Jump to content

Why do so many people believe Aegon will be considered phony but Jon will be accepted as a Targ?


Alyn Oakenfist

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Willam Stark said:

Nobody on the Wall knows about his parentage, and since Jon looks like Ned, Varys doesn't have any reason to questioning the fact that he's Ned's bastard. He is not a threat to Aegon, and it will more difficult for him to prove he's the son of Rhaegar because of his Stark features, while Aegon have Valyrian features which makes him more credible.

And you didn't get my point at all. I think Aegon is legit, that he is exactly who they say he is. And I don't think it will be all that difficult to prove that Jon is Rhaegar's son.

Look, at the end of the day, this competition between characters that exists in the fandom can't see the forest for the trees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Aegon/Griff looks more like a Targaryen.  But he does not have the beautiful silver-gold hair of the dragons.  His is reddish gold.  Not exactly rare.  The point still stands, he has a better chance of being believed.  

...Aegon's hair is silver. It is Jon Connington who has reddish hair. Jon is one called Griff, Aegon is "Young Griff".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Well yeah. As a side note I don't think we will ever know if Aegon was legit or not, and there will be no conclusive proof for us or for the characters. That being said there is going to be more then enough "evidence" to convince almost everybody except Dany who will not believe him genuine due to the mummer's dragon thing.

Quite possible. And I can totally see Dany dracarys him and claim that "fire cannot kill a dragon" because she doesn't know her family history.

Personally, I tend to consider him fake,, for two reasons: 1) the HotU vision shows a fake dragon, 2) there is no subtle corroboration  or reference of the swap by any other source, and I only trust Varys as far as I can throw him.

 

8 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

That is if Jon Conn says the whole truth. Given how determined he is to put Aegon on the throne I wouldn't be surprised if he lies and says he was part of the plot to save Aegon from the beginning.

A good point. The things people do for love... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

Look, at the end of the day, this competition between characters that exists in the fandom can't see the forest for the trees. 

There is a competition? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

Sure, some characters in-story will believe this or that person is the prophesized savior and this will inform their actions, but none of the big ASOIAF prophecies will be actually 'fulfilled' in a meaningful way.

Daenys the Dreamer predicted the Doom of Valyria.

Daeron the Drunken predicted death of Prince Baelor, and that Dunk will be involved in it.

Daemon II Blackfyre predicted that there will be a dragon born at Whitewalls, and that Duncan the Tall will become a Kingsguard.

King Aerys I have read in a book a prophecy, according to which dragons will return.

Meggy the Frog predicted to Cersei that she will have 3 children, they will be blond, and they will die.

The Ghost of High Heart gave several predictions to Arya, including Balon Greyjoy's death.

5000 years prior current events, Priests in Asshai predicted that the Long Night will happen again, and that the Others will return.

All of that did happened, those prophecies were actually fulfilled.

My prophecy is this - the three heads of the dragon are Dany/Drogon, Rhaego/Rhaegal and Jon/Viserion. Lets wait and see whether my prophecy will be fulfilled in a meaningful way ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

That's fan-logic not in-story-logic. In-story, Jon was known in Winterfell as Ned's bastard and being LC of NW means little away from the Wall. Jon's Targ blood might be confirmed by Howland Reed (an inconsequential lord from the North), and possibly by Bran Stark (a youth with weird tree powers) or Sam Tarly (a newly minted maester with no personal power, who happens to be Jon's BFF). In Sam's case he would have to find some records in the Citadel first, which would be the best proof - but records can be destroyed before Sam has opportunity to make it public.

On the other hand Aegon has testimony of JonCon, the former Hand of the King, Varys, the man who served and gathered secrets for 4 consecutive kings of 7K (which doesn't make him respected but gives him plenty of knowledge how to play the game and remove troublesome players if necessary), and possibly whoever Septa Lemore really is, if indeed she's some sort of key character hiding under secret identity. But more importantly Aegon is leagues ahead of Jon in terms of making his claim to the throne recognized by people and having means to enforce it. 

So no, Jon has no recognition among the majority of the nobles in 7K, and both he and the people who could support his R+L=J story are very easy to dismiss, because they have neither reputation nor army that would make the rest of the realm follow them. 

I'm more of a targgirl than a starker actually.

Cersei speaks of the Ashara-theory on Jon in AGOT with Ned, Myranda Royce talks about him with Alayne, the Graftons of Sisterton present fishwife-theory about Jons parentage with Davos and Jaime knows Jon is LC when he treats with the Blackfish, so he IS known and you need to give more and better reasons for your point to change my mind on this. 

My point being that a known person (with rumours about his parentage floating around since birth) would be more believable than some stranger showing up with 1 a sellsword company (which are frowned upon), 2 the Spider, who is hated for being 50% king o' the snitches 50% 1984, and 3 JonCon, a noble brought low it's not even a match.

If you take into account how much good Varys could do for fAegon's cause in the shadows he brings a net plus all in all, fAegon's valyrian looks in comparison to Jon's northern and the way Griff has brought him up evens things up quite a bit.

But still. I argue everyone will believe a known person before they believe a stranger because its like an animal reflex. We Just Do.

 

That said, fAegon has already started his conquest with success and Jon isn't in a good way when we leave him, so what people will or won't believe isn't really an issue with baring. People might believe Jon and still let him fail because he wouldn't give them as much favour as fAegon. fAegon on the other hand might well be King and people might still whisper that he is fake behind his back. Being believed or not has a limited baring on whether you get to be king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is ample proof that Aegon is who he says he is since Connington actually can say he recognized the child as Rhaegar's son when he was given it or he could claim he was part of the mission smuggling it out of KL in the first place.

Nobody can pretend to know where Jon Connington was at the time of the Sack.

Aegon looks the part, pretends to be a prince who actually existed, and he has people vouching for him who could have actually saved him.

Jon Snow has nothing like that.

Only JonCOn was already in the GC when Varyllio brought him Aegon...

Tyrion 6 aDwD:

Quote

the eunuch smuggled you across the narrow sea to his fat friend the cheesemonger, who hid you on a poleboat and found an exile lord willing to call himself your father

The Lost Lord:

Quote

Even the men who'd ridden with him might not recognize the exile lord Jon Connington of the fiery red beard in the lined, clean-shaved face and dyed blue hair of the sellsword Griff. So far as most of them were concerned, Connington had drunk himself to death in Lys after being driven from the company in disgrace for stealing from the war chest. The shame of the lie still stuck in his craw, but Varys had insisted it was necessary.

Quote

We have ten thousand men in the company, as I am sure Lord Connington remembers from his years of service with us. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think that we the readers finding out R+L=J is true(or not) nessicarily means Jon is actually going to be crowned king (or Lord) of anything, especially since several of the ways we could actually find out are magical in nature.

I think (F)Aegon is viewed as fake by so many because he came so late to the game, and we have 5 books worth of reasons to doubt Varys and Illyrio's motives and actions....and quite simply I believe Tyrion's personal suspicions influence many readers opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sigella said:

Only JonCOn was already in the GC when Varyllio brought him Aegon...

I know that, but the point I made was that Connington could lie and say he was there and helped Varys save the real Aegon. Who is going to contradict him on that? They can tell a more convincing and less fairy-tale like story to convince people that Aegon is the real deal. Haldon and Lemore could also have helped Connington saving the lad.

The idea that the gang has to tell the same story to the Westerosi they told to Tyrion back on the boat is stupid. Especially since they really want the Westerosi to buy the Aegon story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Daenys the Dreamer predicted the Doom of Valyria.

Daeron the Drunken predicted death of Prince Baelor, and that Dunk will be involved in it.

Daemon II Blackfyre predicted that there will be a dragon born at Whitewalls, and that Duncan the Tall will become a Kingsguard.

King Aerys I have read in a book a prophecy, according to which dragons will return.

Meggy the Frog predicted to Cersei that she will have 3 children, they will be blond, and they will die.

The Ghost of High Heart gave several predictions to Arya, including Balon Greyjoy's death.

5000 years prior current events, Priests in Asshai predicted that the Long Night will happen again, and that the Others will return.

All of that did happened, those prophecies were actually fulfilled.

My prophecy is this - the three heads of the dragon are Dany/Drogon, Rhaego/Rhaegal and Jon/Viserion. Lets wait and see whether my prophecy will be fulfilled in a meaningful way ^_^

Ok, so I chose the wrong words - I should've said they won't be fulfilled in the expected way. And I would use some of your examples to illustrate what I mean. 

Daeron was sure his dream was a warning for him not Baelor and the 'true' meaning of the dream was assigned to it post factum. 

Daemon II Blackfyre believed his dream about about hatching a dragon egg was literal and again post factum it was interpreted as refering to Egg revealing his Targaeyen identity. 

And conversely, the fact that Cersei believed Maggy's prophecy and interpreted it in a very specific way might've caused its fulfillment, at least partially. It can be argued that the fear of losing her children played a part in how she raised them and that codling Joff and insulating him from all consequences of his actions played a part in him turning into umanageable meanace of a king and that in turn caused his assassination. There are also hints that Cersei's actions will indirectly cause deaths of Myrcella and Tommen. And, of course, current Top 3 contenders for valonquarr are Tyrion, Jaime and Arya, all of whom Cersei made into her enemies by her own deeds. 

Rhaegar's belief in PtwP and three heads of the dragon might've been a factor in him pursuing Lyanna Stark and that started a chain of events that led to the downfal of House Targaryen and - arguably - the death of the child he believed to be PtwP. 

Others returned, but the Long Night didn't happen yet, so technically that part isn't fulfilled yet. Not to mention all the Azor Ahai, Lightbringer and delivering world from darkness bussiness didn't come to pass yet. 

In general - the more vauge the prophecy, the more likely it'll be fulfilled, simply because more events could fit into its parameters and therefore be judged as fulfilling the prophecy. And if people believe in the prophecy they'll either try to fulfill it or stop it and the unforseen/unintended consequences of their actions can create self-fulfilling or self-defeating prophecy scenario. All in all, it's hard to judge whether fate or human factor caused a particular outcome. 

1 hour ago, Sigella said:

Cersei speaks of the Ashara-theory on Jon in AGOT with Ned, Myranda Royce talks about him with Alayne, the Graftons of Sisterton present fishwife-theory about Jons parentage

It's a daring leap of logic to jump from "there are various women rumored to be the mother of Ned Stark's bastard" to "that bastard isn't Ned's at all, but actually his sister's previously unknown son with Rhaegar Targaryen". Entertaining the first notion in no way makes the second one more plausible. 

1 hour ago, Sigella said:

Jaime knows Jon is LC when he treats with the Blackfish, so he IS known

The point I was making wasn't about people of Westeros being unaware that Jon is LC. It's that the position of LC doesn't give Jon any authority outside of the Wall. It's not a position that would make claims about his parentage more credible or made anybody in 7K more inclined to belive him about that. 

1 hour ago, Sigella said:

But still. I argue everyone will believe a known person before they believe a stranger because its like an animal reflex. We Just Do.

I'll argue that if anything, ASOIAF consistently 'proves' that the only 'animal instincts' ruling people's believes is what's currently convinient or beneficial to them. Therefore:

1 hour ago, Sigella said:

fAegon has already started his conquest with success and Jon isn't in a good way when we leave him, so what people will or won't believe isn't really an issue with baring. People might believe Jon and still let him fail because he wouldn't give them as much favour as fAegon. fAegon on the other hand might well be King and people might still whisper that he is fake behind his back. Being believed or not has a limited baring on whether you get to be king.

Pretty much. Aegon has willingnes and means of enforcing his claim, so as long as he'll have successes with his quest for the throne, most of the people (except his political rivals like Dany or Cersei and their supporters) won't have much reason to question validity of Aegon's Targ cred. On the other hand, Jon has little means and even less of interest in pursuing his Targ herritage, so the truth about his parentage may very well never be revealed to the Westeros at large. 

34 minutes ago, Back door hodor said:

I dont think that we the readers finding out R+L=J is true(or not) nessicarily means Jon is actually going to be crowned king (or Lord) of anything, especially since several of the ways we could actually find out are magical in nature.

Agreed. I think it'll be an internal reveal with repercussions in the realm of Jon's self-identity and his relationship with Ned, but wouldn't have much consequences in terms of Jon's future place in Westerosi society - he won't be contender for a throne much less crowned king on the basis of R+L=J. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I know that, but the point I made was that Connington could lie and say he was there and helped Varys save the real Aegon. Who is going to contradict him on that? They can tell a more convincing and less fairy-tale like story to convince people that Aegon is the real deal. Haldon and Lemore could also have helped Connington saving the lad.

The idea that the gang has to tell the same story to the Westerosi they told to Tyrion back on the boat is stupid. Especially since they really want the Westerosi to buy the Aegon story.

Any soldier of the GC might slip and divulge JonCon's years of service? Getting caught with a lie could ruin any credibility they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

It's a daring leap of logic to jump from "there are various women rumored to be the mother of Ned Stark's bastard" to "that bastard isn't Ned's at all, but actually his sister's previously unknown son with Rhaegar Targaryen". Entertaining the first notion in no way makes the second one more plausible. 

That's not what I said/meant. My point being that Jon is known and that being known vs unknown make a big diff in believability.

15 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

The point I was making wasn't about people of Westeros being unaware that Jon is LC. It's that the position of LC doesn't give Jon any authority outside of the Wall. It's not a position that would make claims about his parentage more credible or made anybody in 7K more inclined to belive him about that. 

I never wrote about "authority". Don't build straw men in my mouth. You are using some dirty rhetoric here.

15 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

I'll argue that if anything, ASOIAF consistently 'proves' that the only 'animal instincts' ruling people's believes is what's currently convinient or beneficial to them. Therefore:

Your are discussing something I wasn't.

15 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

Pretty much. Aegon has willingnes and means of enforcing his claim, so as long as he'll have successes with his quest for the throne, most of the people (except his political rivals like Dany or Cersei and their supporters) won't have much reason to question validity of Aegon's Targ cred. On the other hand, Jon has little means and even less of interest in pursuing his Targ herritage, so the truth about his parentage may very well never be revealed to the Westeros at large.

Yup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sigella said:

Any soldier of the GC might slip and divulge JonCon's years of service? Getting caught with a lie could ruin any credibility they have.

Oh, he could have been serving at that time, but it has been almost twenty years. How are they going to actually remember much less confirm that Jon was with them and not in KL for a couple of days? Not to mention that there are not likely all that many veterans from that era around, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sigella said:
15 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

It's a daring leap of logic to jump from "there are various women rumored to be the mother of Ned Stark's bastard" to "that bastard isn't Ned's at all, but actually his sister's previously unknown son with Rhaegar Targaryen". Entertaining the first notion in no way makes the second one more plausible. 

That's not what I said/meant.

I know that's not what you meant and I wasn't trying to put those words in your mouth. I was trying to highlight the lack of logical progression of the argument here. Yes, people in Westeros know Jon exists and speculate with whom Ned had fathered him. That in itself doesn't make the claim he's actually son of Lyanna and Rhaegar any more believable - the link here is paper thin. 

29 minutes ago, Sigella said:
15 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

The point I was making wasn't about people of Westeros being unaware that Jon is LC. It's that the position of LC doesn't give Jon any authority outside of the Wall. It's not a position that would make claims about his parentage more credible or made anybody in 7K more inclined to belive him about that. 

I never wrote about "authority". Don't build straw men in my mouth. You are using some dirty rhetoric here.

Once again - I was not trying to say you think being LC gives Jon any additional authority. I was pointing out that it doesn't, and therefore the fact that Jon is known as LC by itself doesn't give any additional credibility to the claim he is secret son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. The two things are totally unconnected. 

1 hour ago, Sigella said:
16 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

I'll argue that if anything, ASOIAF consistently 'proves' that the only 'animal instincts' ruling people's believes is what's currently convinient or beneficial to them. Therefore:

Your are discussing something I wasn't.

No, I'm arguing against your premise. You're saying Jon is in a better position to be believed, because he is known and it's easier to trust a known person over complete stranger. I'm saying that people will trust a stranger over a known person, if the stranger is a more convenient option (Aegon's story is easier to digest, which I explain below) or siding with him is beneficial (Aegon has a carrot and a stick to offer, while Jon has no means of rewarding his supporters or punishing his detractors. 

Also - Jon isn't that much more of a known asset to Westeros at large, compared to Aegon. Jon has no reputation, clout, power or authority that people would recognize. He's a bastard and an LC, who was stabbed by his own people, so pretty much nobody in terms of believeability. Aegon, meanwhile, can present himself as succesful military leader (because if he loses the entire question of his believability is moot) and a pious follower of the Faith, which will give him personal credibility in eyes of many people. 

34 minutes ago, Sigella said:

My point being that Jon is known and that being known vs unknown make a big diff in believability.

Here is where we fundamentally disagree. In my opinion the fact Jon is known in Westeros (as Ned's bastard and LC of NW) makes no difference when it comes to people of 7K accepting R+L=J over Aegon being miraculously saved son of Rhaegar and Elia. 

If simply being known makes all the difference, then Cersei suddenly claiming that she and Jaime are in fact children of Aerys and therefore their incest is perfectly ok (if you ignore the whole adultery thing) must also be at least somewhat believeable, because Cersei and Jaime are both known. Bonus points, because there are actual rumors that Aerys raped Joanna. But of course that would be absurd and nobody in 7K would buy that theory for a minute. And if just being known doesn't make Cersei more credible, it shouldn't work for Jon either. 

The issue with believability in case of Aegon vs. Jon isn't the fact that nobody knows who Aegon is. It's the fact that nobody knows that Rhaegar and Lyanna even had a son and were legally married. Both Jon and Aegon have no hard proof about being legitimate sons of Rhaegar, but at least Aegon claims he's the child everyone knows was born not a child nobody knows existed. Aegon's story is way easier to sell, because he has only one hoop to jump through, so to speak - convincing people he's that kid everyone knows about. Meanwhile, Jon has to prove that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a child, that child was legitimate (which introduces the whole polygamy debacle) and that he is that child and not Ned's bastard as everyone thought for about 20 years. Much more difficult, IMHO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, he could have been serving at that time, but it has been almost twenty years. How are they going to actually remember much less confirm that Jon was with them and not in KL for a couple of days? Not to mention that there are not likely all that many veterans from that era around, anyway.

Well we know Harry Strickland was and if he starts talking that hiccup won't look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

I know that's not what you meant and I wasn't trying to put those words in your mouth. I was trying to highlight the lack of logical progression of the argument here. Yes, people in Westeros know Jon exists and speculate with whom Ned had fathered him. That in itself doesn't make the claim he's actually son of Lyanna and Rhaegar any more believable - the link here is paper thin. 

Once again - I was not trying to say you think being LC gives Jon any additional authority. I was pointing out that it doesn't, and therefore the fact that Jon is known as LC by itself doesn't give any additional credibility to the claim he is secret son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. The two things are totally unconnected. 

No, I'm arguing against your premise. You're saying Jon is in a better position to be believed, because he is known and it's easier to trust a known person over complete stranger. I'm saying that people will trust a stranger over a known person, if the stranger is a more convenient option (Aegon's story is easier to digest, which I explain below) or siding with him is beneficial (Aegon has a carrot and a stick to offer, while Jon has no means of rewarding his supporters or punishing his detractors. 

Also - Jon isn't that much more of a known asset to Westeros at large, compared to Aegon. Jon has no reputation, clout, power or authority that people would recognize. He's a bastard and an LC, who was stabbed by his own people, so pretty much nobody in terms of believeability. Aegon, meanwhile, can present himself as succesful military leader (because if he loses the entire question of his believability is moot) and a pious follower of the Faith, which will give him personal credibility in eyes of many people. 

Here is where we fundamentally disagree. In my opinion the fact Jon is known in Westeros (as Ned's bastard and LC of NW) makes no difference when it comes to people of 7K accepting R+L=J over Aegon being miraculously saved son of Rhaegar and Elia. 

If simply being known makes all the difference, then Cersei suddenly claiming that she and Jaime are in fact children of Aerys and therefore their incest is perfectly ok (if you ignore the whole adultery thing) must also be at least somewhat believeable, because Cersei and Jaime are both known. Bonus points, because there are actual rumors that Aerys raped Joanna. But of course that would be absurd and nobody in 7K would buy that theory for a minute. And if just being known doesn't make Cersei more credible, it shouldn't work for Jon either. 

The issue with believability in case of Aegon vs. Jon isn't the fact that nobody knows who Aegon is. It's the fact that nobody knows that Rhaegar and Lyanna even had a son and were legally married. Both Jon and Aegon have no hard proof about being legitimate sons of Rhaegar, but at least Aegon claims he's the child everyone knows was born not a child nobody knows existed. Aegon's story is way easier to sell, because he has only one hoop to jump through, so to speak - convincing people he's that kid everyone knows about. Meanwhile, Jon has to prove that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a child, that child was legitimate (which introduces the whole polygamy debacle) and that he is that child and not Ned's bastard as everyone thought for about 20 years. Much more difficult, IMHO. 

Let's just rest at the case being that believability isn't what will make you a king.

My point on difference between known/unknown people doesn't really matter and perhaps it was a weird argument, but its part of my reasoning so I just threw it in there. It is a fact though, you can argue against it all you like but it won't make it untrue.

https://research.vu.nl/ws/files/2077094/178795.pdf

Quote

Not ‘knowing’ one’s interaction partner might increase uncertainty or even apprehensions about the other, and provide a less firm basis for trusting the other. This idea resonates with the general assumption that ‘trust needs touch’ (Handy, 1995), i.e. that interpersonal contact is important (if not vital) in order to trust someone. Therefore, our first hypothesis would be that cues to personal identity increase perceived trustworthiness

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2020 at 11:51 AM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Think about it, right now in world there is far more proof that Aegon is legit then there can ever be that R+L=J. Aegon has the look, he has several eye witnesses and the testimony of one of his fathers best friend had who presumably kept him since he was a boy. Jon Snow looks every bit a Stark and his only proof of being a Targ will be a cranogman and maybe a tree demon. Real convincing stuff there. Like I find it far more likely for the lords of Westeros to think of Aegon as legit then to accept R+L=J. What do you think?

Because any given person (with a few exceptions) in world does not know anywhere near as much as readers do. What readers understand to be the case or what an outcome may be in a story is completely different than what characters in the story understand and how they think events will come to pass. Conflating the two makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sigella said:

My point on difference between known/unknown people doesn't really matter and perhaps it was a weird argument, but its part of my reasoning so I just threw it in there. It is a fact though, you can argue against it all you like but it won't make it untrue.

It's not a weird argument in itself and I'm not arguing against the premise of the research you've linked. That's solid stuff. 

I just think there's a difference between knowing of somebody and knowing somebody on a personal level. The second is a big factor in trusting that person. The first not so much. It's even stated in the excerpt you've posted - the part about interpersonal contact. Jon doesn't have that with most of 7K - not at the moment. His siblings, Sam, some of the NW and Wildlings, Melissandre or possibly Tyrion would be inclined to believe Jon based on previously established interpersonal relationship. But people of KL or noble houses south of the Neck? Nope, because he has no interpersonal relationship with them. Meanwhile, Aegon starts gathering followers in Stormlands and it looks like he will be making friends with Faith Militant and High Septon soon, so he'll have opportunities to establish interpersonal relationship with them. 

6 minutes ago, Ser Leftwich said:

What readers understand to be the case or what an outcome may be in a story is completely different than what characters in the story understand and how they think events will come to pass. Conflating the two makes no sense.

:agree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...