Jump to content

The George [did not have] The Blackfyre subplot already in mind when he wrote Game


Lost Melnibonean

Recommended Posts

Quote

Maybe I'll reread Dune or the Elric saga

Big fan of the Elric stories. That said, are you listing them because you imagine that they contrast with ASoIaF as works where all foreshadowings are intended from the get go? Because this is true for neither Dune (originally, the novel was serialized and Herbert only wrote follow-ups because his publishers urged it) nor the Elric stories (Moorcock has admited that some of them were written over booze-fueled weekends so he could get a check that he then used to keep New Worlds running.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ran said:

I can tell with you 100% certainty that George did not, in fact, consciously have the Blackfyres in mind in AGoT. He didn't even decide on the black dragon as their arms until 1999.

Whether his subconscious was already toying with these ideas, neither I nor he could say, I suppose.

 

Meaning what? Maybe you're not intentionally being vague but all I can tell from this statement is that he didn't think of the name "Blackfyre" or the arms until later... minor details

My impression is he knew there had been a civil war, or series of wars, with a bastard branch but didn't work out the details until CoK/SoS/Sworn Sword (forgetting which atm). 

And is your "certainty" from a vague answer to a question or outline/working notes? Since I already disagree with plenty of your text interpretations how should I take your certainty on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Kienn said:

 

And is your "certainty" from a vague answer to a question or outline/working notes? Since I already disagree with plenty of your text interpretations how should I take your certainty on this?

A mail from May 22, 1999, to us, in which George mentioned he had recently started working on, and completed just a couple of days prior, the fleshing out the Targaryen family tree, that he had figured out the details and names of all of Aegon IV's children. We received the tree and historical notes shortly after that, laying out the Blackfyre Rebellions and much other matter discussed in later novels, novellas, and TWoIaF. Rather later he decided to change the original arms of House Qoherys, which featured black dragons, because he had decided to reserve it for Daemon Blackfyre.

I would be very interested to see what evidence you perceive in AGoT for GRRM laying groundwork for a bastard branch of House Targaryen being involved in one or more civil wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

This realization, with @Ran's revelation/confirmation above, is so very disappointing for me. The beauty of ASOIAF for me, the reason I have spent the past seven years obsessing over it ever since I had to stay up late with a newborn on my chest and saw Sean Bean and thought this must be based on a book was because of all the perceived foreshadowing. The idea that only the obvious foreshadowing is intended and that everything else is either coincidental or not really there at all is disappointing. 

...

Maybe I'll reread Dune or the Elric saga, or maybe go back to postapocalyptic and political thrillers. 

At least I haven't spent 20 years obsessing over this. 

I found myself grieving a bit, too. The owls are not what they seem.

But I'm at the beginning of trying to reconcile this. Maybe it's like Jaime with two arms and then Jaime with one arm. Or Walder Frey with a Royce wife and Walder Frey with a Crakehall or Blackwood wife.

If a tree has a branch grafted on from another tree, it's still one tree.

These are the things I'm trying to tell myself in order to reach a new appreciation of the underlying structure of the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Theon Greyjoy had once commented that Hodor did not know much, but no one could doubt that he knew his name.  

Bran IV, Game 24

The books are loaded with foreshadowing and dramatic ironies and stuff, without a doubt. Some of it is very specific, like this remark of Theon's, but a lot of it is fuzzier, more general. It has to be, or the whole enormous project would collapse under its own weight. What it does do is add flavour to the language, in a very specific way.

So Amory Lorch is a manticore - he may or may not be The Manticore (probably not) - but he certainly tells you a lot about the nature of manticores.

Same with Sarella. She's a sphinx in the Citadel, and there are also sphinxes in the council chamber. These specific threads might never get together, but we get a better idea of sphinxes.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And we also don't know when exactly the author is elaborating on something he has written into the story - like Illyrio Mopatis - or when he has dropped a clear hint foreshadowing an event that's later going to take place. Those things can do look very much alike - they don't have to, but they can.

Doesn't make any difference to me. Have to treat all the books as a whole (all the books we've got, anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ran said:

I would be very interested to see what evidence you perceive in AGoT for GRRM laying groundwork for a bastard branch of House Targaryen being involved in one or more civil wars.

I'd guess as much evidence as there is for the Blackfyre Rebellion in THK.

And the lack of that is very significant. References to the Blackfyre Rebellion missing there is pretty much as significant as if there were no references to Robert's Rebellion and/or the Greyjoy Rebellion in AGoT - that, too, would mean that the idea of those events would have only come up after AGoT was finished.

And in general - guys, we do know that George uses a trial-and-error method when writing. He doesn't like that things are fixed, and he would actually prefer it if he could rewrite everything infinitely. If he were an author who knew everything or a lot in advance he wouldn't have written three different chapters about Quentyn's arrival at Meereen set an three distinctly different points in time. Nor would he have written the AFfC Prologue from various different POVs before he decided to go with Pate.

The idea that the man has 'a plan' or writes everything with the complete and detailed picture of the entire story in mind never made any sense.

4 hours ago, Ran said:

Big fan of the Elric stories. That said, are you listing them because you imagine that they contrast with ASoIaF as works where all foreshadowings are intended from the get go? Because this is true for neither Dune (originally, the novel was serialized and Herbert only wrote follow-ups because his publishers urged it) nor the Elric stories (Moorcock has admited that some of them were written over booze-fueled weekends so he could get a check that he then used to keep New Worlds running.)

Have yet to read that Elric stuff, but with Herbert the glaring inconsistencies at times show that there came a lot of new ideas down the road. Back in Dune the Bene Gesserit do not use spice from Arrakis to make Reverend Mothers, for instance, and what we learn about the sand worms back in the first book also has little to do with the revelation about their life cycle in the third book.

Not to mention that the whole 'ecological transformation project' the Fremen started in secret wouldn't have been done if anybody had had any clue that water was poisonous to the sand words and climatic change of Arrakis would cause them and the spice to disappear.

But then, @Lost Melnibonean might just enjoy Herbert very much ;-).

38 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

The books are loaded with foreshadowing and dramatic ironies and stuff, without a doubt. Some of it is very specific, like this remark of Theon's, but a lot of it is fuzzier, more general. It has to be, or the whole enormous project would collapse under its own weight. What it does do is add flavour to the language, in a very specific way.

Nobody said anything about there not being very specific foreshadowing about a lot of the stuff George already knew he would do back when writing the first book. We are mainly discussing the Blackfyre thing here, and there things are different.

I mean, we do know that there is stuff between Jon and Tyrion (from the comic adaptation) that's going to become relevant in ADoS. I assume it is about Jon not being a bastard and Tyrion actually being a bastard, but that's just my take on that one.

In fact, focusing so much about the Blackfyres in relation to the future story doesn't make all that much sense. That plot is about Varys/Illyrio, Aegon, Jon Connington, and the Golden Company. The Blackfyre background will be relevant to it up to a point - it is certainly no coincidence that Barristan turned out to have slain the last Blackfyre - but the story as such is going to be not about them.

With there being a Second Dance it might even reminiscent of the first Dance (i.e. a Targaryen civil war) than with a greater focus on Aegon as a Targaryen pretender. But then - even the Dance had a dragon of a different color with Aegon II making his golden dragon his personal arms while Rhaenyra stuck with the red dragon (and added the Arryn and Velaryon arms) so there are even parallels between the Blackfyre Rebellion and the Dance of the Dragons.

Quote

Doesn't make any difference to me. Have to treat all the books as a whole (all the books we've got, anyway).

That depends what viewpoint you want to take. You can take them as a unity, of course, but that's not the best approach when you wonder at what point specific plot and narrative threads entered the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody said anything about there not being very specific foreshadowing about a lot of the stuff George already knew he would do back when writing the first book. We are mainly discussing the Blackfyre thing here, and there things are different.

Well that's a relief!

IMHO, the foreshadowing doesn't revolve around the Blackfyres, but the Blackfyres must serve the foreshadowing. They are a sub-plot, their story is bent around the main event, the war on winter. But we shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

he did not have it worked out before 1999.

AGOT was first published on August 1, 1996. The Hedge Knight on August 25, 1998. ACOK on November 16, 1998.

ACOK, Tyrion XIII:

Quote

Serving men cleared away the swan, hardly touched. Cersei beckoned for the sweet. “I hope you like blackberry tarts.”

“I love all sorts of tarts.”

“Oh, I’ve known that a long while. Do you know why Varys is so dangerous?”

I think that swans and blackberries are hints on Blackfyres, and Varys is descendant of Calla Blackfyre and Aegor Bittersteel.

I have a theory, that Johanna Swann the Black Swan of Lys, was mother of Larra Rogare, and great grandmother of Daemon Blackfyre, Bittersteel, Bloodraven, Shiera Seastar and Daeron Targaryen.

Swan and blackberries in ACOK were used in the same scene as Varys, then if my theory (about Swanns + Rogares + Targaryens = Blackfyres = Varys & fAegon) is correct, then it means, that GRRM has already planned return of Blackfyres, in 1996-1998, when he was writting ACOK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In fact, focusing so much about the Blackfyres in relation to the future story doesn't make all that much sense. That plot is about Varys/Illyrio, Aegon, Jon Connington, and the Golden Company. The Blackfyre background will be relevant to it up to a point - it is certainly no coincidence that Barristan turned out to have slain the last Blackfyre - but the story as such is going to be not about them.

In AGOT in Vaes Dothrak Dany saw "black iron dragons with jewels for eyes, roaring griffins, manticores". Could be that this is fAegon/Blackfyre/black dragon, Jon Connington/griffin, Varys/manticore/chimera.

Varys is a manticore if he's a mix of several Houses.

Could be that among his ancestors were Blackfyres (thru Calla Blackfyre), Targaryens (thru Calla's husband Bittersteel), Swanns (thru Johanna Swann and Rohanne of Tyrosh), Webbers (thru Rohanne Webber), and Lannisters (thru Gerold Lannister). I think, that Varys' mother is Jenny of Oldstones, and his father is son of Calla Blackfyre and Aegor Bittresteel. Varys was born a year or so after the Tragedy at Summerhall, so in 300 he is close to 40 years old. That's if Jenny from Summerhall was kidnapped by Blackfyres. Jenny was daughter of Gerold Lannister and Rohanne Webber - the Ghost of High Heart. So Varys is a Spider, because his maternal grandmother was the Red Widow. Also both of his grandmothers were named Rohanne - Rohanne Webber from maternal line, and Rohanne of Tyrosh from his paternal line. Johanna Swann, the Black Swan of Lys, was mother of Larra Rogare. Maybe when Larra left Viserys II Targaryen, she was pregnant, and when she returned to Essos, she gave birth to a daughter. Then Larra's and Viserys' daughter got married with Archon of Tyrosh, that's because Johanna Swann had connections in Tyrosh (first both she and Viserys II were kidnapped by Tyroshi pirates, and only a bit later ended up in Lys). So Rohanne of Tyrosh, wife of Daemon I Blackfyre, and mother of Bittersteel's wife Calla Blackfyre, was granddaughter of Larra Rogare and Viserys II Targaryen. So Rohanne and Daemon were first cousins, thru their grandmother Larra Rogare.

Thus Varys' family tree is (could be) something like this:

Johanna Swann + Lysandro Rogare = Larra Rogare, and two sons

Larra Rogare + Viserys II Targaryen = Aegon IV, Aemon, Naerys, and one more daughter (born in Essos)

Larra's second daughter + Archon of Tyrosh = Rohanne of Tyrosh, and other children

Daemon I Blackfyre + Rohanne of Tyrosh = Calla, Aenys, and 7 other children

Calla Blackfyre + Aegor Bittersteel Rivers = many children

Rohanne Webber + Gerold Lannister = 4 sons, and Jenny of Oldstones

Jenny + son of Calla & Bittersteel = Varys and Serra (Illyrio's second wife)

Aenys Blackfyre + unknown wife = children

Daughter of Aenys Blackfyre + Lyonel Selmy = Barristan Selmy

Barristan Selmy + Jeyne Swann = fAegon

It's a very thick tinfoil theory, though isn't it neat? ^_^ Explains why Varys is a Spider (because he is partially Webber), why Swanns got involved in current events in Westeros (because they are bloodrelated to Blackfyres), why Varys spared Tyrion (because Varys is partially Lannister), why Varys is supporting fAegon (because both of them are Blackfyres and Swanns. fAegon's mother is probably Jeyne Swann/Septa Lemore. Le more in French means blackberries, and blackberries are symbol of lies/deception and Blackfyres).

Also in this theory fits last of Dany's three betrayals - the one for love. Barristan Selmy, after finding out, that fAegon is his son, will have to chose between blood and loyalty. Same as Jaime Lannister had to chose whether to kill his father, or to betray his King. And Barristan will have to chose whether to kill his son fAegon, or to betray his Queen - Dany. And he will chose fAegon, and will try to kill Dany, or even suceed in killing her. That's because the Undying said, that Dany will know three betrayals. Only three betrayals in the rest of her lifetime? That's surprisingly small number. Unless she will die young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Megorova said:

AGOT was first published on August 1, 1996. The Hedge Knight on August 25, 1998. ACOK on November 16, 1998.

ACOK, Tyrion XIII:

I think that swans and blackberries are hints on Blackfyres, and Varys is descendant of Calla Blackfyre and Aegor Bittersteel.

These characters did not exist until 1999. It's not impossible that George, pondering the idea of bastard Targaryens, was flipping through ACoK and came across that passage and went, "Hmm... I mentioned swans and blackberries, maybe I can make something of that." Tremendously unlikely, mind you, but not impossible. But this means it's a retroactive foreshadowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My casual perusal of SSMs is that he didn't have much of anything planned out when he started writing. Bran's first chapter just sort of came to him when he was working on another project and he couldn't get anything else done until he got it out of his head. From there it just snowballed.

I think it's just as likely that he picked the black dragon, griffin and manticore for Dany's entrance into Vaes Dothrak at random, and then used them later to fill in the Blackfyre backstory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Megorova said:

AGOT was first published on August 1, 1996. The Hedge Knight on August 25, 1998. ACOK on November 16, 1998.

ACOK, Tyrion XIII:

I think that swans and blackberries are hints on Blackfyres, and Varys is descendant of Calla Blackfyre and Aegor Bittersteel.

I have a theory, that Johanna Swann the Black Swan of Lys, was mother of Larra Rogare, and great grandmother of Daemon Blackfyre, Bittersteel, Bloodraven, Shiera Seastar and Daeron Targaryen.

Swan and blackberries in ACOK were used in the same scene as Varys, then if my theory (about Swanns + Rogares + Targaryens = Blackfyres = Varys & fAegon) is correct, then it means, that GRRM has already planned return of Blackfyres, in 1996-1998, when he was writting ACOK. 

And here I thought it was a joke about Tarts... you know, since Tyrion like sweets and whores.

Also, there is a house blackberry, who appear to be some of Stannis’s few King’s Men, loyal to him, and one accompanied Edric Storm when he escaped.

And I always liked Balon Swann... he seems like the best of Tommen’s Kingsguard to me... not saying either are terribly relevant, but there it is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

And I always liked Balon Swann... he seems like the best of Tommen’s Kingsguard to me... not saying either are terribly relevant, but there it is...

I think, that Balon is working for Varys. Maybe he is brother or cousin of Jeyne Swann/septa Lemore. Which makes him fAegon's uncle, or something similar. Also could be, that he will kill Myrcella, or at least kidnap her, and her fate after that will remain unknown.

Balon appeared first in AGOT. Littlefinger is also somehow involved with Blackfyres. I think he was Varys' apprentice. So he knew, that Balon was planted into Baratheon court as Varys' agent. Thus this is the reason, why Littlefinger suggested to Ned Stark to take Balon as his ally against Cersei. Because LF wanted to get rid of Balon too, after Balon and Ned will confront Cersei, to lessen number of Varys' people in royal court.

So if later it will be revealed, that Balon really works for Varys, then LF's attempt to get rid of Balon in AGOT, is a proof, that GRRM has planned collaboration between Swanns and Blackfyres, starting from first book in the series, and didn't just added them several years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If George is retroactive foreshadowing (love that term BTW), that is still real foreshadowing, and doesn't invalidate any of the clues found by readers on subsequent re-reads. It just mean he re-read his work and noticed a trend and decided to expand on it. And I do believe the works can be treated as a whole.

Now, that said @Lord Varys mentioned wondering where the threads started. And although I disagree with there being a best way to look at things, as GRRM can re-read and build on things published prior to the initial idea, I do think it is interesting to know when an idea was built on deliberately, as this helps us look for trends in how he lays clues, as apposed to what is utilized but originally unintentional. 

I think based on the leaked outline (that is just made up by him to appease the publisher, I know, but it does indicate random ideas he was having at the start) that he was toying with the idea of fake dragons/ different dragon factions even back then, but hadn't figured out what that meant yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Well that's a relief!

IMHO, the foreshadowing doesn't revolve around the Blackfyres, but the Blackfyres must serve the foreshadowing. They are a sub-plot, their story is bent around the main event, the war on winter. But we shall see.

Not sure what you mean by that. Foreshadowing is a term referring to deliberate clues an author leaves (or seems to leave) in a text hinting at future events in the story.

As such, the Blackfyres are not foreshadowing of anything. And the Second Dance we are going to get is likely going to be a war between (at least) two Targaryen pretenders - Aegon and Daenerys. Aegon allegedly not being Rhaegar's son and instead a descendant of some Blackfyre through the female is likely going to be part of Dany's campaign/propaganda against Aegon. But just as Stannis wasn't exactly successful with his letter campaign about Cersei's children I'm not holding my breath that Westeros will care about 'the truth' about Aegon's parentage and ancestry.

Now, there are clear hints in the books that Aegon might be Illyrio's son and that Illyrio is connected rather intimately to both the Blackfyres and the Golden Company, but this is not something that was there back in AGoT. Back then George only established that Illyrio Mopatis may have an ulterior motive besides helping the poor Targaryens in exile.

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

I think it's just as likely that he picked the black dragon, griffin and manticore for Dany's entrance into Vaes Dothrak at random, and then used them later to fill in the Blackfyre backstory.

While this is possible, it is just as likely that George simply likes to use the same imagery again and again.

55 minutes ago, Azarial said:

If George is retroactive foreshadowing (love that term BTW), that is still real foreshadowing, and doesn't invalidate any of the clues found by readers on subsequent re-reads. It just mean he re-read his work and noticed a trend and decided to expand on it. And I do believe the works can be treated as a whole.

There is a difference there in the sense that a clue that was always designed to be a clue is something different (and usually something that's less subtle) then just something the author saw in his work and later elaborated on. 

55 minutes ago, Azarial said:

I think based on the leaked outline (that is just made up by him to appease the publisher, I know, but it does indicate random ideas he was having at the start) that he was toying with the idea of fake dragons/ different dragon factions even back then, but hadn't figured out what that meant yet.

At the time of the original outline the story was at best a skeleton version compared to the size of complexity of today. I mean, not even Stannis and Renly show up in that outline, let alone Littlefinger, Varys, Illyrio, or Aegon. Even the 'Targaryen heroes story' - the three heads of the dragon - weren't in there back then. Daenerys was only supposed to hatch a single dragon (remnants of that can be seen in her first dragon dream where she only dreams about one dragon) and that means no dragon for Jon Snow and no dragon for Tyrion, either. Even the idea of a Dany-Jon romance wasn't in the story back then - considering Jon-Arya-Tyrion were apparently the planned love triangle. 

In that sense, chances are very low that George had any intention to include any Targaryen infighting there. The second book - ADwD - would have dealt with Dany's invasion and conquest of Westeros, followed by the war against the Others. What we now get is much more complex than the original story could ever hope to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ran said:

But this means it's a retroactive foreshadowing.

Yep, like Sansa wanting a hero to behead Janos Slynt being foreshadowing for Jon killing him with Longclaw (when GRRM originally had Janos being hanged).  

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And it is not that this means the author is lazy or not subtle. It just means he didn't work out all the details when he started writing this thing. There is some obvious foreshadowing in the book, and there is some less obvious foreshadowing in the book.

But there is also a lot of stuff in there that's not there. Things that are just imagined by readers. This doesn't mean the work cannot also been interpreted by making use of such non-intentional parallels, etc. But they would still not be intended as such by the author.

From 1999, for instance, "There is no "master outline" for the series, just a half-dozen pages of very rough notes that are largely out of date." I expect some theorists will be disappointed by the end of the series (like some viewers of LOST were). As GRRM has oft observed, the tale grew in the telling and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nittanian said:

Yep, like Sansa wanting a hero to behead Janos Slynt being foreshadowing for Jon killing him with Longclaw (when GRRM originally had Janos being hanged).  

Isn't that kind of thing pretty cheap when talking about actual foreshadowing. I mean, we all want Ramsay, Gregor, Roose, Euron, etc. to die, and some characters in the books also expressing those wishes (and then not being around to make them real) isn't the same as pretty explicit foreshadowing - say, for instance, that Ser Ilyn Payne is going to execute Ned Stark.

7 minutes ago, Nittanian said:

From 1999, for instance, "There is no "master outline" for the series, just a half-dozen pages of very rough notes that are largely out of date." I expect some theorists will be disappointed by the end of the series (like some viewers of LOST were). As GRRM has oft observed, the tale grew in the telling and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

The most absurd cases of this kind of theorizing are reached when people start to treat the published novels both as novels as well as manuals containing a secret code to decipher the rest of the unpublished/unwritten material.

It is quite clear - and George has repeatedly confirmed this - that he does want to surprise the reader. He does not want to spoil the reading of TWoW for us by putting clues what's going to happen there in the other five published books.

There are parallels between the newer material on the history of Westeros and the main novels, but George really strives to add additional layers to the story when elaborating on the world - that's why the great houses that feature so prominently in ASoIaF don't play that big of a role in the FaB of TWoIaF - instead we got the Hightowers and Velaryons. Houses that are not likely to be suddenly as important in TWoW as they were during the Dance of the Dragons (and in the first century of the Targaryen reign).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

The idea that only the obvious foreshadowing is intended and that everything else is either coincidental or not really there at all is disappointing.

I do think that there was a strong foreshadowing in AGoT that Varys and Illyrio secretly  had a different candidate for the Iron Throne in mind and that Viserys/Dany were mostly a feint/means to get the Dothraki to come over. It never made a lick of sense that they could have seriously believed that Viserys would ever come anywhere close to claiming the crown - when reading it for the first time I was constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop.  And, of course, there was always the big question why Varys, with his knowledge of secret passages and disguises, didn't manage to rescue Rhaegar's children, if he was a Targ loyalist.

Non-coincidentally AGoT also supplied us with Targaryensm, who were passed over for the throne in favor of Aegon the Unlikely, which was, IMHO, a clear hint to where Varys's and Illyrio's claimant was supposed to come from, at the time GRRM finished AGoT. Later he had a better ideatm  and introduced the Blackfyres instead.

Regarding the early outline - given that there Dany was supposed to avenge her brother by killing Drogo, prior to finding her young dragon, I would imagine that proto-Viserys was envisioned as a more credible pretender in it, one who, at least, had been able to gain and retain one person's loyalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2018 at 4:14 AM, Ran said:

Big fan of the Elric stories. That said, are you listing them because you imagine that they contrast with ASoIaF as works where all foreshadowings are intended from the get go? Because this is true for neither Dune (originally, the novel was serialized and Herbert only wrote follow-ups because his publishers urged it) nor the Elric stories (Moorcock has admited that some of them were written over booze-fueled weekends so he could get a check that he then used to keep New Worlds running.)

No, I have just been meaning to reread Dune because it is a great book I haven't read in a long time, and I grew up reading Moorcock's stories. I have been thinking about giving my 12-year old Elric of Melnibone, but I think I should reread it first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

No, I have just been meaning to reread Dune because it is a great book I haven't read in a long time, and I grew up reading Moorcock's stories. I have been thinking about giving my 12-year old Elric of Melnibone, but I think I should reread it first. 

If you stay clean of the travesty the son made, Dune should be really fun. And if you can, (re-)read The Encyclopedia. That thing is really great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...