Jump to content

[Spoilers] Red Herrings


Ran

Recommended Posts

From the new Entertainment Weekly interview:

Quote

Are there any hints here in terms of what’s to come in your Ice and Fire saga?
There are a few that are definitely important, but I’m not going to flag them. Readers will have to find them and puzzle out whether they’re hints or red herrings.

A place to discuss things that may be hints and which may be red herrings. Suffice it to say, every leap to "Ah, this means this for ASoIaF" can't be right if George admits that some things are not actually misdirections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure red herrings is the adequate way to describe future plot developments in the main series. I mean, insofar as plots and characters are concerned pretty much no character (and only very few artifacts) are going to play a role in the main series. Anybody treating FaB as clue-filled instruction manual for ASoIaF is mistaken from the start.

The precious stones will show up again, and Lyanna and Rhaegar sort of mimic what George has done with Aemond and Alys Rivers, but the little one is not going to sit the Iron Throne (long enough that history has decided to count him as a king) - whereas Jon Snow might.

Aside from that I say Alyssa Targaryen's mismatched eyes - one purple, one green - along with her broken nose and non-semi-divine beauty (and in part also her enjoyment of sex) are all foreshadowing Tyrion Lannister, Alyssa's direct descendant.

There are, of course, many character parallels in 'family bloodlines' as well - Cregan has a lot of Ned (but also more 'wolf's blood' than Ned) - Rogar Baratheon and his four brothers all share aspects and traits from our Baratheon brothers (and the Laughing Storm). The same goes for Borros' daughters.

And various Targaryens are - likely intentionally because the continued incest brings back similar traits again and again - very similar to other Targaryens. I say Archmaester Vaegon is going to be more exactly like King Aerys I will be when he shows up in a future FaB volume or in a Dunk & Egg story. There two are the Asperger autism Targaryens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When George says red herrings, he means red herrings for ASoIaF are to be found in F&B. Not everything that seems like a hint is in fact a hint, but instead deliberate misdirection on his part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

When George says red herrings, he means red herrings for ASoIaF are to be found in F&B. Not everything that seems like a hint is in fact a hint, but instead deliberate misdirection on his part. 

Well, then go start and tell us what you think are some such red herrings. I'd rather describe such things as, well, parallels people make to much of. After all, there is no intrinsic connection between character A from FaB and character B from ASoIaF. If you or I or anyone connects dots which are not supposed to be connected then it is our fault. George didn't make us or necessarily want to make us connect those dots.

I think the Silverwing-Wall thing, especially when seen in connexion to the cruel winter - and the Shivers - that comes immediately afterward may be a hint how the Others (or the powers behind them) operate while they cannot yet really go down south and kill everyone with a zombie army.

And Aemond/Alys certainly serve as a variation of Rhaegar/Lyanna (although a twisted and cruel one), whereas Rhaenyra's command to kill Nettles (including the insidious way in which Mysaria ensure this takes place) might be a glimpse at how Aerys II developed the notion to demand the heads of Robert and Ned, respectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red herrings are actually places where George deliberately expects people to connect dots, so I don't think it's a failure in the reader to connect those dots, but rather George succeeding in doing what he set out to do.

Alyssa, to me, is exactly where I'd think George could decide to toy with fans.

The three dragon eggs are obviously deliberately put in to echo the eggs of Illyrio gave Dany, but is that too on the nose and another red herring? Hard to say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

Alyssa, to me, is exactly where I'd think George could decide to toy with fans.

You really don't like that idea all that much, do you ;-)?

He would be playing with us a lot if he really wanted to send that message, don't you think? There are a lot of hints in the books as well, and nobody asked for any of those Joanna-Aerys shenanigans - not Yandel's, and not Barristan's in ADwD. I was not happy when I read that in ADwD, at least not at first.

In and of itself the Alyssa thing means nothing, but in the larger context it might. And George really isn't the kind of author to plant clues that lead nowhere or deliberately mislead you. For all the planned things there are hints there from the start. And the hints for the Tyrion thing start in AGoT.

And considering the dropped line about the hell-horns of Valyria and their not exactly, well, positive effects I daresay the probability approaches zero now that we can expect any intentionally and inadvertently positive effects of Dragonbinder on the dragons and the people in Slaver's Bay. The thing won't give Victarion a dragon, it won't give Euron a dragon, and it won't give some other person lacking Targaryen blood a dragon. Which would leave Brown Ben Plumm - and Tyrion if he is not his father's son.

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

The three dragon eggs are obviously deliberately put in to echo the eggs of Illyrio gave Dany, but is that too on the nose and another red herring? Hard to say!

It is definitely another way of explaining them. But I'm still at a loss as to why Illyrio would throw all his eggs on Dany if he had had only those three? They would give credibility to Aegon, too, no? Just as Blackfyre and whatever else is in those chests will.

But thankfully this is a question that's actually going to be answered in the novels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

He just said in an interview, like yesterday, that he put in 'red herrings' to deliberately mislead fans of ASOIAF.  

That is not what he said. He sent there are hints in there, and that there are things people might misinterpret as hints (red herrings). And the phrasing doesn't imply that he actually deliberately put things in there to mislead people, but rather that there are things that people may see as hints which simply don't lead anywhere.

An extreme example for what I mean would be to over-interpret Alys and Aemond as Lyanna and Rhaegar, and even speculate that the mirror image of their 'Jon Snow' is going to go down a similar path as our Jon.

Or to draw parallels between the sad end of Alicent Hightower and then project that on Cersei, say.

If we take the Alyssa thing as a red herring then this doesn't really affect the Tyrion theory all that much, unless we assume that Shiera Seastar's description to Amok also counts as a 'red herring' to lead people on a false path. I mean, does George really want to fool those readers who actually read descriptions and look at pictures of characters that are barely even mentioned in the novels?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ran

Since George mentions Daemon as his favorite character in the interview, how strong are the chances in your opinion that Daemon may have survived, made it to the Isle of Faces, and become a Green Man?

And you can also say whether you like that idea. I find it rather interesting if the Green Men ever show up. Why use an invented new wizard if you can use a previously introduced character?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Months ago, the thought crossed my mind that Martin realized that he needs to make something clear to us that, while it may have been alluded to in the books, has been too vague for us to catch.  Ex. Beric's resurrections foreshadowed Lady Stoneheart and, presumably, Jon Snow.  I think there is something that, if he doesn't provide a little historical background, is going to seem like he pulled it out of nowhere.

To be clear: I don't think ancillary material such as Dunk and Egg novels and World of Ice and Fire and Fire and Blood should be required reading to get the full effect of the story. I think the material is all in the books, but I think there is something that we are missing and he is looking to make more blatant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ran said:

"Kill your darlings", as they say, something George has preached and practiced. Daemon's dead.

Pah, say I, pah. I remember you of that when we see a green-skinned guy with antlers and some nettles in his white hair ;-).

By the way - what do you make of Melony Piper?

And what do you think is an actual hint and not a potential red herring? Or don't you have any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You really don't like that idea all that much, do you ;-)?

He would be playing with us a lot if he really wanted to send that message, don't you think? There are a lot of hints in the books as well, and nobody asked for any of those Joanna-Aerys shenanigans - not Yandel's, and not Barristan's in ADwD. I was not happy when I read that in ADwD, at least not at first.

In and of itself the Alyssa thing means nothing, but in the larger context it might. And George really isn't the kind of author to plant clues that lead nowhere or deliberately mislead you. For all the planned things there are hints there from the start. And the hints for the Tyrion thing start in AGoT.

And considering the dropped line about the hell-horns of Valyria and their not exactly, well, positive effects I daresay the probability approaches zero now that we can expect any intentionally and inadvertently positive effects of Dragonbinder on the dragons and the people in Slaver's Bay. The thing won't give Victarion a dragon, it won't give Euron a dragon, and it won't give some other person lacking Targaryen blood a dragon. Which would leave Brown Ben Plumm - and Tyrion if he is not his father's son.

It is definitely another way of explaining them. But I'm still at a loss as to why Illyrio would throw all his eggs on Dany if he had had only those three? They would give credibility to Aegon, too, no? Just as Blackfyre and whatever else is in those chests will.

But thankfully this is a question that's actually going to be answered in the novels.

You don't much like the idea much that Illyrio gave the eggs to Dany because he believed she would be able to hatch them based on prophecy, do you?

Seriously, GRRM kind of doesn't need to put in red herrings because people will believe what they want to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hiigara129 said:

I wonder if Jaehaerys and Alysanne's secret marriage would be considered a foreshadowing for the way Jaehaerys II and Shaera did so later.

For what it is worth, if R+L=J is true, I think Jon's real name is Jaehaerys.  A theme of Jaehaerys' marrying in secret could be critical.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

For what it is worth, if R+L=J is true, I think Jon's real name is Jaehaerys.  A theme of Jaehaerys' marrying in secret could be critical.
 

Good catch, though that would fit better if Rhaegar had been named Jaehaerys, Rhaegar's son. But if Jon Snow marries in secret it would create some interesting connections to his family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hiigara129 said:

Good catch, though that would fit better if Rhaegar had been named Jaehaerys, Rhaegar's son. But if Jon Snow marries in secret it would create some interesting connections to his family.

Thank you!  I think Jon and Dany may marry when their storylines converge, but it won't be a "yay Targaryen restoration!" type thing, but a merging of Northern and Essosi forces.  If the plan is to have them as allies eventually, a marriage makes sense.

Interestingly, Jaehaerys I and Alysanne are strongly associated with the Night's Watch, and the Jaehaerys II made Aerys and Rhaella marry because their line would bring about the PtwP.  Both of which are strong connotations to Jon Snow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

If Aerea was taken to Valyria by Balerion and she died the way she did, in complete agony, then I don't know what it means for Euron having allegedly gone to Valyria. Is he just the awesomest awesome who can brave the smoking ruins of Valyria or really just a liar who lies. 

Well if we bring in the Cthulhu-Lovecraftian elements that Euron tends to represent, it could add an extra level of horror to the character. I mean holy hell, imagine unleashing whatever is at Old Valyria in Westeros! It also brings up the question if whether whatever killed Aerea was related to the fall of Valyria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hiigara129 said:

Well if we bring in the Cthulhu-Lovecraftian elements that Euron tends to represent, it could add an extra level of horror to the character. I mean holy hell, imagine unleashing whatever is at Old Valyria in Westeros! It also brings up the question if whether whatever killed Aerea was related to the fall of Valyria.

Let's just say that if the sample chapter is anything to go by, then some of us may lose sleep over it (and by that I mean me).

The other interesting thing is what the whole ice and fire interaction in that passage. When Aerea was put in the ice bath, whatever was inside her came out and died there.

Whatever they were, they were creatures of heat and fire, and they did not love ice, oh no.

And this below is not a red herring or foreshadowing or anything like that as far as I can tell, but it's a nice callback to the books and a description we get on two occasions. Once in AGoT and once in ASoS.

Quote

The dragonkeepers, seventy-seven strong and clad in suits of gleaming black armor, their helms crested by a row of dragon scales that continued, diminishing, down their backs. (F&B)

Hesitantly, Ned followed. Littlefinger led him into a tower, down a stair, across a small sunken courtyard, and along a deserted corridor where empty suits of armor stood sentinel along the walls. They were relics of the Targaryens, black steel with dragon scales cresting their helms, now dusty and forgotten. (Eddard IV, AGOT 20)

They continued down the serpentine and across the small sunken courtyard. Ser Dontos shoved open a heavy door and lit a taper. They were inside a long gallery. Along the walls stood empty suits of armor, dark and dusty, their helms crested with rows of scales that continued down the backs. As they hurried past, the taper's light made the shadows of each scale stretch and twist. The hollow knights are turning into dragons, she thought. (Sansa V, ASOS 61)

I like that we know what those suit of armors were about and that once the dragons were gone, there was no need of them anymore. I still think there's a rather strong symbolism around them, though. But this one has been a fun find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...