A Stone Dragon Prophecy and Disease that Turns Things to Stone

[chrisdaw]

This is the very skinny overview version, because when you take a step back and look at broad strokes things can become clearer.

There are dragons, and a disease coming to prominence that turns stuff into stone.

Quote

The child had her lord father's square jut of jaw and her mother's unfortunate ears, along with a disfigurement all her own, the legacy of the bout of greyscale that had almost claimed her in the crib. Across half one cheek and well down her neck, her flesh was stiff and dead, the skin cracked and flaking, mottled black and grey and stony to the touch.

And a prophecy that a hero shall wake dragons from stone.

Quote

It is written in prophecy as well. When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone.

Simple theory, lifted straight from the text.

Quote

Davos had often heard it said that the wizards of Valyria did not cut and chisel as common masons did, but worked stone with fire and magic as a potter might work clay. But now he wondered. What if they were real dragons, somehow turned to stone?

A dragon will be turned to stone by greyscale shenanigans, to be later awakened and thus realising the prophecy.

[Targaryeninkingslanding]

I don't think its impossible, but I am reluctant to accept that Dragons can get Greyscale. Greyscale emerged in 700 bc according to legend, so it works generally with the time frame, and by the same account, the Valyrians or at least their armies, were vulnerable to it. one may take that as a symbolic way of saying dragons themselves were vulnerable to it. Do we have any example of other animals catching the disease? the rats that carry it seem immune, but they are rats so...

Still, stone eggs work well enough to wake dragons from stone, and I think the Valyrian masonry techniques might just be a reference to concrete, which the romans had as a technology that was lost to humanity for centuries after their fall. like wildfire is to greekfire, it could just be a historical reference. 

if the vision is the result of looking into the flames however, it may not even be stone that the prophecy entails, that's just what the mistaken prophet interpreted it as (like Melisandre does). if they saw a wall of ice, but none build out of ice in essos, wouldn't you think it was stone?

[Amris]

I like your speculation in the OP. However I am with Targaryenkingslanding: We already have Daenerys waking dragons from stone eggs in book 1. That fulfills the prophecy word for word and in a straightforward way. I don't really see that a more complicated and highly speculative other explanation is needed.

[chrisdaw]

The prophecies have not happened. That's not how story telling works. One does not write an event in detail in one book and then in the next provide some vague prophecy for it. The prophecy is the author telling you to speculate away, that's half the point, and in doing so hype the critical pay off moments of the work. 

[Mourning Star]

5 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

The prophecies have not happened. That's not how story telling works. One does not write an event in detail in one book and then in the next provide some vague prophecy for it. The prophecy is the author telling you to speculate away, that's half the point, and in doing so hype the critical pay off moments of the work. 

This is wrong.

Not only in general about storytelling (there is no reason reveals to the reader for dramatic purpose have to be chronological in the story world) but also in this case literally in the text.

The prophesy you are referencing is a vision in the House of the Undying. One shown to Dany after she asks:

"I have come for the gift of truth," Dany said. "In the long hall, the things I saw . . . were they true visions, or lies? Past things, or things to come? What did they mean?"

We can speculate about whether a specific vision is of the past or future, but it's very explicit that they could be either, or even of things that are not true at all:

Within, you will see many things that disturb you. Visions of loveliness and visions of horror, wonders and terrors. Sights and sounds of days gone by and days to come and days that never were. Dwellers and servitors may speak to you as you go. Answer or ignore them as you choose, but enter no room until you reach the audience chamber.

And if we take a small step back and incorporate what Bran has learned about magic tree visions, it's clear that they can be of the past or future.

I think there is more evidence for Dragons being immune to disease than that they are vulnerable to it, but speculate away.

[chrisdaw]

5 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

This is wrong.

Not only in general about storytelling (there is no reason reveals to the reader for dramatic purpose have to be chronological in the story world) but also in this case literally in the text.

The prophesy you are referencing is a vision in the House of the Undying. One shown to Dany after she asks:

"I have come for the gift of truth," Dany said. "In the long hall, the things I saw . . . were they true visions, or lies? Past things, or things to come? What did they mean?"

We can speculate about whether a specific vision is of the past or future, but it's very explicit that they could be either, or even of things that are not true at all:

Within, you will see many things that disturb you. Visions of loveliness and visions of horror, wonders and terrors. Sights and sounds of days gone by and days to come and days that never were. Dwellers and servitors may speak to you as you go. Answer or ignore them as you choose, but enter no room until you reach the audience chamber.

And if we take a small step back and incorporate what Bran has learned about magic tree visions, it's clear that they can be of the past or future.

I think there is more evidence for Dragons being immune to disease than that they are vulnerable to it, but speculate away.

No the prophecy is not from the HOTU at all. But of the 25 odd HOTU visions a handful are from the past and maybe two are a retread of something given to us in text. The historic ones are primarily history lessons providing information we didn't know, they're not prophecies and not speculative, rather they're usually in support of a speculative future.

I reiterate, the prophecies such as AA or the quasi prophecies such as MMD's berating of Dany or stories such as The Last Hero have not happened yet, that runs counter to their whole purpose. They will happen on screen, in your face, and be the bombastic highs of the series.

[Rondo]

The prophecies from the Palace of Dust came in sets of three.  The first set have already happened and lends credibility to the two remaining sets.  For example, we already know of the false Azor Ahai, Stannis Baratheon.  Dany's firewalking and the hatching of the dragons proved her as AA and not Stan.  The fire for life brought the dragons back.  

I've no doubt that the stone disease will play a big role in Westeros.  Shireen will spread greyscale in the north and Jon C will be the carrier in the south.  Wouldn't it be cool if Jaime got it.  Call it Jon C's revenge.  

[Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe]

Shireen, Sandor, and BloodRaven. They all got something on their face. Dead weir wood at Blackwood. Shireen is at the wall. Blue flower growing from a chink in a wall. Florent sigil has a wreath of blue flowers. 

[Mourning Star]

18 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

I reiterate, the prophecies such as AA or the quasi prophecies such as MMD's berating of Dany or stories such as The Last Hero have not happened yet, that runs counter to their whole purpose. They will happen on screen, in your face, and be the bombastic highs of the series.

There is no basis in the text for this claim. It's not ridiculous to think that there will be big moments in the series related to prophesy, like the birth of dragons from stone eggs, but honestly you don't seem to be providing any textual support for your claims here. Are you really saying that the Last Hero never existed? Because I don't think anyone doubts we will see a version of him appear in the text again, or at least parallels, but its a big leap from there to denying he ever existed...

You don't think the House of the Undying visions were related to the return of dragons, Azhor Ahai, or the Last Hero tale?

You weren't referencing this when discussing a dragon turning to stone?

From a smoking tower, a great stone beast took wing, breathing shadow fire. . . . mother of dragons, slayer of lies

Seems kinda silly tbh...

What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years. Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it.

I'm all for being suspicious of what we are told in the text, but it's going to take a little more for me to find what you are proposing convincing. Especially since we have never actually been given the text of the Azhor Ahai prophesy or the Prince that was Promised prophesy (which seem likely to be about the same person or persons).

 

[Targaryeninkingslanding]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Are you really saying that the Last Hero never existed? Because I don't think anyone doubts we will see a version of him appear in the text again, or at least parallels, but its a big leap from there to denying he ever existed...

you know what my question is: is he the last hero as in the final hero? or the last hero as is the last person to take up the mantel of hero in the past/ most recent hero. because there is a startling difference in the implication for each.

[chrisdaw]

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

You weren't referencing this when discussing a dragon turning to stone?

From a smoking tower, a great stone beast took wing, breathing shadow fire. . . . mother of dragons, slayer of lies

No I was referencing the passage I literally quote and reference in the OP.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

There is no basis in the text for this claim.

Correct, an explanation of prophecy as a literary technique isn't featured in the text, as ASOIAF isn't a writing guide.

[Mourning Star]

15 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

No I was referencing the passage I literally quote and reference in the OP.

There is no prophesy literally quoted in the OP, you quote a reference to one, which we see phrased differently at other points in the series.

15 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

Correct, an explanation of prophecy as a literary technique isn't featured in the text, as ASOIAF isn't a writing guide.

This is not how evidence works when discussing a text, something doesn't need to be explained in uncertain terms in the text to use the text as a basis for an argument. Clearly you either do not know how to have a productive discussion or choose not to, so this isn't worth going into further.

18 hours ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

you know what my question is: is he the last hero as in the final hero? or the last hero as is the last person to take up the mantel of hero in the past/ most recent hero. because there is a startling difference in the implication for each.

I always liked the idea that the Last Hero story took place at the end of the Age of Heroes. 

That the Last Hero's twelve companions died (or were lost) before him also makes him the last.

I would also suggest that the derivation "hero" meaning a demi god (or child of a mortal and a god) may be relevant given all the tales of men mixing blood with supernatural creatures. The age of Hero's beginning with the pact between men and singers also fits with this. I think there is a decent case to be made that all the magic in asoiaf comes from interbreeding with "elder races".

I would be astonished if the Last Hero wasn't the same man or directly related to the Night's King (and Azhor Ahai). Nissa Nissa being the sacrifice to forge the sword to fight the war and then becoming the Corpse Bride of the Night's King. This very human conflict between love and duty seems to fit the story awfully well.

[Rondo]

Greyscale, Arya, civil war, and famine will be the precursors what will make the long night even more miserable for the people in Westeros.  People turning to stone is not going to help improve matters other than less mouths to feed.  A demented Arya assassinating capable leaders whose only crime was to fight the Starks will cause more chaos.  

chrisdaw, if you really want to connect "stones" to dragons, I can help you.  Dragonstone is a Valyrian fortress made of stone.  A special dragon was born within the interiors of those stone caverns.  It happened on a stormy night.  Daenerys Stormborn Targaryen was born on Dragonstone.  You could say a dragon, the Mother of All Dragons, was born in that place.  

[chrisdaw]

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

There is no prophesy literally quoted in the OP, you quote a reference to one, which we see phrased differently at other points in the series.

Yeah a "reference". How absurd.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

This is not how evidence works when discussing a text

I disagree. The conventional use of literary devices amongst other external references being applied to the text are perfectly valid, common and sometimes insightful. That one will not find evidence in an unfinished text of prophesy being used to set expectations for an end of series payoff should be self evident, and to think that I should be trying to provide evidence of such is to basically not grasp the point.

[Mourning Star]

15 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

Yeah a "reference". How absurd.

If you haven’t noticed, the difference between a vision itself and a second hand interpretation is repeatedly significant in this series.

The title of this post is a perfect example. There is no prophesy of a stone dragon. There is a prophesy about waking dragons from stone, and there is the vision of a great stone beast in the house of the undying, but to pretend Melisandre (or you) aren’t applying your own interpretation to get from these to a literal stone dragon is willful ignorance.

If you can’t recognize the significance of the difference between getting a prophesy first hand, or seeing a vision on the page, and only getting an interpretation, translation, or second hand report, then I can’t help you.

Quote

I disagree. The conventional use of literary devices amongst other external references being applied to the text are perfectly valid, common and sometimes insightful. That one will not find evidence in an unfinished text of prophesy being used to set expectations for an end of series payoff should be self evident, and to think that I should be trying to provide evidence of such is to basically not grasp the point.

You are wrong about how visions/prophesy works as a literary devise. You can have payoff for a reader just as easily by revealing past events as future ones. In fact having a prophesy fulfilled only for characters to realize later is a troupe in itself. 

The entire premise that all visions/prophesies will only be about the future has no basis in anything and is explicitly contested by the text. So, it’s very clear you do not have a point worth grasping. 

good day sir