The Valyrian prophecy about the gold of Casterly Rock

[sweetsunray]

On 12/30/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

 If she tells us that not all stuff in the flames comes true we do have to take that seriously because it reflects the magical knowledge of the fictional world. It might not necessarily be accurate, but if it isn't we will never find out unless the author tells us how it actually is.

We don't have to take it seriously, because Mel's belief is proven wrong in aCoK, while Jojen's contradicting belief is proven right, regardless where that belief comes from.

On 12/30/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

That could mean she saw images of them ... or that she just *knew* that the children would have golden crowns and shrouds. Assuming she didn't just make that tidbit up considering Myrcella is still crownless so far and nobody ever told us anything about the colors of Joffrey's shroud.

You're missing out on the double meaning of the word "crown". It also means "head" or rather "hair". Crowned or not, Myrcella has golden hair, and therefore is golden "crowned". What she reveals to Cersei is imagery, which may be symbolic. She's not directly saying "you'll have three blonde children, who'll all die before you," (the "known").

Strictly speaking you can deny it was seen, just because we didn't have Maggy's POV. But the circumstantial evidence piles up to "seen". Trees, (dragon/green) dreams, flames, shade of the evening ... all seen, not just known. And even blood is suggested to be a vehicle to "see", indicated by Dany's two dragon dreams (involving HER blood).

On 12/30/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

In the case of the Brotherhood, yes. But not when she told Jaehaerys II about the promised prince and his children, apparently. We don't know the details so far, of course.

Contrary to science we can assume in literature that if it is confirmed in 9/10 cases that it's visual, it's also true for the 10th case.

On 12/30/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Undying's magic isn't based on shade-of-the-evening as such. They are connected to some kind of magical, monstrous heart which keeps them alive. And we never see them drinking this stuff ... in fact, we don't even know if they still can eat and drink. They seem to be more like vampires/zombies than living beings. Daenerys was the one drinking shade-of-the-evening.

And Euron drinks the stuff, too, not intending to have visions but to work great and powerful spells (one assumes). But nobody denies that it can help you have visions ... although if look at Aeron's visions those might just be ugly nightmares.

The monstrous heart is also blue, like shade of the evening. It doesn't matter whether we see them drink the stuff or not. We know that drinking it turns lips blue within months or years. As an extension several lifetimes would turn everything else blue too. (on the side: both the "Shade" and the monstrous heart and the eating of a woman lured in to be eaten is a reuse of Sandkings)

On 12/30/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

There are no kings in Valyria, an emperor is a different thing entirely, especially if you compare things to Rome where kings are bad and emperors were, eventually, good.

What prevented the Valyrian elite to create kings and emperors I don't know ... and I don't care. The point is that they didn't have such offices and people, and hence are not likely to view kings in visions as their own peers or successors. You simply give no good reasons why they should believe such things ... or rather: why I should believe they would have believed such things.

As far as George's commentary goes, kings or emperors are the same thing. He said that Valyria has no kings OR emperors.

If you don't care what prevented Old Valyria from having kings or emperors for thousands of years, then why are you debating over it?

I know the point is that they don't have such an office. That's my point just as well.

Okay, so you believe that if sorcerers saw a crowned man with a monstrous throne of thousand swords and nineteen diminishing dragon skulls with purple eyes and silver hair, they would reject the notion that he could be Valyrian. I believe that the Valyrian features of purple eyes and silver hair along with dragon remains over generations would be sufficient evidence for Valyrian dragonriders to accept this is a descendent from them, as no common man from Lys could ever attain such powers; that the ungroomed state of the man, the various diminishing dead dragon skulls, and the architecture would have several speculate and conclude it shows a future where Valyrian knowledge and power will decline, and eventually that king or emperor would be killed too. And therefore they believed that if Valyria never has a king or emperor they would avoid both the decline of their society and the kingslaying. As a result Valyria never had a king or emperor, but the Doom happened and one dragonrider family set up shop on Dragonstone, and one of their descendants decided he ought to be king of entire Westeros, then later descendants had a civil war in wich pretty much most dragons were killed, the remaining small ones died out, and eventually a mad shadow of what was once Valyrian ended up killed by a man in gold and the helmet of a lion of the rock. 

Your insistence that Valyrians would never believe or fear such a vision and would not act upon is already belied by the mystery of them never having had kings or emperors for thousands of years, despite it certainly being in their personalities in at least one family if not every generation, proven by Aurion proclaiming himself as such after the Doom, and the mystery that they avoided dealing with CR, even before Lannister times. But that's okay. If you want to accept it as having no kings or emperors as "it is what it is" and don't believe such a prophecy existed, that's fine. I've done so for years, until I realized Jaime in gold killing Aerys and sitting on the IT could be the missing link to Septon Barth's claims.

On 12/30/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't help your idea. In fact, it makes less and less sense if you actually consider the in-universe. Yes, Valyrian society could decline. But it actually never did. They had only success until they were suddenly destroyed by a natural catastrophe. Thus chances are very low that the Valyrians as such would ever consider their culture and society could decline.

That it did not decline, would strengthen them in the belief that having no kings and emperors and stay away from having dealings with CR was the successful strategy to avoid a prophecy about the desctruction of Valyria. They were wrong. The destruction of the Valyrian peninsula occurred, without CR's involvement. Knowledge and wisdom was lost and the remaining dragonriders went middle ages.

As for the argument about their roads still existing and that they are indestructible. Well that depends on how they were made. If dragonflame is part of the making and destruction, then it's because the dragons were dead or living at Dragonstone, why those roads still exist.

Quote

No Valyrian dragonlord would ever expect that a Valyrian dragonlord would live in a primitive castle.

I disagree.

Quote

And to be sure - even if they did. Why on earth would they ever care to protect a degenerate, decadent 'Valyrian king' living in a savage castle? Why would they care about this 'Valyria' if they had become savages themselves? They would not be saving the Valyria they knew and loved if they were trying to protect them from some kind of blond savage.

They're not "protecting" the savage Valyrian king, but preventing that Valyria itself falls to the wayside in such a way until it results in such a savage madman and dead dragons diminishing in size. 

Quote

Not to mention that it is a huge stretch that the Valyrians actually would have recognized Jaime as a Lannister in that vision. They may have known about Casterly Rock and all - being that place of gold where they could get precious metals from - but Jaime just wore a gold armor in the throne room, not something actually depicting the lion of Casterly Rock. How would they make the connection? Even if the lion were visible there, there is no reason to believe they would give a damn about what that savage symbol says about the person involved.

I didn't claim they recognized him as a Lannister. For all we know, the prophecy was seen as a vision when the Casterlys still ruled the rock. However, Jaime wore gold AND had a helmet of a lion. An entire armor, sword and helmet gilded in gold and a lion. There's only one location that can splurge with gold that much and only one mine associated with lions - Casterly Rock.

The rest is your opinion with which I disagree.

Quote

They could even view Jaime as another Valyrian slaying the savage king. Jaime is fair-haired, too, after all.

No they wouldn't. Jaime is golden blonde and green eyed, not silver haired with purple eyes.

On 12/30/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

An emperor isn't a king ... and Aurion had his pretensions after the Doom which completely changed the game. The guy could have called himself the big super-president-king of Valyria. It doesn't really matter. Valyria was destroyed at the time, as was its society and its rules.

George said "no king or emperor", meaning "no one guy rules over all". It does matter that Aurioni proclaims himself emperor after the Doom. It shows that the inclination and desire to be "the one guy who rules over all" was always present within individuals of the Valyrian elite. Something kept these individuals from doing so before the Doom, even amongst dragonrider families who were of the top tier power.

On 12/30/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

You have to differentiate between Melisandre and the red priests in general/the way the Azor Ahai myth is interpreted in the east. Melisandre knows stuff from the east ... and she knows the promised prince prophecy or a version of it. That's the reason why she is on Dragonstone when we first meet her, and it is the reason why she searches for her savior among the Targaryen-Baratheons.

When Aemon talks about Lightbringer he doesn't do that in relation to the prophecy he knows, but in relation to the Lightbringer Stannis has ... which he has because Melisandre wanted her savior to have this sword. Despite the fact that there not being any prophecy about the promised prince or a reborn Azor Ahai needing the sword of the mythical, long-dead Azor Ahai. That's an obsession only Melisandre has. And we don't know why she thinks Stannis must have this sword.

You mistook my meaning of Aemon's interactions with Mel about the prophecies. While it's true that Aemon talks about Lightbringer in relation to Mel's claims, that's not actually what I meant. I mean this conversation:

 

Quote

 

The woman rose in a swirl of scarlet silk, her long copper-bright hair tumbling about her shoulders. "Swords alone cannot hold this darkness back. Only the light of the Lord can do that. Make no mistake, good sers and valiant brothers, the war we've come to fight is no petty squabble over lands and honors. Ours is a war for life itself, and should we fail the world dies with us."

The officers did not know how to take that, Sam could see. Bowen Marsh and Othell Yarwyck exchanged a doubtful look, Janos Slynt was fuming, and Three-Finger Hobb looked as though he would sooner be back chopping carrots. But all of them seemed surprised to hear Maester Aemon murmur, "It is the war for the dawn you speak of, my lady. But where is the prince that was promised?"

"He stands before you," Melisandre declared, "though you do not have the eyes to see. Stannis Baratheon is Azor Ahai come again, the warrior of fire. In him the prophecies are fulfilled. The red comet blazed across the sky to herald his coming, and he bears Lightbringer, the red sword of heroes." (aSoS, Samwell V)

 

 

Aemon brings up the prophecy himself first, and links it to the war for the dawn. Mel calls him AA come again, and Aemon never disagrees with that.

Mel and Aemon may focus on different things  - she on the outward looks/signs, he on the purpose (war for the dawn, wake dragons from stone), but it's clear from Aemon's interaction here, and in his words to Sam about the dragon dreams and the prophecy, that Aemon believes both prophecies are about the same person. He calls it tPtwP, she calls it AA come again. He may go into semantics about prince versus princess in relation to dragons, but he never goes into semantics about AA come again or tPtwP.

On 12/30/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

Nah, that's likely part of the promised prince prophecy, too. There is no reason why Rhaegar should think 'the dragon must have three heads' in relation to the prophecy if the prophecy itself weren't alluding to this. The Targaryen banner was influenced by the prophecy, not the prophecy interpretation of Rhaegar's by the banner. I mean, Rhaegar arbitrarily dragging the banner into this would be like Cersei adding some lion stuff to Maggy's prophecy just because she was a Lannister. That would make no sense.

People get confused there because they make the connection to Aegon and his sisters ... but they have nothing to do with a prophecy going back thousands of years. They might have referenced it in their banner, though.

It may, it may not.

We have the wordings of the prophecy, albeit translated and two titles: Azor Ahai come again or The Prince that was Promised, which I believe to have been originally worded in High Valyrian as "The Dragon that was Promised". Any other mention of dragons is the line "born amidst salt and smoke to wake dragons from stone". Neither mentions that the dragon must have three heads or that there will be three dragons. I certainly don't believe any dragonrider family in Old Valyria was sure which amongst them would birth the Dragon that was Promised, before the Doom. Only when the woods witch confirms this person (or persons) would be born from the line of Aerys II and Rhaella, do the Targs have confirmation that it is their line.

I also don't think Rhaegar dragged the banner into it arbitrarily. We know Rhaegar was in contact with maester Aemon and that Aemon had dragon dreams, including the red bleeding star, as well as dragons in the snow. Aemon's dragon dream is the first dragon dream we readers have with prophecy content, content that matches Rhaegar's beliefs about Aegon being the promised one. So, I suspect that Rhaegar matched dragon dream info he had from Aemon (including whatever dreams Aemon's brothers had and relayed to Rhaegar) and possibly himself to proclaim the dragon must have three heads. I think the "three heads" thing is something that comes from a Targ's dragon dreams, and of Egg's generation or later.

On 12/30/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

There is no indication that there is a Targaryen dragon spirit/god, so no need to assume such a person existed. If it did the author would tell us, would most likely have told us long ago in AGoT. The dragon is a rendering of Drogon. And the reason why there is only one dragon - Drogon - is because originally Daenerys chanced on only one dragon egg in the Dothraki Sea, not three. If she had/would only get one egg, there is no need for her to dream about three dragons.

Doesn't matter what he originally intended to write. What matters is how he ended up writing it.

Dany has 2 dragon dreams only:

• the first in her wedding chapter, but occuring before her wedding. The dream shows first Viserys abusing her, while she is pregnant, then he disappears and she births 1 dragon. We do not know yet what the dragon looks like, but he meets her eye.
  • If we consider this a prophetic dream about her hatching 3 dragons by the end of the novel then that's problematic. She births only 1 dragon.
  • If we consider this a propehetic dream about Rhaego then that's problematic too. He's born dead.
  • If we consider this a bonding dream with one of the eggs that's problematic: she dreams it before she's even gifted eggs.
  • George writes seemingly unlrelated stuff in chapters to reflect an event occuring to Dany in that same chapter. She herself hatches into a human dragon in that chapter. Dany the Dragon is born during the wedding. Meeting her eye is a sign of reflection and identifying. On top of that, Dany proclaims over and over that she is the blood of the dragon.
• the second is a continuation of the first dream. The dragon is black and red, still covered in blood. Her blood! (the blood of the dragon). The full grown dragon spouts flame, which she embraces and allows to wash over her. She feels stronger the next day and discovers the black-red egg feels warm to the touch.
  • If we consider this a bonding dream with one of the dragons inside the egg enflaming her, then there are some issues with this:
    • the egg is warm after the dream, not before. In later warm-egg scenes, it becomes clear that the eggs take Dany's heat, not the other way around. It certainly becomes evident during the hatching event at the end of the novel, that they hatch because Dany stepped into the fire.
    • the dragons of her eggs are not of "her blood". The dragon magic inside her blood is.
    • even if it's the dragon inside the egg, it ain't as big and as lively as the one in the dream and incapable of giving that much heat and strength to her. So, at the very least, you must then think of it as a "dragon spirit", albeit one encased inside the egg.
    • how come it's a continuation of the first we already have to dismiss as a bonding dream, since she didn't have the eggs during her first dream
  • If we consider it the dragonmagic inside her own blood, herself in dragon form/totem/spiritual, that matches with what is going on mentally and psychologically in that chapter.
    • She was depressed enough to be pre-suicidal (considering it). When people hit rock bottom, they either discover a resilience within or they break. Dany finds the resilience within.
    • Excepting Aemon's dream, other known dragon dreams have a dragon = character. It may be so in Aemon's dream too, but we do not yet know this.
    • When her dragonblood gets hot, her eggs (ovarian or otherwise) get heated too, and ripen, and eventually hatch.

That the dragon is Dany's own dragonblood, herself, her dragon nature/spirit/totem ties the puzzle pieces the best and does not force me to wave off issues surfacing with the more conventional explanations... that is I accepted those for lack of alternative for years, but a lot of consequences and contradictions surronding these explanations have bothered me immensely. I just gave up thinking too hard on it for years. When I insert a "dragon spirit" it solves those issues.

Eventually, George wrote Dany first, and every other Targaryen or backhistory he writes afterwards, including prophecies and dragon dreams with other Targs. He wrote them to fit her, not the other way around. But we can use them to discover stuff about Dany. Ultimately, Dany is the True Dragon, more so than Drogon is.

As far as George telling us explicitly I know you've read part of his backlog, but somehow you failed to notice that George never explains all. Examples - This Tower of Ashes, Seven Times Never Kill a Man, Song for Lya. Some stuff he explicitly leaves a mystery for the reader to make sense of. But it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to George. It just means, he's not telling us.

[sweetsunray]

On 12/30/2020 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

Not for Aegon V who dreamed about dragons flying above Westeros.

quote?