Jump to content
Lord Varys

FIRE AND BLOOD Volume 1

Recommended Posts

As to monikers:

I see that Aegon III is called 'the Unlucky' rather than 'the Dragonbane'. Could be because he hasn't yet (supposedly) killed any dragons, I assume?

Prince Daeron should get his 'the Daring' if you ask me, and Prince Aemond his 'One Eye'.

And since the legend has 'Sat on the Iron Throne' Rhaenyra should be marked as sitting the Iron Throne, too. After all, nobody can doubt she sat the Iron Throne, right? She is going to spend a lot of time on that chair in FaB.

Aenys' son Aegon never sat the Iron Throne, so in his case this would be correct.

29 minutes ago, Ran said:

You can't just add two pages to a book. Books are made of spreads of four pages. TWoIaF is made of 85 spreads, for example.

Ah, well, then ask George to write a foreword to add more pages in the beginning to get more space in the end or consider throwing out that graphic on the kings and the reigns in the end. That's not as important as a complete and detailed family tree. It just rehashes information already given in the book (and the appendix of AGoT). Not to mention that the succession of kings can be drawn from the content page of TWoIaF just as well.

30 minutes ago, Megorova said:

If F&BV1 covers until year 136, does it mean, that there will also be more information about Rogare family (Larra and Viserys II married in 134)? Will there be information about who was Larra's mother? Or will the book will be focused only on Targaryens and no one else?

The Rogares should feature in the account on the Regency of Aegon III.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not how the book business works. Corrections can be made, not page count changes requiring brand new art and layout. If there's ever an actual second edition of TWoIaF, I'm sure we'd explore such things, but right now there are no plans for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ran said:

That's not how the book business works. Corrections can be made, not page count changes requiring brand new art and layout. If there's ever an actual second edition of TWoIaF, I'm sure we'd explore such things, but right now there are no plans for it.

Yes, I know. Still, a pity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

I agree.

@Ran

Can you tell us why Aeryn was removed in favor of Daenerys?

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dead headofMaelysKinslayer said:

Barristan didn't know about her. And our Daenerys is now the third one. We have Daenerys for all three centuries.

After all, this is not the first time Barry remembered things wrongly :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zionius said:

After all, this is not the first time Barry remembered things wrongly :)

Yes. That quote was pointed out. As was Quentyn Martell also calling her the first Daenerys. It may be that future editions will make that "second Daenerys", as Quentyn's more learned and scholarly than Barristan Selmy, but who knows. In any case, George is aware and still, she is Daenerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to guess, then those changes to the birth order are likely going to play a role in the stories of the chapter. If we take Princess Alyssa as an example, then there is simply no way that the Alyssa who was Jaehaerys I's eldest daughter and oldest surviving child is going to have 'the same story' as an Alyssa that is younger than Baelon. Those will be two different characters entirely - or rather Alyssa Targaryen in flashed out form is going to be different from the sketchy image we got from her in TWoIaF. She is still the mother of Viserys, Daemon, and Aegon, and the sister-wife of Prince Baelon, but she is no longer the oldest living child of her parents.

Why such changes were made is at this point completely unclear.

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

Yes. That quote was pointed out. As was Quentyn Martell also calling her the first Daenerys. It may be that future editions will make that "second Daenerys", as Quentyn's more learned and scholarly than Barristan Selmy, but who knows. In any case, George is aware and still, she is Daenerys.

Not sure if that's much of an issue. King Aerys I and King Aerys II are also not the first and second Aerys, considering that the first Aerys Targaryen we know of was a Targaryen lord of Dragonstone. Vice versa, Aegon I may have been the first Targaryen king but not the first known Targaryen named Aegon - that was Aegon, the Lord of Dragonstone.

And since we have no idea of the Targaryens of Valyria (or most of the female Targaryens on Dragonstone) there might also be much and more Daenerys', Rhaenyras, Elaenas, Aereas, Rhaellas, etc.

And in relation to Selmy's weird memories I find the idea that Prince Daeron 'married for love' much more problematic than Selmy and Quentyn both missing/not knowing about a (possibly obscure) princess from the first century.

If the novels are corrected in relation to Maron's Daenerys it might be better not to attach a number to her but to mark her by other characteristics - 'the Good King's sister Daenerys', say, or 'the Unworthy's daughter Daenerys', and when Quentyn talks to Dany about her namesake Daenerys he could do so by pointing that once there lived 'another Targaryen princess named Daenerys' who married the Prince of Dorne, etc.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are adding a bunch of text to pages that are already laid out. Changing "first" to "second" is easy. Changing it to what you suggest may not be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ran said:

Yes. That quote was pointed out. As was Quentyn Martell also calling her the first Daenerys. It may be that future editions will make that "second Daenerys", as Quentyn's more learned and scholarly than Barristan Selmy, but who knows. In any case, George is aware and still, she is Daenerys.

Unless she grows up and/or is involved in something considerable, she could still be someone Selmy and Quentyn could overlook or be unaware of, while the next Daenerys was notable for being part of brining Dorne into the realm. Unless the first Daenerys was involved in something that makes her certain to be widely remembered, it might not be necessary to change Selmy's and Quentyn's statements.

Edited by Bael's Bastard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Unless she grows up and/or does something considerable, she could still be someone Selmy could overlook or be unaware of, while the next Daenerys was notable for being part of brining Dorne into the realm. Plus, Selmy comes off as especially interested in past romances or rumored romances, especially those which supposedly led or contributed to wars, as the second Daenerys's marriage is claimed to have. Unless the first Daenerys was involved in something that makes her certain to be widely remembered, it might not be necessary to change Selmy's statement.

I agree entirely. I don't think Barristan is an issue. It's Quentyn, who is more of a scholar and who knows the history of his own ancestress, that strikes me as a bit more of an issue. I'm not sure if George has already told Anne to change the reference to "second Daenerys", but I've already suggested it anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Unless the first Daenerys was involved in something that makes her certain to be widely remembered, it might not be necessary to change Selmy's and Quentyn's statements.

First Quarrel? Then Quentyn must definitely remember that she is the first one. 

Edited by Dead headofMaelysKinslayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ran said:

You are adding a bunch of text to pages that are already laid out. Changing "first" to "second" is easy. Changing it to what you suggest may not be possible.

Well, in novels there is a little bit more leeway in editing, but, yeah, exchanging numbers is more easily done.

24 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Unless she grows up and/or is involved in something considerable, she could still be someone Selmy and Quentyn could overlook or be unaware of, while the next Daenerys was notable for being part of brining Dorne into the realm. Unless the first Daenerys was involved in something that makes her certain to be widely remembered, it might not be necessary to change Selmy's and Quentyn's statements.

If she was just another stillborn/child that died in the cradle her overall importance could be negligible - but how likely is it that George introduced another Daenerys, making a mess out of the established family tree, just to make her another stillborn child, or a child not celebrating her first nameday?

That's very unlikely.

And in addition - if it turned out that Prince Aegon died shortly after his birth then this Daenerys would be their oldest child and the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne until the birth of Prince Aemon.

The heirs of kings are usually much better remembered than the younger children. Even if this Daenerys didn't grew to the age of ten she could still be more prominent the memory of the people of the Realm than, say, Archmaester Vaegon, Princess Saera or Princess Viserra. Royal children expected to sit the throne (or become queen at the side of a brother-husband) would interest contemporaries and posterity much more than just sixth or seventh spare.

In that sense it is actually pretty believable that people forget/don't know who Maester Aemon is - Aemon was never an important prince. And while some older people might still recall that the maester brother of Aegon V went to the Wall, they don't have to believe this man is still alive in 298 AC, or identical with the Maester Aemon at CB. Could very well be another Aemon.

And if it turned out that there was actually a story to the death of Princess Daenerys then one might be able to make a case that not just Quentyn but also Selmy should have heard about her. Whether he recalls her still late in life in light of the fact that he would have focused much more training in the yard in his youth is another matter.

But ask yourselves - do you think a casual history of House Targaryen in Westeros should mention the eldest daughter of the Old King, or not? I'd say yes. And as a Kingsguard the history of House Targaryen (and the institution of the KG) is also something Selmy should be aware of to some degree. He also served the traditionalist Targaryen king Jaehaerys II, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why George persisted to name her Daenerys? I can think of two possibilities:

1. She had so interesting a story that GRRM thinks it's worthwhile to revise ADWD for the sake of her alone, e.g. First Quarrel, heir for almost ten years.

2. George naively thought no one except Ran would notice the conflict with ADWD, so he didn't bother, just like the case in the Iron Islands section in TWOIAF :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarifying: So, this would make our current Daenerys a Third Daenerys?

Sorry. Random thought while driving ^_^

Edited by The Fattest Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

So, this would make our current Daenerys a Daenerys III? 

Sorry. Random thought while driving ^_^

You really only number the crowned rulers of the Seven Kingdoms. She'd still be Daenerys I.

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ran said:

You really only number the crowned rulers of the Seven Kingdoms. She'd still be Daenerys I.

True. I misspoke (being too quick and casual at a stoplight).  I meant the third Daenerys in the story as it is being written now. 

Edited by The Fattest Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Fattest Leech said:

True. I misspoke. I meant the third Daenerys in the story as it is being written now. 

So far as we know, yes, unless George decides to introduce another one in F&B v2. Can't rule it out, but I think it unlikely.

Share this post


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

×