R+L=J v.165

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That was nothing new, considering that Tyrion already told us that Rossart was Hand only for a fortnight. TWoIaF doesn't talk about a vacancy in the Handship, various candidates, or gives any reason whatsoever why Aerys didn't name Rossart at once. It doesn't even indicate that some time (days, weeks, or months) passed between Chelsted's death and Rossart's appointment.

Twoiaf places Rossart's appointment after the Trident. By doing so, it does indicate the passage of time, as we know that Chelsted died while Darry, who left for the Trident with Rhaegar, was still in KL that night.

The suggestion of such a passage of time does not need the explicit statement "after x weeks, Aerys now named a new Hand" or something similar, nor needs to specifically call it a vacancy period. 

[JNR]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Chief of Staff isn't president when the king is absent or incapacitated - the Hand is effectively king in such situations. The Hand runs the government and rules the kingdom when a king cannot do that - and Aerys couldn't even do that very well before Duskendale.

This is, again, a rational perspective, such as a theorist of governmental optimization might dream up, but I doubt it was Aerys's perspective at all.

He doesn't appear to have deemed himself incapable of ruling Westeros at any point in his life.  And the concept of Aerys as... worried... what might happen to the realm in his absence as monarch seems to presuppose a great deal more objectivity and empathy for Westeros's welfare than I believe he had at that time. 

I think Aerys's  position was rather simple.  At the time Chelsted burned, he desperately wanted to win the Rebellion. Crushing Robert was, from Aerys's perspective the #1 matter of public policy.  Furthermore, he expected Rhaegar to win it for him; Rhaegar was the primary instrument of the King's will in this matter.

We also know from Jaime that Aerys had wanted Rhaegar as his wartime Hand all along... and now, as a practical matter, that was exactly what he had, whether he'd named Rhaegar the Hand or not. 

So I doubt Aerys was particularly concerned that, for instance, he might slip unexpectedly into a coma while Rhaegar was off fighting, thus requiring a formal Hand to serve as temporary administrator until Rhaegar could be crowned.  I think Aerys expected Rhaegar to win, and he expected himself to remain monarch for decades afterwards.

Once Aerys heard Rhaegar had lost and Rhaegar's host had scattered, I think he also expected King's Landing to fall.  Now the #1 matter of public policy for Aerys would have been quite a bit different:

Quote

Upon a towering barbed throne sat an old man in rich robes, an old man with dark eyes and long silver-grey hair. "Let him be king over charred bones and cooked meat," he said to a man below him. "Let him be the king of ashes."

Hence naming Rossart as Hand.

But, as others have said, we'll have to wait for future books to confirm or deny any of that, which is obviously just speculation on my part.

[JNR]

10 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Why would Aerys appoint another Hand only to have the new Hand stick his nose in Aerys' business.  All Aerys really needed a Hand for was to lead his army.  And with Rhaegar performing this function he didn't need a Hand.

This is exactly what I meant earlier in saying Aerys's de facto Hand was Rhaegar.

10 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Once Aerys hears about Rhaegar's death, he thought it was time to fo full speed ahead with his plan to transform into a dragon, so he appoints Rossart giving up all pretenses that he was really running a kingdom.

I don't really believe Aerys would have torched the city if Rhaegar had won. 

He certainly could have done so at any point in the many years of his rule prior to the Rebellion, or during it.  But he didn't.

I think Aerys wanted desperately to win the Rebellion -- hence all the battles, searching for Rhaegar to be Hand, naming Connington as a next-best alternative, taking Elia hostage to ensure the loyalty of the Dornish (which was crucial), etc., etc..   There was a good reason Aerys went to all this trouble, and it wasn't that he expected to become a literal dragon any time soon.

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, JNR said:

This is, again, a rational perspective, such as a theorist of governmental optimization might dream up, but I doubt it was Aerys's perspective at all.

He doesn't appear to have deemed himself incapable of ruling Westeros at any point in his life.  And the concept of Aerys as... worried... what might happen to the realm in his absence as monarch seems to presuppose a great deal more objectivity and empathy for Westeros's welfare than I believe he had at that time. 

Oh, I didn't really mean it in this way. I think the reality of being the kind of king Aerys was - a paranoid lunatic who was afraid of his own shadow - demanded that he had a Hand who effectively enables him to be what he was. Not that a good government for the people remained in place - but rather that the king could still ramble on about all his enemies, watch them burn, and not face a court and city where order was completely breaking down (which apparently never happened).

12 minutes ago, JNR said:

I think Aerys's  position was rather simple.  At the time Chelsted burned, he desperately wanted to win the Rebellion. Crushing Robert was, from Aerys's perspective the #1 matter of public policy.  Furthermore, he expected Rhaegar to win it for him; Rhaegar was the primary instrument of the King's will in this matter.

We also know from Jaime that Aerys had wanted Rhaegar as his wartime Hand all along... and now, as a practical matter, that was exactly what he had, whether he'd named Rhaegar the Hand or not.

We don't really know that. Perhaps the idea of the Rhaegar Hand was just the short-lived fancy of the madman. And perhaps Connington's failure convinced him that Rhaegar and his gang couldn't be trusted and/or were more or less incompetent. How it came that Rhaegar was allowed/charged with to lead the Targaryen army is a complete mystery at this point.

And this is too important a plot element to connect it with nonsense like this Chelsted-Rossart continuity thing. I mean, again - Rhaegar must have known that his royal daddy used his wife and children as hostages against Dorne. Why on earth was the man helping his father? Why on earth did the madman believe the son whose children and wife he was prepared to kill would stay loyal to him?

Aerys had seasoned battle commanders around him. He had Gerold Hightower, the general of the army who won the War of the Ninepenny Kings (which he accompanied as a youth meaning he would have had firsthand experience on Hightower's prowess). He had Barristan Selmy, the Slayer of Maelys the Monstrous who also saved him from Duskendale. He didn't really need Rhaegar - he may he felt he needed him, perhaps, but if that's the case, the author should tell us, not we ourselves ;-).

But if Aerys wanted Rhaegar to be effectively the Hand - why on earth did he keep Chelsted and not replace him with Rhaegar after the latter's return?

12 minutes ago, JNR said:

So I doubt Aerys was particularly concerned that, for instance, he might slip unexpectedly into a coma while Rhaegar was off fighting, thus requiring a formal Hand to serve as temporary administrator until Rhaegar could be crowned.  I think Aerys expected Rhaegar to win, and he expected himself to remain monarch for decades afterwards.

It is not that. It is to ensure that the will of the king be done in his castle and city. For that a king like Aerys would have needed a Hand. Aerys was no longer the kind of guy who could go out there and address the garrison of the castle and defenders of the city to inspire bravery and loyalty in them. He needed a trusted guy to do that. And also for all the other things he needed to be done. Day-to-day issues and issues that were important in war.

12 minutes ago, JNR said:

But, as others have said, we'll have to wait for future books to confirm or deny any of that, which is obviously just speculation on my part.

Exactly my saying. This is not a void that should be filled with speculation. The author should tell us about this. 

[Ran]

I'm amused that a call for no speculation comes after pragraphs of speculation.

In any case, this reminded me to tweak the timeline of events we have in our FAQ to more clearly separate Chelsted's death from Rossart's appointment.

[Bael's Bastard]

On 11/3/2018 at 11:24 PM, Lord Varys said:

I think it makes perfect sense for Aerys to immediately raise the guy he trusts with killing everyone to a position from which he can actually do that - even more so when the predecessor in that office actually tried to prevent those plans.

And there are no hints that Aerys did prevaricate as much as his ancestor Aenys - or even as Doran Martell. There was a war going on, and the way the government is set up means the king - especially this king - needs a Hand. 

If we had reason to believe Aerys didn't know who to name this speculation would make some sense. But there isn't. Rossart really is the natural successor to Chelsted - not just because he burned the man, not just because the king's trusts him, but because he is the guy executing the mad plan. He doesn't just need the king's favor to do that, he can do it best as the King's Hand. This is part of the secrecy thing of the wildfire plot.

If some pyromancer pet of the king's does suspicious things beneath/outside or within the Great Sept (or many other key places in the city that are not exactly property of the king), then this is not just going to be ignored or not raise any suspicion. And Aerys clearly did not involve the City Watch and its officers in this thing (else much more people would have known about the plan). The King's Hand, wearing the chain of office and speaking with the King's Voice should be able to do much and more without raising as much suspicion - and very few people would openly dare to challenge or investigate what he did.

What we get before that is a succession. We also don't know how quickly Merryweather succeeded Tywin, or how long Aerys waited before he made Connington Merryweather's successor (although he we have reason to believe some time passed because Aerys originally wanted to name Rhaegar). 

The implication always is that this happened as fast as possible - and it is obviously that as fast as possible originally meant 'immediately'. Because that's what you do if the guy you 'fired' and his successor are in the room at the same time. Chested > Rossart is basically the same as Otto Hightower > Criston Cole - and we would only speculate about Criston only succeeding Otto a fortnight or a month or whenever if some continuity error were forcing us to assume that Cole simply wasn't there when Otto was fired.

If Rossart did not immediately succeed Chelsted then I want to know why that is. I think that's too important an issue to just invent a solution for yourself and then stick with that.

@Lord Varys

You think it makes perfect sense, but everything in the texts tells us that isn't what happened.

The fact that Aerys eventually elevated Rossart, of all people, to Hand completely undermines your assertions about the king - especially this king - needing a Hand. There is no hint that Rossart had anything to do with running the government, before or after he was appointed Hand. He was an executioner.

For all his madness, Aerys seemed to think pretty highly of his ability to rule, and even control those he suspected of plotting against him. He had Rhaegar leading his army, Lewyn commanding the Dornish forces that made up around a quarter of his army, and Jaime defending the Red Keep against his own father.

The pyromancers, not just Rossart, but all of those involved, had little trouble placing wildfire throughout King's Landing without having any special offices or fancy chains to show anyone. The one guy that spoke against it got burned to death by the king. So the office and chain of the Hand was not necessary for them to place the substance everywhere Aerys commanded.

Nor is it indicated that Rossart made a show of his office and chain even after he was Hand, and was rushing to fulfill Aerys's command to make "a warm welcome" for the Lannister men who had made it inside the walls. Jaime recalls Rossart being dressed as a common man-at-arms when he slew him.

We have no reason to assume the number of hours, days, weeks, or months it took for any one Hand to succeed their predecessor, unless we are given such information.

Robert left the office of Hand open as he journeyed to Winterfell to offer it to Ned, a journey which no doubt left the realm without a Hand quite a bit longer than it was without a Hand between the execution of Chelsted and appointment of Rossart. Like Robert, Aerys very well might have had someone in mind for Hand until they died.

Yes, that is speculation, but it is not groundless, considering Jaime believes Aerys had wanted to name Rhaegar his Hand before the Battle of the Bells, and considering Aerys did not name Rossart his Hand until after he knew Rhaegar was dead, and had sent his wife Rhaella and son Viserys off to Dragonstone.

Essentially, Aerys appears to have named Rossart his Hand he was determined to prepare to execute the wildfire plot to destroy King's Landing, which had been prepared in the weeks before Rhaegar left for the Trident.

You may not like it, but for now, all we can do is speculate why Aerys didn't name Rossart immediately. I think we have good reasons to suspect why, but we won't know until/unless we are told, as is the case with everything else we don't know yet. What we know for sure is that Aerys did not name Rossart immediately, but only weeks after executing Chelsted.

[Lord Varys]

@Bael's Bastard

Again, the issue is just that Aerys naming Rossart immediately after the dismissal of Chelsted would just make more sense. We would not need to speculate about Aerys' mad thoughts and the like - we would have a better explanation to the issue.

Jaime having issues with his mind creates less ripple effects than having this vacancy thing.

I've repeatedly laid out why this is the case. One can try to explain away some or all of my concerns there, but this doesn't mean I consider such explanations convincing. If George uses some of them in published material - fine. But when are are speculating I prefer, well, better speculations or hypotheses.

I mean, look me straight in the eyes and say you did not assume Aerys named Rossart immediately after he dismissed Chelsted before you knew about the Jaime-Darry thing...

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@Bael's Bastard

Again, the issue is just that Aerys naming Rossart immediately after the dismissal of Chelsted would just make more sense. We would not need to speculate about Aerys' mad thoughts and the like - we would have a better explanation to the issue.

Jaime having issues with his mind creates less ripple effects than having this vacancy thing.

I've repeatedly laid out why this is the case. One can try to explain away some or all of my concerns there, but this doesn't mean I consider such explanations convincing. If George uses some of them in published material - fine. But when are are speculating I prefer, well, better speculations or hypotheses.

You have the right everyone has to want the books to be written in a different way than they are, but it doesn't change what the books say. We have now argued this point for years, I believe, but it doesn't change no matter how much you protest.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, look me straight in the eyes and say you did not assume Aerys named Rossart immediately after he dismissed Chelsted before you knew about the Jaime-Darry thing...

When I read the books and looked at what the evidence told us, I decided that the only way the timeline made sense was if the burning of Chelsted and the naming of Rossart were separated by some unknown amount of time - likely weeks. I've argued as much, with you and others, for a long while. That you chose to ignore that evidence because of how you wish things to be is another question.

LV, the reason I like discussing things with you is because you are well informed about the material, but I don't understand the willingness to ignore this particular evidence in favor of what you want. If you showed me or others how we were wrong in what the books say, most of us would accept the evidence and move on. Why won't you on this particular point?

[JNR]

On 11/5/2018 at 9:07 AM, Lord Varys said:

I think the reality of being the kind of king Aerys was - a paranoid lunatic who was afraid of his own shadow - demanded that he had a Hand who effectively enables him to be what he was

Well, here we certainly agree.  I just perceive the wildfire plot as, basically, Aerys' backup plan -- only important in the event Rhaegar lost, which Aerys didn't think would happen.

So (in my speculative outlook), Aerys' thinking was:

1. He wanted his backup plan in place, ready to go as soon as needed. Hence orchestrating things while Chelsted was Hand and Rhaegar was in King's Landing.

2. Chelsted, not completely stupid, gets wind of the backup plan and objects in every possible way, defying the King's will, and gets burned.

3. Rhaegar would normally be appointed Hand at this point, but his marching off to deal with Robert via the army he was commanding made that seem superfluous. Aerys expected him to march back in short order and then, with all the time in the world, he could worry about the formality of naming a Hand (which since the war would be over, probably would not be Rhaegar).

But Rhaegar lost, so the backup plan kicked in.  The rest we know. 

IMO, Rossart being named Hand was largely symbolic of Aerys' mindset at this point ("I'm going to burn everything down and flip off Robert Baratheon with a flaming middle finger"). I think it was not really a practical matter, since the actual work of the wildfire plot -- deploying the caches -- had already been carried out.

On 11/5/2018 at 9:07 AM, Lord Varys said:

Rhaegar must have known that his royal daddy used his wife and children as hostages against Dorne. Why on earth was the man helping his father?

It's a fair question.

Hmm... on this point, and others pertaining to Rhaegar's peculiar behavior at various earlier points in time, I think Frey Family Reunion was very wise in asking about the true meaning of the phrase song of ice and fire.

This is only ever used once in canon, and by Rhaegar (assuming Dany's vision was accurate), and is an area of tremendous significance that has been notably underanalyzed by an otherwise analysis-drunk fanbase.

On 11/5/2018 at 9:07 AM, Lord Varys said:

This is not a void that should be filled with speculation. The author should tell us about this.

Yes, the main reason to consider the author as already having told us seems to be the World book, but the World book is loaded with information we know to be either dubious or simply wrong.  It's conceivable to me that it's wrong about this as well (though at the moment I don't really doubt it).

What a maester in Westeros writes is not necessarily the same thing (at all) as what GRRM thinks really happened.  Let's not forget the Vulture article interviewing GRRM, in which we're told this about the World book.

Quote

As such, the author may have … rearranged events to suit the interests of a particular royal family. “So who knows if it’s really true or not!” Martin chuckled.

"Rearranged events" would appear to apply to such a chronological issue as we are discussing. 

And actually, the boldfaced quote from GRRM himself was sufficient to dissuade me from ever buying the World book in the first place -- I'm quite content with the canon.  So we'll see in due course what the truth of this matter is.

[Bael's Bastard]

TWOIAF is no less "canon" than AGOT, ACOK, ASOS, AFFC, and ADWD. ASOIAF is written from the POVs of in-world characters, and TWOIAF is written from the POV of a contemporary in-world character. It is by design that none of these books, or any others about this world, are written from from the perspective of an all-knowing objective observer relaying exactly what happened about everything being written. GRRM, the only person would could write such an account, has intentionally chosen not to in any of his books about this world. All of the POVs we learn about this world from are susceptible to saying, thinking, remembering, writing, etc. something that might not be objectively accurate, whether something they experienced personally, a contemporary event they didn't personally experience, or an event from the past that has been passed down through subjective and perhaps contradictory accounts. There is not a single "this is exactly what really happened" book or source in or about the ASOIAF universe, and there is no basis to claim that TWOIAF in not part of whatever "canon" exists.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

You have the right everyone has to want the books to be written in a different way than they are, but it doesn't change what the books say. We have now argued this point for years, I believe, but it doesn't change no matter how much you protest.

At this point we are just talking about mails between George, Anne, and Ran. That's not canon yet.

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

When I read the books and looked at what the evidence told us, I decided that the only way the timeline made sense was if the burning of Chelsted and the naming of Rossart were separated by some unknown amount of time - likely weeks. I've argued as much, with you and others, for a long while. That you chose to ignore that evidence because of how you wish things to be is another question.

My point was when @Bael's Bastard or you read ACoK and Tyrion told you about Tywin's successors as Hand. Did you think the Hand who served a fortnight - Rossart - was only name a fortnight or a month or even longer after his predecessor was burned? Is there any indication in the text aside from the Jaime-Darry thing that implies the author ever intended this vacancy thing?

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

LV, the reason I like discussing things with you is because you are well informed about the material, but I don't understand the willingness to ignore this particular evidence in favor of what you want. If you showed me or others how we were wrong in what the books say, most of us would accept the evidence and move on. Why won't you on this particular point?

We are not talking about anything published here.

30 minutes ago, JNR said:

2. Chelsted, not completely stupid, gets wind of the backup plan and objects in every possible way, defying the King's will, and gets burned.

And as I think I already laid out repeatedly - I don't find that a convincing scenario. How stupid do we have to imagine this Qarlton Chelsted fellow is if he risks provoke the deadly ire of his king over some backup plan.

That's were I think the burning of Chelsted prior to the Trident breaks down if one actually cares about the motivations of people.

30 minutes ago, JNR said:

Hmm... on this point, and others pertaining to Rhaegar's peculiar behavior at various earlier points in time, I think Frey Family Reunion was very wise in asking about the true meaning of the phrase song of ice and fire.

This is only ever used once in canon, and by Rhaegar (assuming Dany's vision was accurate), and is an area of tremendous significance that has been notably underanalyzed by an otherwise analysis-drunk fanbase.

Oh, we have discussed all that, and I'm all in for there being some prophetic thing also impacting Aerys and Rhaegar's relationship. But that still doesn't make the facts go away that Aerys actually used the life of 'the promised prince' to threaten the Martells.

30 minutes ago, JNR said:

Yes, the main reason to consider the author as already having told us seems to be the World book, but the World book is loaded with information we know to be either dubious or simply wrong.  It's conceivable to me that it's wrong about this as well (though at the moment I don't really doubt it).

That is actually not the case. TWoIaF contains some mistakes, just as our POVs make mistakes and have incomplete knowledge, but it doesn't tell a false history of Westeros or anything. It is not loaded with dubious or wrong information. And what's dubious or erroneous can actually be guessed at rather easily by an informed reader.

Especially when we talk about plot-relevant things. Whether it is true that Rhaenys Targaryen entertained some lovers 300 years ago or whether there actually were such rumors circulating back then we will likely never know. But that's relevant to the overall plot.

 

[Bael's Bastard]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@Bael's Bastard

Again, the issue is just that Aerys naming Rossart immediately after the dismissal of Chelsted would just make more sense. We would not need to speculate about Aerys' mad thoughts and the like - we would have a better explanation to the issue.

Jaime having issues with his mind creates less ripple effects than having this vacancy thing.

I've repeatedly laid out why this is the case. One can try to explain away some or all of my concerns there, but this doesn't mean I consider such explanations convincing. If George uses some of them in published material - fine. But when are are speculating I prefer, well, better speculations or hypotheses.

I mean, look me straight in the eyes and say you did not assume Aerys named Rossart immediately after he dismissed Chelsted before you knew about the Jaime-Darry thing...

@Lord Varys

That is your opinion, not objective truth. Unfortunately, you don't seem to see the difference.

Your "solution" for the non-problem just creates an unnecessary problem.

You've repeatedly laid out your opinion, but that doesn't change the reality that it has now been confirmed that Chelsted was executed before Rhaegar left the Red Keep for the Trident, and that Rossart was appointed after word of Rhaegar's death on the Trident reached the Red Keep, which means neither Chelsted nor Rossart was Hand for whatever time it took for Rhaegar to ride to and die fighting on the Trident.

I can only speak for myself, and I find your assertion that there is any problem to be without basis, and your proposed "solution" for the non-problem to be needless.

I don't speculate for your benefit, and I am not interested in tailoring my speculation to your tastes. I am perfectly fine with my speculation not appealing to you.

What is indisputable is that Chelsted was executed before Rhaegar left the Red Keep for the Trident, and that Rossart was appointed after word of Rhaegar's death on the Trident reached the Red Keep. The rest we don't know. If you believe you have a good suggestion for why there was such a gap, feel free to post it. But personally, I'm not interested in discussing your assumptions and speculation about the author's intentions.

I read the books one after the other, and doubt I ever made an attempt to work out a timeline for the amount of time between the death of Chelsted and appointment of Rossart, or from Rhaegar leaving the Trident to Rhaegar dying to the Sack, before finishing the series at least once.

If I recall correctly, I originally assumed that Chelsted was executed and Rossart named Hand before Rhaegar rode off to the Trident, and that the Sack occurred two weeks after Rhaegar rode off to the Trident, with the Battle of the Trident occurring somewhere in the middle.

Which was obviously wrong, and did not even attempt to take into account how long it would have actually taken for Rhaegar to bring and gather 40,000 men to the Trident before the battle, how long it would have taken to fight the battle, or how long it would have taken for Ned to lead some amount of the rebel forces to King's Landing after the battle.

We have to be able to admit we were wrong when we speculate about something we lack information about, and then receive more information. That is the case here. I made assumptions, and was wrong. Nothing wrong with that. Others apparently took into account such time considerations, and proposed a gap as a result. 

[Frey family reunion]

On 11/5/2018 at 8:36 AM, JNR said:

This is exactly what I meant earlier in saying Aerys's de facto Hand was Rhaegar.

I don't really believe Aerys would have torched the city if Rhaegar had won. 

He certainly could have done so at any point in the many years of his rule prior to the Rebellion, or during it.  But he didn't.

I think Aerys wanted desperately to win the Rebellion -- hence all the battles, searching for Rhaegar to be Hand, naming Connington as a next-best alternative, taking Elia hostage to ensure the loyalty of the Dornish (which was crucial), etc., etc..   There was a good reason Aerys went to all this trouble, and it wasn't that he expected to become a literal dragon any time soon.

I tend to believe that this was one of the last items on Aerys' bucket list.  Think of it as a kind of Targaryen immortality.  Transfer your consciousness into a newly hatched dragon and live your second life as the most powerful creature on Planetos.  

With Rhaegar's loss at the Trident, Aerys knew that his time was growing short, hence Rossart and full speed ahead with project blow up King's Landing.  Note that Aerys never attempts to flee King's Landing to go to Dragonstone to join his wife and child.  Which he certainly could have.  Now if the Lannisters had come to save the day, than I agree, I think Aerys would have postponed this.  But with the Lannisters betrayal the writing was on the wall for Aerys.  

I really don't think Aerys was gong to blow up King's Landing out of spite (even though that might have been an added bonus for him).  But as we learned from Melisandre, great magic requires human sacrifice.  For Aerys, I would think that there would be no greater sacrifice than consuming all of King's Landing.

[Lord Varys]

Honestly, we have no idea what Aerys exactly believed at this point. Jaime just speculates he may have believed he would become a living dragon. He never says that Aerys actually ever said that.

It fits with the Targaryen traits that Aerys may have developed such ideas - and the funny thing is that I would not really rule out that this was *magically possible* under the right circumstances - but the idea that he just wanted to take as many people as possible with him (especially his enemies) and leave Robert only ashes and ensure that no rebel/traitor/pretender soil the throne of Aegon the Conqueror or continue to sit where only Targaryens should sit, etc. also fits pretty well.

It is no new idea that cruel tyrants want to ensure nobody can succeed them.

[JNR]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not loaded with dubious or wrong information.

Oh, yes it is.  You can see this every time various conflicting maester theories are put forward on any given topic -- a thing that frequently happens in that book.

The majority of those theories, because they are mutually exclusive, will be wrong; at most one can be right.  And in some cases, such as the true nature of Others, we know for sure that all the theories are wrong. 

Even on recent topics such as the Rebellion, we are explicitly told by GRRM that we can't know whether World book content is true or not -- a thing he has never said about any of the canonical novels. 

This is because the World book, wildly unlike the canon, is nothing but secondhand content that was not witnessed or experienced directly by the POV character.  The canon is far more powerful and useful as an analytical source for this reason.

The World book, for instance, does not establish that Rhaegar fell upon Lyanna not ten leagues from Harrenhal. 

What it establishes is simply that Maester Yandel considers it a "tale" that is "well known" that Rhaegar fell upon Lyanna not ten leagues from Harrenhal... and that is a dramatically different concept. 

Should this well-known tale prove false, GRRM will not have lied to the fanbase. The fanbase will only have been foolish to have treated the World book as gospel, despite GRRM comparing the World book unflatteringly to Suetonius' history.  This world, like ours, is chock-full of false tales, created for various reasons.

Quote

 

Pycelle was lost. "But that is from the greyscale that near killed her as a babe, poor thing."

"I like my tale better," said Littlefinger, "and so will the smallfolk. Most of them believe that if a woman eats rabbit while pregnant, her child will be born with long floppy ears."

 

 

[JNR]

13 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I really don't think Aerys was gong to blow up King's Landing out of spite (even though that might have been an added bonus for him).

Well, we just read that HOTU vision differently.  To me Aerys' thinking was quite clear; he simply could not accept the idea of a Westeros in which he was no longer king. This IMO is why he never fled (because then he would be replaced as king).

When we see him chattering about "Let him be king over ashes and cooked meat," this is his rationale for torching King's Landing. 

What we don't find him saying is "I am going to transform into a dragon and personally obliterate Robert and all his forces in a new Field of Fire," a thing I expect would have been front and center in his mind if he could do that.

He seems to expect Robert to be king, not roast beef.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, JNR said:

Oh, yes it is.  You can see this every time various conflicting maester theories are put forward on any given topic -- a thing that frequently happens in that book.

The majority of those theories, because they are mutually exclusive, will be wrong; at most one can be right.  And in some cases, such as the true nature of Others, we know for sure that all the theories are wrong. 

But they are presented as theories, not as facts. And there are things in there that are presented as facts - like the existence of various kings, houses, historical characters, and the like.

And in that sense it is not that difference from the main series where various POVs and other characters also offer their opinions on historical events and facts that don't carry much weight.

4 minutes ago, JNR said:

Even on recent topics such as the Rebellion, we are explicitly told by GRRM that we can't know whether World book content is true or not -- a thing he has never said about any of the canonical novels. 

The Rebellion account is essentially a recount of what we already know. There is little new information in there - and the things that are confirmed to be false (theories about Elia's murder) are never sold to us as confirmed knowledge.

The thing works as much as a history book in our world those. More contemporary things are more or less true, more ancient and geographically distant events are not true at all or have even the status of fairy-tales.

Overall, one should not use TWoIaF to look for relevant information for the main series. There are some small tidbits in there that are interesting (the whole Year of the False Spring section, for instance) and then there are other little tidbits like Joanna's relation to Aerys or information on other things, but overall it is completely irrelevant which theory about this or that player/event during the Dance is historically accurate.

What one should not do is to take Yandel sucking up to Robert or him making mistakes about certain theories of magic as 'confirmation' that he is equally biased or wrong about certain historical characters - who, by and far, should only be of real interest to historians and not the average guy in Westeros.

[Frey family reunion]

6 hours ago, JNR said:

Well, we just read that HOTU vision differently.  To me Aerys' thinking was quite clear; he simply could not accept the idea of a Westeros in which he was no longer king. This IMO is why he never fled (because then he would be replaced as king).

When we see him chattering about "Let him be king over ashes and cooked meat," this is his rationale for torching King's Landing. 

What we don't find him saying is "I am going to transform into a dragon and personally obliterate Robert and all his forces in a new Field of Fire," a thing I expect would have been front and center in his mind if he could do that.

He seems to expect Robert to be king, not roast beef.

Well perhaps I worded it poorly.  Yes spite definitely played a factor, and we dont' have to rely on the House of the Undying, we have Jaime's recollection.  Here is the exact quote:

Quote

The traitors want my city, I heard him tell Rossart, but I'll give them naught but ashes.  Let Robert be king over charred bones and cooked meat.  The Targaryens never bury their dead, they burn them.  Aerys meant to have the greatest funeral pyre of them all.  Though if truth be told, I do not believe he truly expected to die.  Like Aerion Brightfire before him, Aerys thought the fire would transform him... that he would rise again, reborn as a dragon, and turn all his enemies to ash.

So where did Jaime get the notion that Aerys expected to be transformed into a dragon?  I don't think it was merely speculation on Jaime's part.  His specifically recalls that Aerys thought the fire would transform him.  I think that Jaime had to pick this up from Aerys himself. 

Quote

And all the time, I stood by the foot of the Iron Throne in my white plate, still as a corpse, guarding my liege and all his sweet secrets.

"My Sworn Brothers were all away, you see, but Aerys liked to keep me close.  I was my father's son, so he did not trust me.  He wanted me where Varys could watch me, day and night.  So I heard it all."  He remembered how Rossart's eyes would shine when he unrolled his maps to show where the substance must be placed.

(One of the interesting parts of this quote is Varys' involvement.  If Jaime heard all the King's secrets and the King's plans about burning down King's Landing, and if Aerys kept Jaime where Varys could watch him, then it follows that Varys was aware of Aerys' plans as well.  And it was Varys who tried to dissuade Aerys from opening the gates to the Targaryens.  Was Varys in support of Aerys' plan to blow up King's Landing?  Or did Varys try to dissuade Aerys from opening the gates to the Lannisters, because he knew that their betrayel would cause Aerys to go ahead and blow up King's Landing?)

Either way it seems clear that Aerys made it fairly clear to Jaime that he expected the sacrifice of King's Landing would transform him into a dragon. 

The use of the term funeral pyre definitely harkens back to Drogo's funeral pyre which resulted in the hatching of Dany's dragons.  So if Aerys truly believed that he would return as a dragon, I don't necessarily think that this meant he believed that he would suddenly become a full grown dragon.  Instead, my suspicion is that the Targaryen family may have believed that there was a way to transfer a consciousness into a dragon or perhaps a dragon egg.  So if there is a possibility that Aerys had one or more dragon eggs stashed away in King's Landing, he may have believed that his death by fire would both hatch the dragon and transfer his soul/psyche into the newly hatched dragon.  So Aerys loses his kingdom and Robert becomes king in the short term, but in the long term Aerys begins life anew as a dragon, with a field of fire awaiting his sworn enemies in the future.

[Lord Varys]

Jaime just speculates about the transformation thing. He may be correct, but he doesn't actually remember a quote from Aerys or a situation with Aerys that confirms the man actually had such a delusion.

Jaime would not put in the way he does, stating 'I do not believe he expected to die'. He would have said 'I know Aerys did not expect to die (because he told me)'.

The word funeral pyre is also not exactly a direct link to Drogo's. It is the word to describe the situation with - a king planning to use the burning of his capital city essentially as his own giant funeral pyre.

And, sure, Aerys could also still have had some dragon eggs around he thought he could hatch with that giant pyre. It would be more exactly the same thing his daughter later did.

4 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

(One of the interesting parts of this quote is Varys' involvement.  If Jaime heard all the King's secrets and the King's plans about burning down King's Landing, and if Aerys kept Jaime where Varys could watch him, then it follows that Varys was aware of Aerys' plans as well.  And it was Varys who tried to dissuade Aerys from opening the gates to the Targaryens.  Was Varys in support of Aerys' plan to blow up King's Landing?  Or did Varys try to dissuade Aerys from opening the gates to the Lannisters, because he knew that their betrayel would cause Aerys to go ahead and blow up King's Landing?)

I've long since believed the latter. Varys would be a moron to allow Aerys to burn down KL. And he couldn't have hoped to escape the inferno by way of hiding beneath the castle. An inferno such as this would have sucked all the oxygen out of the hidden tunnels.

It is also the reason why I think there is no way that there is still any wildfire beneath the Red Keep. Varys would be an utter moron to live at a place where Aerys' ripe fruits could sudden explode. And the idea that Aerys could hide the wildfire at a place the little birds could not find/did not know about is also not very convincing.

I also once suggested that Varys may have been the one nudging Jaime to kill the madman (or rather: to prevent the wildfire plan). Who knows who advised Aerys to send Jaime the message to bring back Tywin's head...? That was the straw that broke the camel's back. And we know that Varys manipulates people so that they even realize they have been manipulated and used (Tyrion when killing Tywin, Jaime when freeing Tyrion, etc.).

[rotting sea cow]

Just chiming in

 

On 11/8/2018 at 1:27 AM, Lord Varys said:

And, sure, Aerys could also still have had some dragon eggs around he thought he could hatch with that giant pyre. It would be more exactly the same thing his daughter later did.

interesting. The hoard of dragon's eggs at Dragon Stone is still missing.

 

On 11/8/2018 at 1:27 AM, Lord Varys said:

I've long since believed the latter. Varys would be a moron to allow Aerys to burn down KL. And he couldn't have hoped to escape the inferno by way of hiding beneath the castle. An inferno such as this would have sucked all the oxygen out of the hidden tunnels.

Well, we do not know Varys motivations during the time of Aerys. I believe that those events changed his perspective of things. Which does mean, he meant to die with Aerys, but who knows....

 

On 11/8/2018 at 1:27 AM, Lord Varys said:

It is also the reason why I think there is no way that there is still any wildfire beneath the Red Keep. Varys would be an utter moron to live at a place where Aerys' ripe fruits could sudden explode. And the idea that Aerys could hide the wildfire at a place the little birds could not find/did not know about is also not very convincing.

and how would he move the bloody jars? The substance is wildly unstable and apparently only the pyromancers know how to handle it properly.

I agree that Varys should know that wildfire is buried all around the city, in fact there are some suggestions that there is something below the Red Keep and he knows it, in these secret passages where he must unlit the torches.