UnmaskedLurker Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, Cas Stark said: One dragon is dead on the show.. Seems to heavily increase the chance that the three heads of the dragon do not need to and will not all three ride actual dragons. While I think you are correct, keep in mind that the show might be different than the books on that issue and the show has not made anything of the prophecy so maybe the show does not need three "dragons" to win the war. So maybe the books need three dragons and show does not. But let's follow up on your thought that three actual dragons will not be needed in the books (a plausible theory and one I am leaning in favor of supporting). In the books, the prophecy that the dragon must have three heads still needs to be addressed. Do the three heads need to be in some way or other from "House Targaryen"? I believe that is the critical question. My answer is YES. Once the answer is given as yes, then a third hidden Targ is needed and Tyrion almost certainly is that third hidden Targ. If someone else believes the answer is NO, then that person needs to explain how the prophecy saw the battle being won by three heads of the dragon -- but at least one of those heads was not a Targ. In what way is that person a "dragon" under prophecy if not a Targ? The lack of any plausible answer to that question is what has continually brought me back to maintaining AJT (at least in the books where the prophecy is central to the plot). Every other prophecy that uses an animal to represent a person uses an animal that relates to the person's House (or in the case of TSTMTW -- a horse representing the Khal of Khals as the Dothraki are associated with horses). Why would this prophecy be different? So if the dragon must have three heads -- and if a dragon in prophecy has always been a reference to House Targ -- then we need three Targs to be the three heads (even if we don't need three actual dragons). I have been making a variation on this argument for years -- mostly to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted August 22, 2017 Author Share Posted August 22, 2017 The show has us all confused. In the books, Dany has 2 dragons locked up and pissed off, they just got freed. She barely got drogon under control before he ate her in the Pit. Dany left Meereen with Drogon. after Viserion and Rhaegal were freed by Q, did they fly to follow and find Dany? No. They dont just follow her everywhere like they do on the show, they stay gone for long periods of time, etc, Drogon had made himself a little nest very far away from her before he returned. She definitely has a mental warg bond with drogon but not the other 2. R &V are NOT going to follow her across the planet, they wont without riders. they need riders before they leave Meereen. To me it is quite obvious that Tyrion/Brown Ben are gonna somehow get Viserion and Vic will get Rhaegal with the dragon horn those will be the 3 riders on the way back to westeros. I cant really predict what will happen from there but it is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT DIFFERENT than what D&D have done on the show wrt the dragons. Maybe in past seasons one could say 'oh that happened on the show so it confirms it in the books' I do not believe this is the case anymore. For instance, the last episode, not one minute of that episode will be represented in the books, this is obvious, none of these characters are at WF and none of them will go North of the Wall again. The NK cant throw spears and he wont get a dragon, the WW's (since there is no NK in the books) will be on an ice spiders (probably) So to base who rides which dragon in the books because of what's happening on the show is ludicrous. The only similarity I see is that one dragon will be taken and used on the 'bad' team, aka the Ironborn against Dany. It might die, idk. However I am certain that the other 2 dragons arent leaving Meereen without riders, so who could that possibly be? Vic has a horn and BBP/Tyrion have already had conversations about 'the dragons like you due to ur dragon blood' so it IS established, GRRM made it clear. The way Drogon came right up to Jon and was sniffing him/let him pet him I think is what will happen with Tyrion when he approaches wounded Viserion in the books, in Meereen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 If the three heads of the dragon are not going to ride the dragons it the book we'll get weirdo symbolic interpretations of that part of the prophecy - which would be basically crap because you'd need a manual to understand the plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 @Lord Varys -- legit point BUT who knows how GRRM might make Tyrion being critical to the endgame and a Targ relevant to the story. The readers have no way to guess what plot twists GRRM has in store. You may think any other approach would make crap of the prophecy -- but I don't claim to be as creative as GRRM or be able to predict what plot developments he might have in store for the readers -- and I don't think you have made any such claim either. So while it seems like any other outcome would make fulfilling the prophecy unclear -- we just don't know enough to be able to conclude that definitively. What we have, however, is the prophecy and all the other clues. GRRM can have something in mind other than riding a dragon that makes the three heads of the dragon prophecy work. What I have a hard time imagining is how GRRM can make the prophecy work without three Targs being central to defeating the Others. He would be using animal symbolism in a way that is completely different and inconsistent with the way he has used such symbolism in every other prophecy involving animal representations of individuals throughout the series. And it just would not make sense -- how is a non-Targ a "Dragon" for purposes of the prophecy? How could that even be understood by anyone? So while I tend to think that you are right and that all three Targs will ride a dragon (although, I still think it possible that Tryion only rides a dragon after Dany (or maybe Jon) dies in battle) -- the clues do not mandate such a result. What the clues mandate are three Targs who are central to winning the war (concluded from the prophecy) -- and the clues also point to Tyrion as the most likely third Targ (concluded from all the other clues outlined in the A+J=T thread). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmedricko Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 The Season 7 finale is titled "The Dragon and the Wolf" and will be 79 minutes, 43 seconds long. http://ew.com/tv/2017/08/22/game-of-thrones-season-7-finale-title/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 @UnmaskedLurker What we definitely can say on the basis of book knowledge is that Viserion and Rhaegal will be claimed by riders very soon. The candidates - Tyrion, Brown Ben, Victarion - are already in place. George's dragons won't go to Westeros without riders. They are already wild dragons, effectively. If somebody imprisoned a dragon in a ship against its will said ship would most likely burn and never reach its destination. How the dragons and their riders play into the endgame isn't clear yet for the books. But it is quite clear that there will be an important and intricate dragonrider plot in the books - something that is clearly not the case for the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Lord Varys said: @UnmaskedLurker What we definitely can say on the basis of book knowledge is that Viserion and Rhaegal will be claimed by riders very soon. The candidates - Tyrion, Brown Ben, Victarion - are already in place. George's dragons won't go to Westeros without riders. They are already wild dragons, effectively. If somebody imprisoned a dragon in a ship against its will said ship would most likely burn and never reach its destination. How the dragons and their riders play into the endgame isn't clear yet for the books. But it is quite clear that there will be an important and intricate dragonrider plot in the books - something that is clearly not the case for the show. Didn't GRRM imply there would be some form of DoD 2.0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted August 23, 2017 Author Share Posted August 23, 2017 3 hours ago, Lord Varys said: @UnmaskedLurker What we definitely can say on the basis of book knowledge is that Viserion and Rhaegal will be claimed by riders very soon. The candidates - Tyrion, Brown Ben, Victarion - are already in place. George's dragons won't go to Westeros without riders. They are already wild dragons, effectively. If somebody imprisoned a dragon in a ship against its will said ship would most likely burn and never reach its destination. How the dragons and their riders play into the endgame isn't clear yet for the books. But it is quite clear that there will be an important and intricate dragonrider plot in the books - something that is clearly not the case for the show. Thank you, this is exactly what I said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmedricko Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 15 hours ago, lojzelote said: He added to it some later: source And a third interview: Quote Renfro: I read in a Deadline interview that George R.R. Martin was on set with you back in that first season, when these ideas that were just small seeds. Now that they've grown into massive storylines, what is it like thinking back to that? Taylor: Well, every once in awhile you get a glimpse of the scale he was working at. One of the big satisfying moments was when we discovered Hodor's name and how he got it. I was thinking, "Oh my God this character has been around for six seasons and this is just paying off now with the set up back then." So it's true — all of the characters have such big arcs and he's got them so mapped out in his head that the story is functioning moment to moment but also in these grand story gestures over several seasons, and that's what makes it so rich. We were in Malta shooting episode ten of the first season, and the show wasn't a big deal yet and we weren't being very secretive because nobody cared yet, and [Martin] just sort of mentioned in passing, "Oh well it's all about Dany and Jon Snow" and at the time I thought, "Really? I thought it was about Sean Bean and Robb Stark?" But he knew from the very beginning where he was driving and now we're starting to see that come to fruition. We know that it's circling tighter and tighter on Dany and Jon and their partnership is starting to form, you know, "fire and ice." Renfro: Do you know if he was specific back then about them becoming romantically involved, since that's really only just become "official" in this latest season seven episode? Taylor: I think it's become more official but it's been coming for awhile, so much so that it's not only starting to happen but Tyrion sees it coming enough that he's making fun of her for it. He can see what's brewing. I can't say much more about what [Martin] said about where we're going with Dany and Jon because that leaps ahead into the next season, but to me the revelation was that, at the time, we had a hundred characters and yet he knew it's about these two. So in my episode we get to take a big step forward in that Jon is no longer competing with her — he was willing to bow down and recognize her as queen. That's a huge step. And also they're holding hands, and the look that she gives him in that scene where she almost swoons and draws back ... it's pretty clear where this is headed, but it's not there yet. http://www.thisisinsider.com/game-of-thrones-director-theory-longclaw-grrm-jon-dany-2017-8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard of Banefort Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 We know from The Rogue Prince that once a dragonrider dies, the dragon can be claimed by another person. I'm inclined to think that Rhaegal and Viserion will both be ridden by several different characters over the course of the next two books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 7 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said: We know from The Rogue Prince that once a dragonrider dies, the dragon can be claimed by another person. I'm inclined to think that Rhaegal and Viserion will both be ridden by several different characters over the course of the next two books. For years there has been discussion of DoD 2.0 -- which I long suspected meant that fAegon would get Rhaegal -- apparently proving he is who he claims to be -- but then fAegon will die and his "true" heritage will be revealed (as either a Blackfyre or perhaps Blackfyre/Brightflame descendant). So I have been on board with at least part of this contention for quite a while. The notion that Viserion also would have multiple riders is less clear to me -- but certainly possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 11 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said: Didn't GRRM imply there would be some form of DoD 2.0? He did - although it is pretty clear that it will come to that even without him talking about it since we got Aegon into the mix. But we don't have that in the show, of course, and we don't have the chances of having some dragon battles with Cersei as queen. So that plot element goes now to the head Other. After all, the show really tries to wrap up things as quickly as they can. 8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said: We know from The Rogue Prince that once a dragonrider dies, the dragon can be claimed by another person. I'm inclined to think that Rhaegal and Viserion will both be ridden by several different characters over the course of the next two books. Sure, that much is obvious. However, if Tyrion were to claim Viserion he would be stuck with him until his death - which is not likely to happen before the very end of the story, if it happens at all. There are very strong hints that Tyrion may become Viserion's rider very soon. But Rhaegal could have a string of riders - Brown Ben Plumm, Aegon, etc. - until he finally ends up with Jon Snow. It could also be that Tyrion claims Viserion only later down the road, although I find that less likely. 1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said: For years there has been discussion of DoD 2.0 -- which I long suspected meant that fAegon would get Rhaegal -- apparently proving he is who he claims to be -- but then fAegon will die and his "true" heritage will be revealed (as either a Blackfyre or perhaps Blackfyre/Brightflame descendant). So I have been on board with at least part of this contention for quite a while. The notion that Viserion also would have multiple riders is less clear to me -- but certainly possible. I'm really not sure if Aegon is ever going to become a dragonrider. That would be in the rather distant future, but certainly possible if one of the dragonriders has died by that point. And Aegon risking his own life and crown by sneaking into Dany's camp with Varys' help to claim an unclaimed dragon there could certainly help regain momentum in the war. That would be a dashing feat indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted August 23, 2017 Author Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: I'm really not sure if Aegon is ever going to become a dragonrider. That would be in the rather distant future, but certainly possible if one of the dragonriders has died by that point. And Aegon risking his own life and crown by sneaking into Dany's camp with Varys' help to claim an unclaimed dragon there could certainly help regain momentum in the war. That would be a dashing feat indeed. I like that. It sounds like something right out of one of the short stories. It'd be awesome to have a scene like that but with more detail and intense dialogue than tPatQ or TRP. and I completely agree that Rhaegal will have multiple riders in the book before coming to Jon. I guess i was wrong about which dragon died on the show. Frankly i wish the colors of all 3 dragons was more defined on the show. They all look the same color brownish.-- So yeah D&D totally gave Tyrions dragon to the NK. It really seems like they are dropping AJT to me completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Suzanna Stormborn said: I like that. It sounds like something right out of one of the short stories. It'd be awesome to have a scene like that but with more detail and intense dialogue than tPatQ or TRP. and I completely agree that Rhaegal will have multiple riders in the book before coming to Jon. I guess i was wrong about which dragon died on the show. Frankly i wish the colors of all 3 dragons was more defined on the show. They all look the same color brownish.-- So yeah D&D totally gave Tyrions dragon to the NK. It really seems like they are dropping AJT to me completely. So far only three people on the show have shown any affinity with the dragons: Deadpan, Pomade Jesus and Tyrion. I'm not sure that there is enough time next season to set up a reveal of Tyrion as a Targ, but maybe, I guess it depends on what his Targness has to do with the endgame, which we don't know yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Well, the show doesn't give a shit about the dragonrider plot. If George decided that the main point of Tyrion as Aerys' son is that he can become a dragonrider then the show may have cut that whole thing along with the entire 'Tyrion becomes a dragonrider' plot. The idea that plot-wise Tyrion has to be a Targaryen descendant for the endgame in the show doesn't make much sense to me. The show doesn't care about making sense. If they want Tyrion to sit the throne they could get there with or without making him a Targaryen descendant - just as they did with Cersei. In that sense we cannot really think the show reaching the same point as the books (if that's what they are still doing which I don't think is the case) does mean they give them the same back story, personality, character arc, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 16 hours ago, Lord Varys said: @UnmaskedLurker What we definitely can say on the basis of book knowledge is that Viserion and Rhaegal will be claimed by riders very soon. The candidates - Tyrion, Brown Ben, Victarion - are already in place. George's dragons won't go to Westeros without riders. They are already wild dragons, effectively. If somebody imprisoned a dragon in a ship against its will said ship would most likely burn and never reach its destination. How the dragons and their riders play into the endgame isn't clear yet for the books. But it is quite clear that there will be an important and intricate dragonrider plot in the books - something that is clearly not the case for the show. Just a few odds and ends about the Show hints in general. I don't entirely agree with Linda's dismissal of some of the Show events from a Book perspective (in her weekly Youtube video review). Sure, the Show does things clumsily, but a lot of it has basis in truth, if shoe horned in against all Show plot logic. Let's start with the Dragons. You state that they will get riders very soon. But I disagree. I think that Viserion probably gets lost very soon, to the Dragonhorn, with Euron as its master. And that the second Dance of the Dragons is then between Dany and Euron, who has a dragon by the time Dany arrives in Westeros. Clearly the Horn is signifcant, and clearly it must produce some kind of pay-off for it to have been worth a damn. Anyway, that was just as an aside to your comment above. As to the Show hints in general: I think something like the Ice spear of the Night's King is a fiction of the Show, based on an element of truth in the books. In this case, I don't think there is a Night's King as such, and therefore no Ice Spears thrown by him, but I think there is Old God northern magic that is lethal to Dragons, in the form of weirwood arrows. These pale white projectiles have a simlar look and feel to Ice Spears, and have a similar origin in the magic of the Children. I think Bran's vision of Brandon Snow and his three arrows hinted at it, and the Show stole that idea and morphed it into Ice Spears to fit with their Night King plot. Similarly the Arya-Sansa conflict which Linda finds so ridiculous. I think once again the Show has butchered it, but that it is based on the truth of Martin's comment that Arya and Sansa have significant issues to sort out in future. That they will be in conflict is clear. Arya was there when Ned was executed after all. Whether it will be in Winterfell, or in the Vale or somewhere inbetween in the Riverlands perhaps, that is a different issue. But that some kind of conflict will be resolved between them is obvious. And most likely it will be the arc that ends with Littlefinger brought to ruin, and Sansa liberated from his clutches. Same with the Dany-Jon storyline. For a long time people, you in particular, have asked how on earth Jon will convince the lords of Westeros that he is the rightful King. And one of the options I presented was that he does not need to convince them. He just needs to convince the one with Dragons. Once Dany is convinced, he will become her heir, and when she then dies, he becomes the King after her. It seems there are hints that they both might die and their child will be the heir, but I really hope this does not come to pass in the books, as it is far too bitter, with very little sweet left in it. We have no investment in Dany and Jon's child. But we have investment in either Jon or Dany. The last thing we want is for someone like Tyrion to rule as regent to their child or some such baloney. I can see the Show going for something stupid like that, but I sincerely hope George is a better writer than that. Then lastly, I still don't think George will wipe out the Starks in the male line. So I think Rickon HAS to live through the series ending, else the series will have almost no sweet whatsoever, and only a whole lot of bitter as far as I am concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 27 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Let's start with the Dragons. You state that they will get riders very soon. But I disagree. I think that Viserion probably gets lost very soon, to the Dragonhorn, with Euron as its master. And that the second Dance of the Dragons is then between Dany and Euron, who has a dragon by the time Dany arrives in Westeros. Clearly the Horn is signifcant, and clearly it must produce some kind of pay-off for it to have been worth a damn. Who cares how the dragons are going to be claimed, really? Dragonbinder certainly is going to play a role there, putting the books on a completely different track since there is neither a Dragonbinder nor the concept of fixed dragonriders in the show. In the show the dragons simply do whatever the Dany 'tells' them to do. You ignore the hints that Brown Ben, Victarion, or Tyrion are about to become dragonriders at your own peril. But the idea that Euron claims a dragon soon is ridiculous. He isn't in Slaver's Bay. 27 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: I think something like the Ice spear of the Night's King is a fiction of the Show, based on an element of truth in the books. In this case, I don't think there is a Night's King as such, and therefore no Ice Spears thrown by him, but I think there is Old God northern magic that is lethal to Dragons, in the form of weirwood arrows. These pale white projectiles have a simlar look and feel to Ice Spears, and have a similar origin in the magic of the Children. I think Bran's vision of Brandon Snow and his three arrows hinted at it, and the Show stole that idea and morphed it into Ice Spears to fit with their Night King plot. There could be something to the weirwood arrows thing - but that would only become important in the books if the Northmen rediscovered that whole thing and actually tried to slay Dany's dragons. And why on earth would they want to do that? The ice spears thing is just the show having 'a cool shot'. There is no reason as to why only the head Other can have such spears, nor is there a good reason why ice spears should actually be able to injure or kill a dragon. Dragons are fire made flesh in the books, and fire melts ice. I'm not saying the Others couldn't kill a downed dragon if they overwhelmed on the ground - and they could, perhaps, even use a powerful blizzard to bring it down but the ice spear is just crap. I mean, the basic physics goes against this. A scorpion bolt might be able to pierce a dragon's armor but not some spear thrown by one dude. 27 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Similarly the Arya-Sansa conflict which Linda finds so ridiculous. I think once again the Show has butchered it, but that it is based on the truth of Martin's comment that Arya and Sansa have significant issues to sort out in future. That they will be in conflict is clear. Arya was there when Ned was executed after all. Whether it will be in Winterfell, or in the Vale or somewhere inbetween in the Riverlands perhaps, that is a different issue. But that some kind of conflict will be resolved between them is obvious. And most likely it will be the arc that ends with Littlefinger brought to ruin, and Sansa liberated from his clutches. LOL, no. That is a ridiculous plot line, and the show really made that up out of thin air. That doesn't mean that Sansa and Arya might be on different sides at one point but that isn't the same at all. 27 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Same with the Dany-Jon storyline. For a long time people, you in particular, have asked how on earth Jon will convince the lords of Westeros that he is the rightful King. And one of the options I presented was that he does not need to convince them. He just needs to convince the one with Dragons. Once Dany is convinced, he will become her heir, and when she then dies, he becomes the King after her. That is basically the same I was saying, too. But I doubt that Jon is going to be Dany's heir in either scenario, since they are going to be together as a (married) couple. We'll have to wait and see what Dany makes of the story of Jon's true heritage but he has basically bent the knee already, so this should be mostly a non-issue, really. 27 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: It seems there are hints that they both might die and their child will be the heir, but I really hope this does not come to pass in the books, as it is far too bitter, with very little sweet left in it. We have no investment in Dany and Jon's child. But we have investment in either Jon or Dany. The last thing we want is for someone like Tyrion to rule as regent to their child or some such baloney. I can see the Show going for something stupid like that, but I sincerely hope George is a better writer than that. Jon is a dead man walking in the books, and Dany could die, too. I'm less certain that she will die but it is certainly possible. This is not a fairy-tale. If George has an infant or very young child inherit the throne in the end I guess there is no bad chance that we'll have a spouse for that little royal from Aegon's branch of the family. Chances are very good that Aegon's future queen is going to have a child before the end of the story, and since Daenerys is likely going to think she is barren she is most likely not going to kill such a child but keep it as a presumptive heir (not to mention that she is not likely going to send some thugs after royal children they way the Lannisters did during the Rebellion). 27 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Then lastly, I still don't think George will wipe out the Starks in the male line. So I think Rickon HAS to live through the series ending, else the series will have almost no sweet whatsoever, and only a whole lot of bitter as far as I am concerned. How so? There is no reason why House Stark could not continue in the female line. Sansa or Arya's children could just well call themselves 'Starks' as Bael's son did. Or they might decide to take the name of their fathers as people in this society are supposed to. The idea that George is going to reinforce patriarchal stereotypes at the very end of the story is not all that likely. I don't like the idea of Rickon and Bran dying because they are children and should not die. But House Stark could just as well continue in the female instead of the male line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: Who cares how the dragons are going to be claimed, really? Dragonbinder certainly is going to play a role there, putting the books on a completely different track since there is neither a Dragonbinder nor the concept of fixed dragonriders in the show. In the show the dragons simply do whatever the Dany 'tells' them to do. You ignore the hints that Brown Ben, Victarion, or Tyrion are about to become dragonriders at your own peril. But the idea that Euron claims a dragon soon is ridiculous. He isn't in Slaver's Bay. There could be something to the weirwood arrows thing - but that would only become important in the books if the Northmen rediscovered that whole thing and actually tried to slay Dany's dragons. And why on earth would they want to do that? The ice spears thing is just the show having 'a cool shot'. There is no reason as to why only the head Other can have such spears, nor is there a good reason why ice spears should actually be able to injure or kill a dragon. Dragons are fire made flesh in the books, and fire melts ice. I'm not saying the Others couldn't kill a downed dragon if they overwhelmed on the ground - and they could, perhaps, even use a powerful blizzard to bring it down but the ice spear is just crap. I mean, the basic physics goes against this. A scorpion bolt might be able to pierce a dragon's armor but not some spear thrown by one dude. LOL, no. That is a ridiculous plot line, and the show really made that up out of thin air. That doesn't mean that Sansa and Arya might be on different sides at one point but that isn't the same at all. That is basically the same I was saying, too. But I doubt that Jon is going to be Dany's heir in either scenario, since they are going to be together as a (married) couple. We'll have to wait and see what Dany makes of the story of Jon's true heritage but he has basically bent the knee already, so this should be mostly a non-issue, really. Jon is a dead man walking in the books, and Dany could die, too. I'm less certain that she will die but it is certainly possible. This is not a fairy-tale. If George has an infant or very young child inherit the throne in the end I guess there is no bad chance that we'll have a spouse for that little royal from Aegon's branch of the family. Chances are very good that Aegon's future queen is going to have a child before the end of the story, and since Daenerys is likely going to think she is barren she is most likely not going to kill such a child but keep it as a presumptive heir (not to mention that she is not likely going to send some thugs after royal children they way the Lannisters did during the Rebellion). How so? There is no reason why House Stark could not continue in the female line. Sansa or Arya's children could just well call themselves 'Starks' as Bael's son did. Or they might decide to take the name of their fathers as people in this society are supposed to. The idea that George is going to reinforce patriarchal stereotypes at the very end of the story is not all that likely. I don't like the idea of Rickon and Bran dying because they are children and should not die. But House Stark could just as well continue in the female instead of the male line. I'm afraid you don't suggest good reasons for many of your views, just statements of opinion couched as fact. Like Euron not getting a dragon, or Arya and Sansa not engaging in conflict, or that Aegon's queen will have time to have a kid, or that Bael's story is anything other than a fabricated myth, etc. etc. And in-universe, a patriarchal line is repeatedly viewed as superior to a female based one. That is unambiguous in the story. Whatever our modern views might be. And I don't see House Stark's status being diminished after all is said and done, comparatively to that of House Lannister or any other House. And Martin was quite clear that Arya and Sansa have personal issues to resolve. The Show has obviously latched onto that, but once again, in a ham fisted illogical way. As for Brown Ben Plum. It seems likely that the entire reason for his "drop of Dragon blood", was simply to set the precedent for Dragons reacting warmly to some Targ blood, so that the scene in the Show where Drogon fawns over Jon has a proper foundation once the two meet in the books. I doubt that the lowly Brown Ben Plum is destined to ride a dragon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jô Maltese Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/game-thrones-how-beyond-wall-sets-up-series-finale-1031114 Another point of view on how AJT is "replaced" int he show - interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard of Banefort Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Lord Varys said: Sure, that much is obvious. However, if Tyrion were to claim Viserion he would be stuck with him until his death - which is not likely to happen before the very end of the story, if it happens at all. There are very strong hints that Tyrion may become Viserion's rider very soon. But Rhaegal could have a string of riders - Brown Ben Plumm, Aegon, etc. - until he finally ends up with Jon Snow. It could also be that Tyrion claims Viserion only later down the road, although I find that less likely. You don't think Euron might claim Viserion first? I feel like that could be one interpretation of the "white lady" in Aeron's vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.