A+J=T v.9

[Weirdo]

2 hours ago, LmL said:

I realize the Moquorro quote is ambiguous, and I'm sure it's been discussed plenty here.

Ad nauseum! We argued it to a complete standstill. I think we can conclude, by it's inclusion, that George does at least want us considering the possibility that Tyrion is a Targ; it's such a perfectly ambiguous statement, it provokes the argument.

[LmL]

44 minutes ago, Weirdo said:

Ad nauseum! We argued it to a complete standstill. I think we can conclude, by it's inclusion, that George does at least want us considering the possibility that Tyrion is a Targ; it's such a perfectly ambiguous statement, it provokes the argument.

I think that's a very reasonable consensus.

The dragon dreams are less ambiguous however.

[Lord Varys]

Some people have raised doubts how to reconcile the rumors about Aerys deflowering Joanna in 259 AC and Barristan Selmy's story in ADwD. But check out his actual phrasing:

Quote

“Prince Aerys … as a youth, he was taken with a certain lady of Casterly Rock, a cousin of Tywin Lannister. When she and Tywin wed, your father drank too much wine at the wedding feast and was heard to say that it was a great pity that the lord’s right to the first night had been abolished. A drunken jape, no more, but Tywin Lannister was not a man to forget such words, or the … the liberties your father took during the bedding.” His face reddened. “I have said too much, Your Grace. I—”

This version of the story is very compressed indeed, but since we now know when exactly Tywin and Joanna married (back when ADwD came out this may have yet happened while Aerys had not yet ascended the Iron Throne) Selmy also confirms here that Aerys was interested in Joanna before he took the Iron Throne.

This certainly opens up the possibility that the rumor about Joanna being deflowered by him is true. After all, Selmy might not yet have been a Kingsguard in 259 AC, so he might not have firsthand information on that.

[UnmaskedLurker]

@Lord Varys--

I am confused by the objection. Assume for a moment that Aerys deflowered Joanna as suggested in WOIAF. Assume further that these rumors were known to Selmy and that he thought them likely to be true. If those assumptions are true (not saying for sure they are, but just for sake of argument, assume they are), why is Selmy's story problematic?

The affair would not be a considered "public" knowledge (even if many people knew or assumed to be true), so Selmy is not going to spread such rumors further. But the bedding incident happened in front of multiple people and essentially was a public event. So it seems quite plausible that Selmy would tell this story and not mention the affair. As a side note, it also seems quite plausible that if Aerys had already had an affair with Joanna -- the statement about "lord's right" is exactly the kind of "burn" he would give to Tywin -- both of them knowing that in some sense, Aerys already had his "first night" with Joanna.

[Elisabetta Duò]

On 01 giugno 2016 at 5:28 PM, LmL said:

@Elisabetta Duò, cool stuff on the Sphinx idea. Tyrion is never called a sphinx, as he is a gargoyle and monkey demon, but the nose does seem to be a pretty good clue. The protection aspect of sphinxes (thanks for confirming this) obviously gels well with the gargoyle persona. And even if Tyrion is half Targ, he's still half lion as well, so it figures that he gets a lion figure identity. Of course, some sphinxes in ASOIAF are dragon-related, so I don't find his Sphinx identity to be in conflict with AJT, myself, particularly since monkey demon and gargoyle are specifically applied to Tyrion where Sphinx is not.

I can definitely see him riddling with dragons. Tyrion is one for riddles after all. 

I realize the Moquorro quote is ambiguous, and I'm sure it's been discussed plenty here. I see it as being able to go either way, myself. What I find much more compelling is Tyrion's repeated dragon dreams. To me, THAT is the strongest evidence for AJT in the whole book. It's a narrative argument - in a series where dragon people dream of dragons in a prophetic way, Tyrion is a character whose dragon dreams are referenced from book one to book five. That's always been what sold me. 

As for the SSM about Ned and Tyrion's father, I don't think that indicates anything, myself. 

What did you think of the monkey demon with dragon weapons line of research, as well as the first gargoyle being a dragon? Those seem like pretty good clues. 

I haven't reseatched the demon monkey thing enough… I read the wiki page of the Monkey King after reading your post and some other stuff, I tried to understand how much Martin is familiar with chinese mythology and if he ever read something about it but I didn't go further than that, so I'm not 'competent' enough to express my opinion here. Also, while I 'know' the greek/roman mythology because I'm italian and I had classical studies at the high school (so ancient greek antcient latin etc, they were my fave subjcets along with philosophy and history) I'm not into asian mythology at all and I'm not even into comics so I'm a profane at the very least when it comes to this stuff, I could easily misundestand the aim of the story. At first sight, some elements of this character are interesting (like the rebellion and being in jail), some others look out of place (like the incredible strength, the general attitude, etc). When I read the books and I noticed the repetition, I wondered whether a) he used the words demon monkey repeatedly while they're not relevant, hoping we wouldn't catch the gargoyle thing, thinking it irrelevant as well, or b ) the trolled us with the Monkey King reference c) he was truly referring to that mythological figure, but we don't know exactly to what extent and what part of his path will be relevant in our story (he did both terrible things and heroic things).

As for the gargoyles, they surely have a connections with dragons, even if the gargoyle theme is complex and can be interpreted in many ways, there have been many interpretations here and on reddit and on quora I guess and on tumblr and anywhere else … we don't know if and how He will play with it. He may 'use' some aspects linked to the gargoyles mythology and not others (or use them all) and we don't know which aspects will play a part and to what extent. Tyrion = gargoyle is 100% clear, because of the literal references, because he was in charge of the cisterns and drains at GR, because of the pat-the-dwarf / pat-the-high-waist-gargoyle reference, because of the snarling. Still we don't know if he's implying one of more of these links: Tyrion = guardian, Tyrion = dragonTarg, Tyrion = dragon rider, Tyrion = garguille as a monster / evil figure, as Tyrion doing mischief once he gets to ride a dragon, Tyrion = gargoyle as sinner resembling a gargoyle and condemned to turning into a stone for his sins (developing belated greycale), Tyrion = gargoyle as stone dragon sacrificying  himself to wake dragon from stone, Tyrion = etc. etc. etc.

As far as I know, the 'original' gargoyle was a lion, not a dragon, meaning that in ancient aegypt and in ancient Grece gargoyles = lion's head. Then they kinda vanished when the Roman Empire fell. During the 12th century, when gargoyles appeared in Europe, many gargoyles were depicted as hybrids of more than one animal and many were some version of a dragon, especially in France. The Roman Chuch supported the idea that gargoyles were monsters and rappresentations of evil. The gargoyles are given a mostly positive meaning in some centuries, a mostly negative one in other centuries but usually they were given both a positive and negative meaning and traits at the same time, being at times considered as representations of the human nature.

Isidoro di Siviglia (“Ethymologiae”) said that people who will sin should be given magical erbs to be transformed in smnstrous gargoyles being hallf men half animale, accoding with the old idea that physical degeneration was a clie of spiritual degeneration, an idea which came back with the nazist Reich, so they felt entitled to kill handicapped people and people with any disability or mental illnerss to preserve the spiritual health of Germany (sic).

Martin is familiar with french history so I guess he knows also about the French legend about St. Romanus who was made bishop of Rouen, who won against a monster called Gargouille (dragon with batlike wings and the ability to breathe fire from its mouth). The monster was led back to Rouen and burned, but its head and neck would not burn due to being tempered by its own fire breath. The head was then mounted on the walls of the newly built church to scare off evil spirits and used for protection.

Some say that gargoyles were guardians who scared the demons and made them stay away from the church, other historians say that the gargoyles were the demons that scared the people but people could seek refuge in the curches, others say they were evil monsters who lost against the church and were converted to true faith, or the souls of sinners who couldn't go inside the churches and were condemned to turn into stone because of their sins, or a symbol fo the fears fo the medieval man. They were also on the castles walls.

I agree with you that the dreams are an interesting clue - even if they might even be a red  herring, being too 'obvious' as a clue. It's just that these things (the gargoyle-dragons stuff) can foreshadow Tyrion being a dragon rider as well as Tyrion being a Targ (granted that He told you can be a dragon rider without being a Targ) or even something else. He has some characteristics that the Targs have, without being a Targ (who knows about the ancestors, I'm talking about Tywin). I don't know, call it a feeling if I'm being irrational, I just don't buy it that A+J=T. I agree it would be a powerful 'shock twist' (even if maybe an easy way out for the kinslayer thing) and it's not like I would hate it or anything (Tyrion is my fave character, as long as he's alive and doesn't turn into a gargoyle because of his 'sins', I don't care if he's a Targ or not, even if we disagree on the impact it would have on the Tyrion-Tywin dynamic), but I'm not onboard. I've read somewhere that GRRM told D&D about some twists, one of them happening near the end, so granted that R+L=J should be confirmed sooner than that, who knows maybe you're right, but my guts tell me otherwise.

 

[Springwatch]

I haven't read all the A+J=T threads, so apologies if I'm repeating anything old, but maybe grrm gave Tyrion odd coloured eyes to suggest he's some kind of chimera, with dna from two fathers. That way, all the clues to Targ heritage could be true, and so could that remark of Joanna's in Jaime's dream - that Tyrion is Tywin's true son.

[UnmaskedLurker]

11 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

I haven't read all the A+J=T threads, so apologies if I'm repeating anything old, but maybe grrm gave Tyrion odd coloured eyes to suggest he's some kind of chimera, with dna from two fathers. That way, all the clues to Targ heritage could be true, and so could that remark of Joanna's in Jaime's dream - that Tyrion is Tywin's true son.

Welcome to the boards. 

This possibility has been mentioned from time to time. The real issue for me is how would anyone on Westeros be able to determine such a thing -- or even know of such a possibility. Something like Tyrion being a chimera either would need to be determined "in-story" somehow (again, not sure how that could happen) or be supported by some kind of really strong clues to the readers (most of whom probably don't even know such a possibility exits either).

But I agree that it is an interesting thought.

[Springwatch]

40 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Welcome to the boards. 

This possibility has been mentioned from time to time. The real issue for me is how would anyone on Westeros be able to determine such a thing -- or even know of such a possibility. Something like Tyrion being a chimera either would need to be determined "in-story" somehow (again, not sure how that could happen) or be supported by some kind of really strong clues to the readers (most of whom probably don't even know such a possibility exits either).

But I agree that it is an interesting thought.

Reluctantly, I have to admit that proof doesn't seem possible, but if we had very strong evidence of an affinity to fire and dragons on the one hand, and on the other the testimony of Joanna's ghost (surely ghosts can't be wrong?) - we could think it probably true.

I'm encouraged to think so by the way Tyrion has been linked with gargoyles and perhaps sphinxes, which are also made of odd parts (I'm reading back through the thread right now, so learning stuff all the time).

Thanks for the welcome!

[Lord Asher Forrester]

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

I haven't read all the A+J=T threads, so apologies if I'm repeating anything old, but maybe grrm gave Tyrion odd coloured eyes to suggest he's some kind of chimera, with dna from two fathers. That way, all the clues to Targ heritage could be true, and so could that remark of Joanna's in Jaime's dream - that Tyrion is Tywin's true son.

I too think this is part of the clues that he may be a Targ, but the problem is that one eye is green like the Lannisterd but the other isn't purple or lilac like the Targs, it is black.

[Springwatch]

55 minutes ago, Lord Asher Forrester said:

I too think this is part of the clues that he may be a Targ, but the problem is that one eye is green like the Lannisterd but the other isn't purple or lilac like the Targs, it is black.

A purple eye would give away the mystery completely! but black is also a colour linked to Targs. I realise genetically this makes no sense at all, but I don't think it's meant to - I see it more as a visual pun: as on the outside, so in the inside.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

On 5/31/2016 at 6:46 AM, Elisabetta Duò said:

I do love Tyrion, he is my fave character and I still don't think he is a Targ, nor I would like it. There is at least 1 alternative explanation for basically all the supposed clues listed here, but honestly, unless one wants to spend all their time here arguing, it would take too much time… we'll find out soon (at least those of us who watch the show ...this year or in a couple of years). As for any category of fans, there are many different types of fan. If he turns out to be, fine, I'll accept it, GRRM can do as he likes, but it would ruin the whole Tyrion-Tywin dynamic imo.

I agree, GRRM can do as he likes...I will accept it either way, I just don' think he would... I don't the show is any indication of what will happen in the books, but I also don't watch it because I don't want to know anything (even if I don't think it is necessarily going to happen in the books)

[Elisabetta Duò]

On 4/6/2016 at 8:45 AM, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I agree, GRRM can do as he likes...I will accept it either way, I just don' think he would... I don't the show is any indication of what will happen in the books, but I also don't watch it because I don't want to know anything (even if I don't think it is necessarily going to happen in the books)

Exactly, it's not like I 'hate' the idea and I would accept it. I just won't really like it because I disagree with some of the A+J=T 'believers' that it wouldn't change for the worse the Tyrion-Tywin dynamic..besides that hey JKRowling killed both my fave characters so I'm old enough and i can certainly accept Tyrion=Targ... the Author does as he likes. Ok so better you stay away from GOT season 6, there is an event that some people interpreted as a proof that A+J=T.

[Rhaechyll Targaryen]

10 hours ago, Elisabetta Duò said:

Exactly, it's not like I 'hate' the idea and I would accept it. I just won't really like it because I disagree with some of the A+J=T 'believers' that it wouldn't change for the worse the Tyrion-Tywin dynamic..besides that hey JKRowling killed both my fave characters so I'm old enough and i can certainly accept Tyrion=Targ... the Author does as he likes. Ok so better you stay away from GOT season 6, there is an event that some people interpreted as a proof that A+J=T.

That one event made me hopeful but I'll admit that even as an AJT supporter I was hoping for more.

What really annoys is that a throwaway comment by Tyrion, who was clearly guessing when he made the comment, is being taken by some viewers as "proof" that anyone can ride a dragon and having the right blood, the blood of the dragon, doesn't factor into it at all. There's nothing to indicate that Missandei would be able to do what he did with the dragons but for people who hate the theory, they hang onto 'the dragons didn't hurt Missandei' the way people use Nettles as so-called proof that Valyrian/Targaryen blood isn't needed to become a dragonrider. Furthermore, even if AJT does happen on the show, there are still people who will be convinced that it won't happen in the books.

 

All of the emphasis on blood and hair color in this series and people overlook it when it comes to Tyrion for whatever reason. Meanwhile, people look at Sweetrobin's appearance in comparison to

Harry the Heir

and there are loads of people that accept that Jon Arryn isn't Sweetrobin's father. There isn't that much opposition of how this is one secret identity too many or that the evidence (hair color, eye color, relationship between the offspring's parents, etc.) is somehow flimsy. The evidence for AJT is stronger than Littlefinger + Lysa = Sweetrobin but that theory doesn't get nearly as much hate. I happen to believe that Sweetrobin is more than likely Littlefinger's, it's just funny to me how much hate AJT gets in comparison to other theories about parentage and identity.

[LmL]

3 hours ago, Rhaechyll Targaryen said:

and there are loads of people that accept that Jon Arryn isn't Sweetrobin's father. There isn't that much opposition of how this is one secret identity too many or that the evidence (hair color, eye color, relationship between the offspring's parents, etc.) is somehow flimsy. The evidence for AJT is stronger than Littlefinger + Lysa = Sweetrobin but that theory doesn't get nearly as much hate. I happen to believe that Sweetrobin is more than likely Littlefinger's, it's just funny to me how much hate AJT gets in comparison to other theories about parentage and identity.

Honesty I think it's just theory-fatigue in general and secret-Targ fatigue in particular. Thing is, if George made Tyrion a Targ, he did it before he ever published book one. He certainly didn't think about potential theory fatigue on a fan forum with tens of thousands of rabid fans when he designed it all in the late 90's.   That's why I try to encourage to set aside their theory fatigue and just look at the evidence. 

[Elisabetta Duò]

9 hours ago, Rhaechyll Targaryen said:

That one event made me hopeful but I'll admit that even as an AJT supporter I was hoping for more.

  Reveal hidden contents

What really annoys is that a throwaway comment by Tyrion, who was clearly guessing when he made the comment, is being taken by some viewers as "proof" that anyone can ride a dragon and having the right blood, the blood of the dragon, doesn't factor into it at all. There's nothing to indicate that Missandei would be able to do what he did with the dragons but for people who hate the theory, they hang onto 'the dragons didn't hurt Missandei' the way people use Nettles as so-called proof that Valyrian/Targaryen blood isn't needed to become a dragonrider. Furthermore, even if AJT does happen on the show, there are still people who will be convinced that it won't happen in the books.

 

All of the emphasis on blood and hair color in this series and people overlook it when it comes to Tyrion for whatever reason. Meanwhile, people look at Sweetrobin's appearance in comparison to

  Reveal hidden contents

Harry the Heir

and there are loads of people that accept that Jon Arryn isn't Sweetrobin's father. There isn't that much opposition of how this is one secret identity too many or that the evidence (hair color, eye color, relationship between the offspring's parents, etc.) is somehow flimsy. The evidence for AJT is stronger than Littlefinger + Lysa = Sweetrobin but that theory doesn't get nearly as much hate. I happen to believe that Sweetrobin is more than likely Littlefinger's, it's just funny to me how much hate AJT gets in comparison to other theories about parentage and identity.

I wasn't even aware that some people thought Sweetrobin isn't Jon Arryn's child, i'm really a bad fan , the truth is I often focus only on the characters I'm more interested in. Anyway, I don't think that we as fans should be carried away and start believing that everyone is a bastard, Lysa had sex with Jon, she recalls those moments with Sansa and we have enough bastards in the series as it is (robert's ones, cersei+jamie's ones, Jon as lyanna's, possibly if the theory presented her is correct tyrion... I don't really think we would need another one). Anyway, I can't wait to find out how the whole Sansa-killing-a-giant-in-the-snow-castle will play out though...I've read the thread and I've seen how people debated about it and about who the giant is.

[Rhaechyll Targaryen]

The reason I don't think the series has gone overboard with bastards is because there were so many situations regarding illegitimate children, pretenders, royal bastards, and all the rest of it. Frankly, it's surprising that there aren't more Targaryen and highborn bastards in the story. The idea that two would be overkill when one likely isn't even a bastard hardly seems like overkill. Consider how many real life royal and noble bastards there have been, hidden or otherwise.  

I think people who say it's overkill are exaggerating and I think this is partly because of the point @LmL brought up about years worth of theory fatigue. I've read theories that Varys, Aurane Waters, Melisandre, and Darkstar are Targaryens and probably several other characters that I'm forgetting. I think it's unfair though to lump AJT with some of the more farfetched secret Targaryen theories considering the evidence that has been presented.

It seems like the AJT theory is penalized because most readers didn't start putting it together until the fifth book even though there were suggestive clues in the earlier books. Then the world book came out and that added fuel to the fire, but the people who were already against the theory decided to take the attitude that the world book didn't provide some major support even though I feel that if one looks at the evidence objectively and takes out the element of personal preference,  it's clear that this is far from some crackpot theory that fans are clinging to because they want to see Tyrion ride a dragon.

I also think there's an element of some people not wanting dragonriding/taming to have anything to do with blood in spite of the mountain of evidence that suggests Valyrian/Targaryen blood is a requirement. It's like people prefer the idea that anyone can ride a dragon and, while that's nice, it doesn't add up at all with the information we've been given. 

I've also noticed that the Targaryens seem to get a lot of hate for being "special" and Dany in particular, people hate the idea of her having some magic blood. 

When it comes to the Starks however, people are all on board with them being badasses in every sense including having magic blood. The Starks have wolf blood and they're able to bond with direwolves. How is this any different than Targaryens having the blood of the dragon to bond with their dragons? There's rarely an objection to the Starks being super special in this regard.

Brief show comparison regarding the difference in perception of Sansa and Dany:

It's sort of like Sansa being lauded, applauded, and supposedly fierce when she talks over and over again that she's still a Stark and she'll take back what's hers. When Dany talks about how she's a Targaryen and she has a right to take back her home and throne, people roll their eyes at how she always plays the same cards, her name and her dragons. Sansa does the same thing only she doesn't have dragons. Sansa wants people to fight for her simply based on her family name as opposed to giving people practical reasons for why it makes sense to support House Stark again especially now that winter is coming. Dany doesn't give reasons for why it'll be better for the Westerosi if she takes over the Iron Throne. She wants it because it's hers and she wants revenge on the people who fucked over her family. It's hard to see why Sansa doesn't receive similar criticism to all of the blowback that Dany gets when their mentality isn't all that different.

I think it's a similar attitude for why people are fine and even excited for RLJ but are generally dismissive and scathing for AJT.

With AJT vs RLJ, I can't help but suspect that AJT is also hated because it involves a Lannister and a Targaryen. The Starks are the favorites so people are more interested in seeing them win. Jon being a secret Targaryen doesn't irritate most people because it's okay for Starks to be special. (People are fine with an eleven year old badass assassin, a nine year old warg who will quickly become more powerful than Bloodraven, a fourteen/fifteen year old kid never losing a battle, a fierce wildling cannibal with a direwolf and unicorns backing him, a thirteen year old being queen and somehow running the show at the Vale, Riverrun, Winterfell, and Casterly Rock (I've seen this suggested multiple times), and of course Jon being the rightful heir to the Iron Throne.) It's when other characters threaten to be special that the pitchforks often start to come out.

[LmL]

^^^ a lot of truth in the above @Rhaechyll Targaryen

[UnmaskedLurker]

20 hours ago, Rhaechyll Targaryen said:

[snip]

Word. (And I do not say that lightly.)

[Suzanna Stormborn]

On 6/3/2016 at 0:25 PM, UnmaskedLurker said:

Welcome to the boards. 

This possibility has been mentioned from time to time. The real issue for me is how would anyone on Westeros be able to determine such a thing -- or even know of such a possibility. Something like Tyrion being a chimera either would need to be determined "in-story" somehow (again, not sure how that could happen) or be supported by some kind of really strong clues to the readers (most of whom probably don't even know such a possibility exits either).

But I agree that it is an interesting thought.

I think the Green and Black eyes are a representation of internal struggle....the Greens and the Blacks warring within their own family.  And yet another connection to the Targaryens

[Suzanna Stormborn]

21 hours ago, Rhaechyll Targaryen said:

The reason I don't think the series has gone overboard with bastards is because there were so many situations regarding illegitimate children, pretenders, royal bastards, and all the rest of it. Frankly, it's surprising that there aren't more Targaryen and highborn bastards in the story. The idea that two would be overkill when one likely isn't even a bastard hardly seems like overkill. Consider how many real life royal and noble bastards there have been, hidden or otherwise.  

I think people who say it's overkill are exaggerating and I think this is partly because of the point @LmL brought up about years worth of theory fatigue. I've read theories that Varys, Aurane Waters, Melisandre, and Darkstar are Targaryens and probably several other characters that I'm forgetting. I think it's unfair though to lump AJT with some of the more farfetched secret Targaryen theories considering the evidence that has been presented.

It seems like the AJT theory is penalized because most readers didn't start putting it together until the fifth book even though there were suggestive clues in the earlier books. Then the world book came out and that added fuel to the fire, but the people who were already against the theory decided to take the attitude that the world book didn't provide some major support even though I feel that if one looks at the evidence objectively and takes out the element of personal preference,  it's clear that this is far from some crackpot theory that fans are clinging to because they want to see Tyrion ride a dragon.

I also think there's an element of some people not wanting dragonriding/taming to have anything to do with blood in spite of the mountain of evidence that suggests Valyrian/Targaryen blood is a requirement. It's like people prefer the idea that anyone can ride a dragon and, while that's nice, it doesn't add up at all with the information we've been given. 

I've also noticed that the Targaryens seem to get a lot of hate for being "special" and Dany in particular, people hate the idea of her having some magic blood. 

When it comes to the Starks however, people are all on board with them being badasses in every sense including having magic blood. The Starks have wolf blood and they're able to bond with direwolves. How is this any different than Targaryens having the blood of the dragon to bond with their dragons? There's rarely an objection to the Starks being super special in this regard.

Brief show comparison regarding the difference in perception of Sansa and Dany:

 

  Hide contents

It's sort of like Sansa being lauded, applauded, and supposedly fierce when she talks over and over again that she's still a Stark and she'll take back what's hers. When Dany talks about how she's a Targaryen and she has a right to take back her home and throne, people roll their eyes at how she always plays the same cards, her name and her dragons. Sansa does the same thing only she doesn't have dragons. Sansa wants people to fight for her simply based on her family name as opposed to giving people practical reasons for why it makes sense to support House Stark again especially now that winter is coming. Dany doesn't give reasons for why it'll be better for the Westerosi if she takes over the Iron Throne. She wants it because it's hers and she wants revenge on the people who fucked over her family. It's hard to see why Sansa doesn't receive similar criticism to all of the blowback that Dany gets when their mentality isn't all that different.

I think it's a similar attitude for why people are fine and even excited for RLJ but are generally dismissive and scathing for AJT.

With AJT vs RLJ, I can't help but suspect that AJT is also hated because it involves a Lannister and a Targaryen. The Starks are the favorites so people are more interested in seeing them win. Jon being a secret Targaryen doesn't irritate most people because it's okay for Starks to be special. (People are fine with an eleven year old badass assassin, a nine year old warg who will quickly become more powerful than Bloodraven, a fourteen/fifteen year old kid never losing a battle, a fierce wildling cannibal with a direwolf and unicorns backing him, a thirteen year old being queen and somehow running the show at the Vale, Riverrun, Winterfell, and Casterly Rock (I've seen this suggested multiple times), and of course Jon being the rightful heir to the Iron Throne.) It's when other characters threaten to be special that the pitchforks often start to come out.

Dude! Totes agree!!  I have been saying all of exactly this for so long.  LIke hello, the Targaryen history and family tree is LITTERED with bastards.  The Targs are fire hot, high-passion, extremely sexy and attractive people for the most part.  Aerys was certainly one of these in his youth, just like Rhaegar.  Why is he singled out as the only Targ king to never have a bastard or children with multiple women?? Even St. Rhaegar did, they all have.  Look at Dany's sex drive, lol, or Tyrion's for that matter.  In the midst of death and destruction all around them, they both still want to get laid as often as possible.  

People hate the idea that Jon is not the one and only secret Targ or whatever. Tehy get mad about Dany being special because they only want Jon to be special lol, which makes no sense.  Personally I dont mind at all if Jon and Dany are both special.  I mean she's the (almost) fireproof one, so Dany fans are covered.  If people want to hate all over the Targaryens to make the Stark's look better, then maybe they are trying too hard.  IMO the Direwolves are equally as cool as the dragons.  The ice and fire magical abilities and animals are just two faces of the same coin.  One is not necessarily better than the other.