Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Grey Wolf

Inconsistencies, plot holes, and missing details in TSOTD, TRP, and TPATQ

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

Or a well-founded rumour.

After all, we see quite some married household retainers. Winterfell has Vayon Poole with a daughter and Rodrik Cassel also with daughter... though their mothers are not currently around. Podrick Payne´s father was married while squiring for his richer cousins. Etc.

If a lord commits adultery with a wife of his household retainer, it is certainly an abuse, but how much practical recourse does the retainer have? Leave the lord´s service and take his wife along... but he is not assured of getting an equal rank job elsewhere.

So you could have evidence pointing at Orys not being the child of his alleged father... like, different looks (but where is the black hair from? Mother?), or evidence of his alleged father having been away on the lord´s business at the relevant time.

While this is a nice idea, we have no evidence that Orys Baratheon's mother or his (alleged) father even were retainers of the Targaryens on Dragonstone.

All we do know is that Orys Baratheon himself became Aegon Targaryen's best friend. There is no link between Orys and Lord Aerion that we know of. His (alleged) parents could have been Valyrian (nobles) in the service of the Targaryens. But they could just as well been mere commoners or the descendants of slaves. We don't know.

What we do know is that Orys Baratheon didn't look Valyrian, making it exceedingly unlikely that there was much tangible evidence that he was Aerion's son. He didn't look like his alleged father, nor like his alleged half-siblings. And he wasn't acknowledged by Lord Aerion, either.

In light of those facts, the chances are not very good that anybody would believe Aerion was Orys' father just because his official father (if he had one) was away when the child was conceived. Why couldn't be some other man Orys' father?

It is also rather telling that Argilac the Arrogant outright dismissed the possibility of Orys Baratheon marrying his daughter and heir. He wanted a closer relation with the Targaryens on Dragonstone and if Orys had been a scion of Valyrian nobility as well as (very likely) the half-brother of Lord Aegon there wouldn't have been a good reason to react as harshly as he did. But if Orys Baratheon was nothing but a baseborn nobody whose sole special feature was that he had been befriended by Aegon Targaryen for some reason then it was clearly an insult to offer such a man as potential husband to the daughter of a king.

And it is rather telling that Orys was later never officially declared Aegon's half-brother by King Aegon himself - nor legitimized as a Targaryen. Aegon could have done both, and if you think about it then Orys' standing with Argella Durrandon and his bannermen and vassals in the Stormlands would have been much better if an Orys Targaryen had ruled over them than an Orys Baratheon (or at least an Orys Baratheon who was publicly declared to be the half-brother of King Aegon).

In light of all that the chances are not bad that Orys Baratheon is not, in fact, Aerion Targaryen's son and the whole thing is just that - a rumor.

We know the First Night was practiced on Dragonstone. Perhaps Orys Baratheon was nothing but an alleged dragonseed, the son of one of many women Lord Aerion had before their legal husband? We don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys

I disagree. Orys is the founder of a Great House and the BFF of Aegon the Conqueror. It makes no sense that the Maesters wouldn't write down where the hell his family name comes from.

57. One of the casualties of the Fishfeed in TPATQ is a Lord Swyft. Is this an error or was House Swyft demoted sometime after the Dance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Lord Varys

I disagree. Orys is the founder of a Great House and the BFF of Aegon the Conqueror. It makes no sense that the Maesters wouldn't write down where the hell his family name comes from.

They certainly would do that - but George isn't forced to put such information in either Fire and Blood or TWoIaF.

But I must say I was surprised that TWoIaF didn't resolve the mystery of Orys Baratheon. Considering that Yandel wrote his book for King Robert - and did cover the history of the Stormlands in that book, too - it is rather strange that the royal ancestry of House Baratheon and the kinship of its legendary with Aegon the Conqueror and his sister-wives wasn't elaborated on.

Yandel could easily enough have drawn a historical parallel between Orys and Robert, claiming that Robert proved his right to rule and royal ancestry by his prowess in battle, very much like Orys Baratheon did win his position as Lord of Storm's End and Hand of the King when he defeated King Argilac and the Stormlords.

It is not that Orys Baratheon's ancestry would have given Robert all that strong a claim - it is rather that this would have been a nice and interesting parallel.

9 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

57. One of the casualties of the Fishfeed in TPATQ is a Lord Swyft. Is this an error or was House Swyft demoted sometime after the Dance?

@Ran should check that, but I'm not sure it would be a relevant mistake even if it was one, and George actually meant a landed knight there. There could have been a lordly branch of House Swyft which died out over the years, or they could indeed have been demoted. There were some Blackfyre rebellions between the Dance and the series.

In fact, there could still be a lordly branch of House Swyft in the Westerlands right now. We may just not know about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. The German translation is already under way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope. The German translation is already under way.

I saw that too.

Hopefully all the work we've done here is of use to GRRM and co.

Edited by The Grey Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

I saw that too.

Hopefully all the work we've done here is of use to GRRM and co.

I meant, I actually know that the German translation is under way. From reliable sources.

I hope that, too.I guess there is still ample time to combine the stuff we have collected here one big file and hand it over to @Ran and @Linda.

Such a file should, I think, restrict itself to actual errors, mistakes, inaccuracies, and plot holes. It shouldn't be wish list of what we want to read but rather a way to better the product we intend to buy and read. Which should be much better than what we read in 'The Book of Swords' - but also better than the garbled texts of TPatQ and TRP (although the latter works best as a text).

We can always express our desire about what we would like to read once we have finally read the final text of 'Fire and Blood'. There is supposed to be a second volume, and Ran has already indicated there might be a expanded/enlarged volume of TWoIaF in the future, too, giving George's complete texts on the various kingdoms and the lands in the east and south (and perhaps even something).

I mean, this world really has potential. The Seven Kingdoms alone could provide the background for something like 'The Dune Encyclopedia' - which really is the best 'companion book thing' on a fictional universe out there, because it really played with everything an in-world book can offer on a very sophisticated level (just think of the entry reinventing Paul Atreides as a Fremen impostor or the complete list of Padishah emperors of all the various houses, stretching over 10,000 years).

There thousands of years to cover, and technically there should be nearly infinite things to explore if you focus on things rather than giving only a broad overview.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Text

I agree with everything you said.

In fact, this is why I love world-building so much and hope to one day publish an equivalent to TWOIAF for my own setting.

Anyway, do you want to compile a list of notes based off this thread or should I?

Also, it will forever be my opinion that Fire & Blood should be split into three parts:

Volume 1 (Aegon I-Regency of Aegon III)

Volume 2 (Post-Regency Aegon III-Daeron II)

Volume 3 (Aerys I-Aerys II)

This would allow GRRM to publish more material without having to worry about spoiling D & E. Moreover, it would tie in with the fact that "the dragon must have three heads".

Edited by The Grey Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Anyway, do you want to compile a list of notes based off this thread or should I?

If you want to do it, I won't stop you. I don't have the time to do that right now ;-).

But I think I posted one of my own detailed notes on the issues with TRP and TPatQ in one of the longer posts in that thread.

Great emphasis should be on the issues with TSotD since we are reasonably certain that this is pretty much the whole text. Stuff isn't unclear or confusing in there because things are missing, it is so because it was written that way.

But clear mistakes in TRP and TPatQ should be marked, too (like when family relations are wrong, etc.). Ran and Linda are likely going to catch those, too, but the more people point stuff out the more likely is it that this stuff is actually corrected.

6 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Also, it will forever be my opinion that Fire & Blood should be split into three parts:

Volume 1 (Aegon I-Regency of Aegon III)

Volume 2 (Post-Regency Aegon III-Daeron II)

Volume 3 (Aerys I-Aerys II)

This would allow GRRM to publish more material without having to worry about spoiling D & E. Moreover, it would tie in with the fact that "the dragon must have three heads".

I really think the first volume should not end after the Regency of Aegon III but encompass his entire reign. A generic two volume history of the reign of House Targaryen should cover the Targaryen until the death of the last dragon, not just until some boy king came of age.

If there was enough material for a three volume history your suggestion makes sense. And I guess George could write another 800 or so pages if the exploits of Aegon the Unworthy would be a huge chunk of that. It wouldn't be that novel from his POV - but then, Gyldayn could have chanced upon parts of King Aegon's private diary during his research, and give the reader long excerpts from the Unworthy's own POV...

The reign of Aegon III could become a pretty long piece, too, not just because of the ultimate fates of Silverwing and Sheepstealer, but also due to the wars and conflicts around the three fake Daerons, Oakenfist's later voyages, the fate of the last dragons, etc. 

And an included thorough history of the Daeron's Conquest (with lengthy quotations from Daeron's book as well many various Dornish and neutral sources) as well as a detailed coverage of the First Blackfyre Rebellion and its gestation certainly also has the potential to become a pretty big book. Not to mention the colorful reign of Baelor the Blessed.

Due to the long lives of certain characters the author could also make it a point to focus continuously on people like Viserys II, Aegon the Unworthy, the Dragonknight, Princess Elaena, and Daeron II. They would not only do the things that they are famous for, but would also participate in and witness things we don't connect them with them all that much.

The Unworthy's secret diary could not only give us insight into his sexual exploits and the relationship with his siblings and father, but be also provide interesting commentary on the reign of his uncle and two cousins. Vice versa, Daeron II and Elaena are around for the reigns of Daeron I and Baelor, too.

How the whole plan of a union with Dorne finally took shape is another interesting thing. After all, young Daeron II did live through his namesake's war, too. And while he presumably grew to love Mariah eventually, we have no clue whether he wanted to see Daeron I avenged or what he thought of King Baelor's plan to marry him to the daughter of the people who (presumably) were behind the Young Dragon's death.

The Great Spring Sickness wouldn't be a natural point to end such a book, but then - if we don't have the Dunk & Egg stories written at that point it would be the ideal point to end it. One could even include some personal tragedy there if Gyldayn himself lost important people during that plague.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the man was himself one of the not-so-great bastards of Aegon IV - or the son of such a bastard. Aegon must have had many children, and the Citadel would certainly be a place for some of them. It would depend on how old the man was when he died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys

I won't have time till May because of exams but alright.

Anyway, do you think Grand Maester Aethelmure could be a Targaryen bastard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Lord Varys

I won't have time till May because of exams but alright.

Well, we might be able to save us a lot of work:

@Ran, do you guys care to receive a long list of the mad ramblings of us malcontents, complaining about really huge and world-moving inconsistencies, or have you been keeping track of the entire thing, anyway ;-)?

4 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Anyway, do you think Grand Maester Aethelmure could be a Targaryen bastard?

No, not until this moment. But I'm really interesting in the kind of treason Grand Maester Hareth committed, and what he did 

Aethelmure could have had some Valyrian background, as could Gyldayn.

But then, if you look at the names of certain professions, George seems to have a tendency to give maesters and septons 'scholarly' and 'pious' names. Names like Pycelle, Luceon, Walgrave, Colemon, Chayle, Cellador, Unella, etc. are only used in a specific context - which is rather odd, considering that neither septons/septas nor maesters take a new name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve gone through the thread. Thanks. Will just underscore that much that was posted here is not part of what I sent to GRRM. Most of it is really asking for explanations of things that have  readily imagined solutions. But the genuine continuity issues, or plot holes that seem to have no good solutions, have been sent on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

58. Just remembered this. The casualties for the Field of Fire are ridiculous.

The Targaryens corralled the enemy army into a firestorm and had archers/spearmen pick off those who escaped it yet only 5000 died? It should be more like 10000-15000.

Worse are the Targaryen losses. The West-Reach army smashed Aegon's lines yet less than a hundred men died even though there was enough time for an archer to also shoot Visenya in the shoulder? That's bullocks. 500-1000 deaths would make way more sense. Armored knights on horseback can rack up kills damn fast, especially when a charge is successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8.4.2018 at 6:06 AM, Ran said:

I’ve gone through the thread. Thanks. Will just underscore that much that was posted here is not part of what I sent to GRRM. Most of it is really asking for explanations of things that have  readily imagined solutions. But the genuine continuity issues, or plot holes that seem to have no good solutions, have been sent on.

That was the overall point of the thing. But you know how it goes - if you are an obsessed geek you want solutions and explanations to everything, not just the stuff that's obviously wrong. It is great to know, however, that we are going to get rid off the really tough nuts.

And hopefully you guys kept a very close watch on family relations. I do recall Jaehaerys I being moved around in the family tree in rather strange ways, being King Aenys' grandson rather than his son in certain instances in the early prints of TWoIaF - stuff like that should not mar the joy of reading 'Fire and Blood', and here we could only comment on the stuff that was actually published in some form, not the account on Jaehaerys I, the Regency of Aegon III, or the missing Dance material.

I still hope to get some stuff on Prince Aegon and Quicksilver and the realism of the ridiculous prospect that a bunch of teens could have taken on Maegor on Balerion - but then, we all know that hope dies last ;-).

Thinking about things:

Have you any idea whether there is going to be a new and complete family tree of the Targaryens touched upon in 'Fire and Blood I'? That could be a nice appendix thing, especially for the not-so-obsessed readers who don't know fictitious family trees better than their own.

And it would give the opportunity to finally make a complete family tree of the royals, including all the female branches (offspring of Rhaena, Aerea, and Rhaella; House Velaryon) as well as the royal bastard branches (House Baratheon and whatever bastards King Aenys and his descendants may have produced).

Come to think of it, it might even be fun to do some of the appendices the style we get in the books - meaning listing the wives, children, parents, extended family, court, retainers, vassals, etc. of each and every king the book is covering. As it happens, that would also give us a pretty complete list of the Kingsguard, Small Council, etc.

And it would help the audience to deal with that kind of special book.

49 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

58. Just remembered this. The casualties for the Field of Fire are ridiculous.

The Targaryens corralled the enemy army into a firestorm and had archers/spearmen pick off those who escaped it yet only 5000 died? It should be more like 10000-15000.

Worse are the Targaryen losses. The West-Reach army smashed Aegon's lines yet less than a hundred men died even though there was enough time for an archer to also shoot Visenya in the shoulder? That's bullocks. 500-1000 deaths would make way more sense. Armored knights on horseback can rack up kills damn fast, especially when a charge is successful.

I really guess the whole thing was more smoke than fire, in the end. The fire terrified horses and men alike, and battles are won when the enemy lines break, not necessarily when the enemy men are actually butchered.

I always took this whole thing as a sign of Aegon's propaganda genius. He enemies learned/realized what he could do, and were in awe that he didn't do it to them. He showed mercy. And he waged war in a way that actually did not try to kill as many people as possible. That is really the kind of man that deserves to be king. In that sense he really is the epitome of kingship and what it means in this world.

I mean, the Conquest could have done completely differently. Aegon and his sister-wives could have targeted the great cities with their dragons first. Burning Lannisport and Oldtown would have broken the enemy, too, but they would have looked infinitely worse thereafter than they did the way the conquered the Seven Kingdoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

58. Just remembered this. The casualties for the Field of Fire are ridiculous.

The Targaryens corralled the enemy army into a firestorm and had archers/spearmen pick off those who escaped it yet only 5000 died? It should be more like 10000-15000.

Worse are the Targaryen losses. The West-Reach army smashed Aegon's lines yet less than a hundred men died even though there was enough time for an archer to also shoot Visenya in the shoulder? That's bullocks. 500-1000 deaths would make way more sense. Armored knights on horseback can rack up kills damn fast, especially when a charge is successful.

In medieval warfare, before the introduction of gunpowder, casualties were much smaller than what movies would make us believe. Battles were never fought until the "last man standing", and big portions of the armies just maneuvered without engaging in actual combat.

My sources say that the average was 5% losses for the losing side. 10% was considered a harsh loss and 30% would be the upper limit in an utter defeat. With this in mind, 5,000 dead out of 55,000 soldiers (9%) fits perfectly.

What would you do if you were king Loren? You see how the Targaryens, without taking any significant casualties, have destroyed one tenth of your army including the Gardener king, all his family and his entire elite corps of knights. You see that the conditions of the field are against you, the morale is at floor level, and you have no idea on how to counter the dragon attacks. Wouldn't you surrender too? I would have, and as far as possible in order keep my casualties at a minimum and hope that at least they'll acknowledge my gesture and let keep my life and Casterly Rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Text

That still doesn't explain how the Targaryens lost less than a hundred considering their lines were broken by a heavy cavalry charge. (The Targaryens losing less than a hundred at Wendwater Bridge doesn't make much sense to me either. Tbh, the Field of Fire, the Battle Below the Gods Eye, Second Tumbleton, and Wendwater Bridge all having the winning side lose one hundred or less than that really compells me to wonder if GRRM just likes using the same number/s a lot.)

Edited by The Grey Wolf

Share this post


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

Fair enough. That still doesn't explain how the Targaryens lost less than a hundred considering their lines were broken by a heavy cavalry charge. (The Targaryens losing less than a hundred at Wendwater Bridge doesn't make much sense to me either. Tbh, the Field of Fire, the Battle Below the Gods Eye, Second Tumbleton, and Wendwater Bridge all having the winning side lose one hundred or less than that really compells me to wonder if GRRM just likes using the same number/s a lot.)

Didn't they fake breaking the lines to draw the enemy in on the Field of Fire? But even if they did not, breaking the lines does not equal a lot of deaths - it can cause a lot of deaths if the retreating/fleeing foe is trampled or cut down, but if that doesn't happen - and it clearly didn't happen on the Field of Fire - then things should work out reasonably well.

We don't know how the Wendwater Bridge battle looks, but it is implied that the battle took place at a bridge. Only so many men can cross a bridge at the same time and it seems that King Aegon V got to the bridge first and controlled access to it. The Blackfyres were likely in a very bad position from the start, being forced to attack the bridge from a weak position. Just as the garrison of a castle and can throw back and kill many attacking men the men controlling a bridge can throw back many attacking men, too.

Especially if we talk about a fortified bridge there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 10:59 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

Aegon I died with an orange peel in his mouth,

dear god...I said that ONCE as a joke, something like two years ago.  Joke reference to the Godfather.  Oh god people believed that?  (now I need to hide myself in shame)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

dear god...I said that ONCE as a joke, something like two years ago.  Joke reference to the Godfather.  Oh god people believed that?  (now I need to hide myself in shame)...

You are forgiven my scaly friend.

Anyway, re Fire & B V1:

Here are the numbers we have:

The Targaryen Conquest (10K words or about 30 pages)

The Peace of the Dragon (???)

The Sons of the Dragon (17K words or about 50 pages)

Fan Title: The Glory of the Dragon (???)

The Heirs of the Dragon (17K words or about 50 pages)

The Dying of the Dragons (60K words or about 160 pages)

Aftermath-The Boy King and His Regents (Between 30-60K words or 80-160 pages since @Ran vaguely described it as being as long as the Dance)

So the total we know of is 10 + 17 + 17 + 60 + 30 or 60 for a total of 134 or 164K words/370 or 450 pages approximately, which means anywhere between 270 to 190 pages is entirely new material (Aegon I/Jaehaerys I/Pre-Conquest?) and/or expansion of existing material that may or may not have already been entirely published.

Edited by The Grey Wolf

Share this post


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

So the total we know of is 10 + 17 + 17 + 60 + 30 or 60 for a total of 134 or 164K words/370 or 450 pages approximately, which means anywhere between 270 to 190 pages is entirely new material (Aegon I/Jaehaerys I/Pre-Conquest?) and/or expansion of existing material that may or may not have already been entirely published.

Sounds pretty good to me. And @Ran and @Linda did indicate in the announcement on FaB that the Jaehaerys I's section is pretty interesting. So we'll have to wait and see.

Some of the plot-related issues of TSotD could be resolved not by rewriting the piece all that much (aside from the actual errors) but by starting the section of Jaehaerys I and Alysanne at the beginning of their story - meaning the birth during the reign of the Conqueror, followed by their childhood during the reign of their father, King Aenys, and then their uncle, King Maegor.

Just as Aenys and Maegor are likely mentioned here and there in 'The Peace of the Dragon' (or Aegon's section in TWoIaF) the piece really focusing on their lives and reign is TSotD. And it is the same with all the other kings - Aerys II's personality is described in his own piece, not the section dealing with Jaehaerys II or Aegon V, etc.

In that sense, Princess Rhaena, Prince Aegon, Prince Viserys, and Alyssa Velaryon could all feature rather heavily during a more detailed account on the childhood of Jaehaerys I and Alysanne. 

And that could help resolve some issues with TSotD. How they felt after their father's death, Aegon's death, and Viserys' death could be rather interesting, not to mention that there is a lot of interesting back story there with them hiding from Maegor and the making of the Baratheon alliance, etc. It would be very unpleasant if that were all glossed over and ignored.

And we also have the tendency of those flashback things and eventual reveals that are to be seen in 'The Dying of the Dragons'. Aegon II's fate is a mystery until Rhaenyra meets him on Dragonstone, and then Gyldayn gives us a flashback explaining how he escaped and what he did, etc.

Vice versa, it is not unlikely that only the Regency piece is going to reveal what happened to Viserys II. 'The Dying of the Dragons' might sell the reader that Aegon the Younger is the only surviving child of Rhaenyra's - or at least include only very vague references that Viserys is or might be still alive - until Alyn Velaryon finds out the boy is actually still alive and kicking in Lys.

In regards to new stuff I think there could be some sort of editorial note, a foreword, and at least a brief account on the pre-Conquest Targaryens. The Conquest piece gives some small facts on Valyria and the Targaryens on Dragonstone, but it is completely devoid of any information on the childhood and youth of the Targaryen siblings or their parents.

Everything else would then have to be expansion to new material - which is implied by the Gerardys conundrum thing. George originally had Orwyle be Gerardys but then this changed, presumably because a better idea came along.

It might also be that the Jaehaerys I's section caused changes and additions to the 'The Heirs of the Dragon' piece considering that it might turn out now that some of Jaehaerys I's children may have been still around during the reign of Viserys I - or other people first introduced/elaborated on in the newly written section on Jaehaerys I. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×