experts' who predict stuff across all types of media.  I mean, unless you're like on Bill Kristol levels of shamelessly wrong and refusing to admit it after the fact.

I am not so much hand-wringing -- as I am trying to figure out why my views are with the majority in almost all the other issues but not this one. If I were mostly in the minority, I might just think I am a contrarian and wait to see if I am better able than the majority to figure these things out. But I am not usually in the minority with respect to the issue that were polled (where I had an opinion -- did not have an opinion on all) -- and in general the majority of a large enough group is pretty good at getting things right (not all the time but most of the time).

So the point of my musings were to ask whether there is something different about this theory than the other theories or whether there is another reason why I generally agree with the majority -- but not on this theory. I am not changing my mind -- I am still convinced that this theory makes more sense than the alternatives (such as Tyrion riding a dragon but not having Targ blood) -- but I like to understand if there is a reason.

Of course, if I am right I will feel incredibly vindicated. If I am wrong, I might feel stupid depending on what end up being the "right" answer. I will probably gloat a little if I am right -- and eat a little crow if I am wrong. But it is my name on top of all of the AJT threads (other than v.1) -- so I have put my neck out further than anyone -- this probably being the most hated theory. Even theories with less support don't seem to get the kind of hate this one gets. But if I am wrong -- I will survive just fine -- I just really think I am right and really hope I am right (not because I am emotional about the theory itself -- just because it would be really fun to have been right).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it varies a bit by forum, roughly 2 to 1, people do not think Aerys is the biological father of Tyrion. Even worse, other than Reddit, fewer people on Westeros.org believe the theory than other forums. I feel like a failure. What really frustrates me is that most of the otyher poll results (on the other issues that were polled) are fairly consistent with my thinking -- for the most part -- other than this theory. There are links in that thread to additional issues being polled on the different sites -- and for the most part I think the majority maintain the same theories as I do.

I'm a fan of another unpopular theory - so unpopular that Bfish didn't even bother to include either a question or an option about it - which is that Ned and Ashara Dayne actually were lovers (though I think that R+L=J of course).  

The funny thing is that it was Barristan's perspective that confirmed for me that A.) N+A was a thing and B.) that Aerys had been obsessed with Johanna and probably fathered Tyrion on her.  I also briefly thought that Dany was the child of Rhaella and her Mystery lover (I didn't figure out who Barristan was referring to until I read about it here), and even if that's true I wouldn't be disappointed, though I seriously doubt it. 

Then I was really surprised when it turned out everyone on the boards interpreted all of these things completely differently than me. - "wait... you think Barristan meant BRANDON STARK was involved with Ashara?   What's the point - who cares about Brandon??  Why do we care about Aerys and Johanna if it means nothing???  Why did Barristan bring up Rhaella's lover for no reason????"  

But I'll never be too surprised by the kinds of ideas people have given that they are often so different from what I think, nor do I think it's a good idea to take it too personally if I'm wrong.  Like theories about Daenerys going as insane as Aerys, or The Others being good guys in some kind of twist seem completely unsupported and even nonsensical to me.  I used to hate A+J=T almost as much, so I figure I'll come around in time, assuming that GRRM ever writes these damn things.  

Which gets me to ask whether there is something different about this theory than other theories -- and I think maybe there is. Here is another poll result buried in one of the links from that thread regarding dragon riders (which I also will put in a spoiler box for space-constraints purposes):

Hidden Content

As can be seen, a majority think that Tyrion will ride a dragon -- so close to half of the people who think Tyrion will ride a dragon apparently do not think that mean he has Targ blood. How exactly do they think that is going to work? How is Tyrion able to bond with a dragon without having Targ blood? The belief that Tyrion can ride a dragon without Targ blood almost amazes me more than how few people have come around on A+J=T (especially after TWOIAF clues).

Well, many people haven't read TWOIAF.  I haven't read it, personally, as I think has come up in some of my posts here, and I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that it's only semi-canon.  I'm happy to use snippets of it to support ideas I have, but to me it's never goign to be as important as the books.  As late as ASOS there was textual support for the idea that anyone can potentially ride a dragon. For example, Jorah implies he'd like to try to ride one when he proposes to Dany ("you have three dragons that need riders and you don't have brothers but you can take husbands, etc"), and you'd think if only Targaryens could ride them, then Viserys would make sure she knew it since he'd be all about Targaryen exceptionalism.  Apparently, he didn't, because we (kind of) now know that only Targs and their bastards have ever really ridden them but Dany seems to entertain the notion that other people can do it during ASOS.  ADWD provided some support for the idea in the form of Quentyn talking about his Targ heritage as important but we can all see how that turned out.  That's all to say I do understand the ambivalence.  

snip

OR -- maybe we are just wrong and Tyrion is not the biological son of Aerys. I have to admit that if twice as many people disagree with me as agree with me then I just might be wrong. But if I am wrong, I don't think it is about emotion. It would be about misreading the clues (I think).

So loyal A+J=T posters -- any thought?

I don't think it's fair to say (as I've noticed that you do regularly...) that people's reaction to A+J=T is "emotional" while yours is reasonable and devoid of emotion.  Everyone is human, no one is entirely objective about anything, and in fact science tells us that emotion is required for rational decision making to occur.  Try to give others the benefit of the doubt and don't be too hard on yourself either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't see how Sheepstealer comes into play -- it is not even mentioned in any of the main books to my knowledge and there is no indication it is still alive -- someone would have seen it by now. I think Jon rides Rhaegal -- but who knows.

 Sheepstealer might not comeback with the name of Sheepstealer but there are bits of foreshadowing that Sheepstealer will be Jon's Dragon:

A Sam chapter where he is bring books he found to Jon-

He had to get down on his knees to gather up the books he'd dropped. I should not have brought so many, he told himself as he brushed the dirt off Colloquo Votar's Jade Compendium, a thick volume of tales and legends from the east that Maester Aemon had commanded him to find. The book appeared undamaged. Maester Thomax's Dragonkin, Being a History of House Targaryen from Exile to Apotheosis, with a Consideration of the Life and Death of Dragons had not been so fortunate. It had come open as it fell, and a few pages had gotten muddy, including one with a rather nice picture of Balerion the Black Dread done in colored inks." AFFC

"Sheepstealer's coloring was an ugly "mud brown"." Wiki

Then there is the Stone Dragon/ Azor Ahai prophecy -

"Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone" ASOS

"The name “Skagos” means “stone” in the Old Tongue" Wiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of another unpopular theory - so unpopular that Bfish didn't even bother to include either a question or an option about it - which is that Ned and Ashara Dayne actually were lovers (though I think that R+L=J of course).  

The funny thing is that it was Barristan's perspective that confirmed for me that A.) N+A was a thing and B.) that Aerys had been obsessed with Johanna and probably fathered Tyrion on her.  I also briefly thought that Dany was the child of Rhaella and her Mystery lover (I didn't figure out who Barristan was referring to until I read about it here), and even if that's true I wouldn't be disappointed, though I seriously doubt it. 

Then I was really surprised when it turned out everyone on the boards interpreted all of these things completely differently than me. - "wait... you think Barristan meant BRANDON STARK was involved with Ashara?   What's the point - who cares about Brandon??  Why do we care about Aerys and Johanna if it means nothing???  Why did Barristan bring up Rhaella's lover for no reason????"  

But I'll never be too surprised by the kinds of ideas people have given that they are often so different from what I think, nor do I think it's a good idea to take it too personally if I'm wrong.  Like theories about Daenerys going as insane as Aerys, or The Others being good guys in some kind of twist seem completely unsupported and even nonsensical to me.  I used to hate A+J=T almost as much, so I figure I'll come around in time, assuming that GRRM ever writes these damn things.  

 

Of course many of us come up with "fringe ideas" some of which might turn out to be true -- most of which will not. But as I have said before, those theories don't seem to engender anger -- most people just laugh at the notion that the Others are really the good guys -- they don't get upset at the idea.

As to Brandon -- here is why I think more people think that Brandon is the lover -- Ashara was "dishonored" at Harrenhal -- Ned was too shy to ask her to dance - and we know he is an honorable guy -- is the reader really supposed to conclude that Ned dishonored Ashara? The way Brandon is described is much more consistent with the notion of dishonoring a woman (i.e., seducing her). Ned seems like the type who actually did wait until his wedding night (as was formally expected even if not followed by most noble men).

It matters because it gives Ned an extra connection to Ashara and the Daynes. If Ashara's still-born daughter would have been Ned's niece, then the loss of the girl gives Ned another reason to be close to the Daynes. I think this relationship is going to be important once we find out more about how Ned pulled off passing Jon as Ned's son.

 

Well, many people haven't read TWOIAF.  I haven't read it, personally, as I think has come up in some of my posts here, and I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that it's only semi-canon.  I'm happy to use snippets of it to support ideas I have, but to me it's never goign to be as important as the books.  As late as ASOS there was textual support for the idea that anyone can potentially ride a dragon. For example, Jorah implies he'd like to try to ride one when he proposes to Dany ("you have three dragons that need riders and you don't have brothers but you can take husbands, etc"), and you'd think if only Targaryens could ride them, then Viserys would make sure she knew it since he'd be all about Targaryen exceptionalism.  Apparently, he didn't, because we (kind of) now know that only Targs and their bastards have ever really ridden them but Dany seems to entertain the notion that other people can do it during ASOS.  ADWD provided some support for the idea in the form of Quentyn talking about his Targ heritage as important but we can all see how that turned out.  That's all to say I do understand the ambivalence.  

 

GRRM had to approve everything that went into TWOIAF. GRRM needs to be able to defend everything that went into TWOIAF. So anything in that book that turns out not to be accurate will have a "good explanation" -- generally that the maesters were wrong or biased. So any piece of information that is based on "rumor" or distant "third hand" information might be incorrect. But some of the information cannot be "wrong" and have the book mean anything. For example, the description of Joanna going to KL for the anniversary tourney must have happened pretty much as described. The event is relatively recent and the scene between Aerys and Joanna was seen by multiple people. So the gist of that scene must be what happened. GRRM put that scene in TWOIAF for a reason -- either to back up AJT or to "punk" the readers who believe AJT (some call it a red herring -- but I don't think it really counts as a true red herring even if AJT is not correct because there is no "alternative" theory that works as an alternative explanation for). So while a reader does not need to know about this scene at the tourney to understand and appreciate the main books -- dismissing it as mere semi-canon (and therefore not reliably useful in analyzing the mysteries of the main books) is not really giving it its due. There is no question but that GRRM planted additional clues in TWOIAF. The question is always figuring out how to interpret them properly -- but the same issue exists for the clues in the main books (which also have unreliable narrators and red herrings).

As to Jorah's comment -- he seemed confused that he might have thought that marrying Dany would allow him to ride a dragon -- or he just wanted to marry her and would worry about the fact he could not ride a dragon later. Notice that Dany does not respond to Jorah. Dany does not confirm that she thinks that Jorah could ride a dragon. In the broader scope of ASOIAF -- how warging works, for example, the way that dragon binding is described -- it seems clear to me that some blood connection is required. I understand that some people don't agree -- and maybe it was less clear 3 books ago -- but as of now -- with all the evidence we have, including the DoD side books and TWOIAF (semi-canon or not -- the information is still useful to the analysis), I don't see how GRRM could explain everything and have it turn out anyone can bind a dragon. Even if someone who posts to this board does not read those sources -- others reference the evidence from those sources enough that they should take that evidence into account. Merely saying, "I don't read those books so they don't matter" is not really an answer to that evidence. And now that a search of ice and fire exists, anyone can search the text of those sources for particular issues.

I don't think it's fair to say (as I've noticed that you do regularly...) that people's reaction to A+J=T is "emotional" while yours is reasonable and devoid of emotion.  Everyone is human, no one is entirely objective about anything, and in fact science tells us that emotion is required for rational decision making to occur.  Try to give others the benefit of the doubt and don't be too hard on yourself either.  

I do not think that anyone's analysis is completely devoid of emotion. But I also think it is too facile to assert that everyone is equally emotional in their analysis -- it simply is not true. For some people, almost all of their analysis is pure emotion. Almost every argument is based on what they "want" to be true rather than what the evidence points to being true. Those people are clearly engaging primarily in emotional thinking -- but I am not really talking about those people because they engage in that line of thinking for almost every issue.

I am talking about people who generally seem to be more or less dispassionate in their analysis but throw undue hate on this theory. Now just because they dislike this theory does not mean that I think they are being emotional. Disagreeing with me is not my standard for what causes me to believe a person is engaging in emotional rather than analytical thinking. And again, I never said that my analysis is entirely devoid of any emotion on my part.

The point I was trying to make is that the arguments they make against this theory -- like ruining the Tywin/Tyrion dynamic and there being "too many hidden Targs" sound to me more like emotional arguments than logical arguments. My point also, as noted above, is that this theory seems to create stronger negative reactions than almost any other theory -- even other theories will less support.

Again, just because everyone is emotional does not mean that everyone is equally emotional. One advantage I think I have is that my strongest emotion is the desire to be correct in the end. Even if I want the story to go one way -- much more important to me is to be correct in the end. I have no desire to argue for a theory that I want to be true if I think I am likely to be proven wrong when the books come out later. Too many people seem to let their personal preferences infect their analysis. Am I immune form that tendency -- of course not -- no one is. But that does not mean that everyone is equally susceptible to it. If I became convinced this theory is wrong (and I re-test the analysis in my mind from time to time just to try to see if I am missing anything) -- I would say so before the books came out so that I was more likely to be "right" in the end. But every time I think through the evidence -- I am left with this theory being the one that makes the most sense to me.

Assume for a moment that I am correct -- that my analysis is based primarily on dispassionate critical analysis of the text -- and many others are slanting their analysis by a larger amount due to their emotional reaction to the text (just go with me for purposes of this paragraph). Am I precluded from pointing out that observation? Does that make me too arrogant or make this thread too hostile to objectors? Maybe -- I agree that truth is no defense for rudeness. I try hard not to be rude to anyone (unless they really deserve it -- like by trolling, for example). I simply don't see many of the arguments being put forth against this theory as containing very much in the way of non-emotional textual analysis. I don't think that pointing out that certain arguments seem overly emotional is inappropriate -- as long as I can back up that conclusion.

I am not trying to shut down debate -- I really am just trying to understand it better. My musings on this issue began by observing that this theory is 2 to 1 against -- but is one of the only theories in which my personal view is in the minority -- and I tried to think whether there is something different about this theory that makes me in the minority of views when I agree with the majority on almost all the other theories. I don't think that I would be considering all possible answers to that question if I did not examine whether emotional thinking might be the cause of that difference. And I think I have provided decent support to back up that proposition.

Also, when I suggest that people are engaging in emotional thinking -- I am trying to challenge them. I want a good debate. I enjoy hearing opposing views. But I want people to engage in real analysis -- not preference-driven conclusions. If someone thinks that the relationship between Tyrion and Tywin would be ruined -- explain how the trajectory of the characters support that analysis. Explain how Tyrion's future arc works better as a Lannister than a Targ. Now that would be real analysis -- not just emotional thinking (even if the impetus for the view might have started with emotional preference). But I rarely see anyone take it to the next step. They just assert the conclusion as if it is self-evident and then move on. I think I have every justification to describe that analysis as more emotional than analytical.

So it is not about giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I try to give that to everyone. I want to hear better and crisper analysis. Try to convince me I am wrong. Counter my arguments in a persuasive way (not just showing how the clues don't "prove" that Tyrion is Targ -- but evidence that Tyrion as a Targ would not work as well for the story and why). And I also don't really think I am too hard on myself. I hate to be wrong, and if I am I will not be thrilled. But I will admit my mistake and move on. I realize this board is just for fun, and ASOIAF are just books. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Sheepstealer might not comeback with the name of Sheepstealer but there are bits of foreshadowing that Sheepstealer will be Jon's Dragon:

A Sam chapter where he is bring books he found to Jon-

He had to get down on his knees to gather up the books he'd dropped. I should not have brought so many, he told himself as he brushed the dirt off Colloquo Votar's Jade Compendium, a thick volume of tales and legends from the east that Maester Aemon had commanded him to find. The book appeared undamaged. Maester Thomax's Dragonkin, Being a History of House Targaryen from Exile to Apotheosis, with a Consideration of the Life and Death of Dragons had not been so fortunate. It had come open as it fell, and a few pages had gotten muddy, including one with a rather nice picture of Balerion the Black Dread done in colored inks." AFFC

"Sheepstealer's coloring was an ugly "mud brown"." Wiki

Then there is the Stone Dragon/ Azor Ahai prophecy -

"Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone" ASOS

"The name “Skagos” means “stone” in the Old Tongue" Wiki

I am not sure why the first clue is more a clue for Sheepstealer than Rhaegal -- but the second clue is intriguing. I am less certain now than I was before you pointed out that clue (see -- I am affected by new information and am willing to revise my analysis) -- not convinced but less certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the second dance of the dragons will be fought between Daenerys truely born of House Targaryen, an old house, on the black dragon waiving a bright red dragon on her banner, and Aegon falsely born of House Blackfyre, a much newer house, on the green dragon with a dark black banner locked in one of six chests from Pentos. Snarling in the midst of both of 'em, we'll find Tyrion, who, much like Ulf the White, will betray the dragon-riding gal for all the gold of Casterly Rock and cause the white dragon to fight on Aegon's side. 

 

It seems unlikely to me that Dany wouldn't be willing to give CR to Tyrion, if he rides a dragon and serves her. He would be "her" Lannister, while all the other candidates would oppose her. Or even more - as a fellow dragonrider and with his experience Tyrion should be in a position to be Dany's hand and even heir (in absence of other family or children of Dany). If he betrays Dany, I think a betrayal for love (of his brother, Jaime) would be more likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I don't think it's fair to say (as I've noticed that you do regularly...) that people's reaction to A+J=T is "emotional" while yours is reasonable and devoid of emotion.  Everyone is human, no one is entirely objective about anything, and in fact science tells us that emotion is required for rational decision making to occur.  Try to give others the benefit of the doubt and don't be too hard on yourself either.  

The reaction of other posters to this theory tends to be toxic. "Crackpot" is used quite often, and without any irony. On the "Watchers on the Wall" website (devoted to the show, but many posters know the books well), in a reaction to the theory poll the A+J=T theory was dismissed in a couple of quick sentences ("wishful thinking", "it would ruin the Tyrion/Tywin relationship", "I hope it dies") and there did not seem to be much, if any, dissent to that.

Certainly, there are actors who make rational arguments against the theory, but there is a gut reaction against it like no other theory I have seen.

I would argue that the "Dany is going mad" theory also has gotten a gut reaction, though in this instance the "cool thing" is to push the theory as a given.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reaction of other posters to this theory tends to be toxic. "Crackpot" is used quite often, and without any irony. On the "Watchers on the Wall" website (devoted to the show, but many posters know the books well), in a reaction to the theory poll the A+J=T theory was dismissed in a couple of quick sentences ("wishful thinking", "it would ruin the Tyrion/Tywin relationship", "I hope it dies") and there did not seem to be much, if any, dissent to that.

Certainly, there are actors who make rational arguments against the theory, but there is a gut reaction against it like no other theory I have seen.

I would argue that the "Dany is going mad" theory also has gotten a gut reaction, though in this instance the "cool thing" is to push the theory as a given.

 

This. Basically, this point is what I have been trying to get across. Sure, it is easy to assert that we only think these people are reasoning primarily from emotion because we support AJT and they disagree with us. But I genuinely believe that contention is not accurate -- I do not assume that people who disagree with me are simply analyzing from emotion. It all depends on the nature of the arguments being made.

But the specifics of how the opposition to AJT is made seems to support the conclusion that many are reasoning largely from emotion. I have disagreed with plenty of people about plenty of theories and usually do not make such a claim about their reasoning. There just seems to be something about AJT that makes some people upset and unwilling to assess the evidence dispassionately -- not all objectors -- but many.

As to Dany going mad -- I have avoided those discussions like the plague (or perhaps like the pale mare). While I am not quite sure how a character who seems obviously being set up to be one of the main heroes of the entire series can be going mad, I really do not care to debate the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouter, There might be other reasons for gold...

Every stroke of the quill leaves me a little poorer … or would, if I were not a beggar to begin with. One day he might rue these signatures. But not this day. He blew on the wet ink, slid the parchment to the paymaster, and signed the one beneath. And again. And again. And again.

Share this post


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

×