Jump to content

Is it within the realm of possibility that Cannibal is still alive?


Lady Stonehearts Simp

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is factually wrong, and considering that you want to discuss such esoteric details with considerable fervor you should really check things out before you make such claims.

I actually admire your encyclopedic memory of the books.  I have less admiration though, for how you reason from such facts.  But that's fine too.  We can agree to disagree.  What really annoys me is your sneering arrogance.

What I think you MEANT to say, before the devil on your left shoulder got the best of you, was something like:  "Yes, you are right, no dragonrider ever rode a second dragon after his first dragon died.  But here's some more info to consider."

You could have gone on to make the points below.  But at least it would feel like a real conversation rather than some horrible ego war.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

FaB makes it crystal clear that both Rhaenyra and Aegon II think they, personally, can mount other dragons after Syrax and Sunfyre are dead. Rhaenyra specifically returns to Dragonstone because she wants to hatch dragon eggs because she thinks she needs another dragon, and Aegon II has the new maester of Dragonstone send seven eggs to the Red Keep for him personally hatch so he can replace his golden Sunfyre. Prior to that, his council even brought up the notion that the king could mount Silverwing at Red Lake - but this is dismissed because Aegon II doesn't want Silverwing and might not be fit enough physically to travel there.

So that's two more examples of people who outlived their dragons and never got new ones.  And this proves me wrong?  How exactly?

Rhaenyra was broken hearted and in mourning.  If she really hopes to bond with a new dragon, it hardly follows that the hope is realistic.  She is not presented as having any real confidence in her ability to do this; it is rather presented as a last desperate hope of a woman with no hope.  Nor is it 100% clear, in her case, if she wanted a new dragon for herself personally or merely for her side.

In Aegon II's case, he is explicit that he does not want Silverwing, nor is there any reason to suppose he thinks he CAN bond with Silverwing.  What he wants is a "new Sunfyre".  Curious choice of words, that, no?  So he gets himself a new dragon egg to sleep with and tries to hatch it.  He fails.  If he tries and fails, does that prove you right?  And if he doesn't even try (as with Silverwing) I guess that also proves you right.  It seems to me, you just can't lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need to interpret the correct meaning of Dany's words considering she clearly has no clue about dragonlore - all her knowledge about dragons comes from Viserys who, in turn, would have been told whatever bits and pieces he passed on to Dany from his parents or perhaps Rhaegar.

Daenerys Targaryen the POV character is no authority on dragonlore ... but George R. R. Martin is, and he confirmed that Viserys I could have mounted another dragon after Balerion's death but chose not to. That settles this issue.

The fact that actual dragon experts like Rhaenyra and Aegon II who grew up in the dragon age and had dragons of their own throughout most of their life also believe that claims another dragon after their original dragon died is also all the evidence we need.

Especially Rhaenyra's knowledge there is pretty striking - she knew that her son Joffrey Velaryon mounting Syrax could not possibly work. Meaning Rhaenyra actually had a (likely) better grasp at that the particular tidbit of dragonlore Dany references in ADwD. Yet she, Rhaenyra, is determined to hatch more dragon eggs for herself. Just as Aegon II is. She wouldn't do that if she had any reason to believe it would go as bad for as it went for Joffrey.

It is really odd how people ignore the facts given above and continue to interpret Dany's ramblings - when they are, by virtue of her biography, the least trustworthy bits of dragonlore we could possibly get.

(This doesn't mean there isn't some truth to her statements. But the interpretation that a dragonrider cannot claim another dragon after his dragon is dead is clearly false.)

4 hours ago, Morte said:

As you say, he dared to approach Balerion, so maybe he really loved the old big boy so much? The information was given by GRRM himself, as @Lord Varys pointed out, so it would be strange, if it was for any other reason but affection(?)

We don't know the reason - it is odd since Viserys I lacking a dragon of his own made him less powerful and effectively a kind of fool once all his children and effectively all his Valyrian kin had dragons of their own. He is like a billionaire refusing to buy a jet/yacht of his own, always being dependent on his children and relations to take him along.

But we just have to accept this thing and move on. The show played things pretty well there with Viserys' obsession with Valyria likely leading to him claiming Balerion who was the last living being to have ever seen the place. His knowledge of Valyrian history apparently also made him somewhat wary of dragons, so that helps as well ... as does his sickness when it starts to get really bad.

4 hours ago, Morte said:

Imho Aegon III really didn't want another dragon after the loss of his dragon and witnessing his mother being devoured by Sunfyre.

Aegon III already hates dragons with a passion during the Regency era. He would never even contemplate mounting a dragon even if there was one available for him.

4 hours ago, Morte said:

But I agree with you on the part that we don't yet know the full impact the death of a dragon can have on its rider. Maybe this is the difference between Viserys I and Aegon III, who never even tried to get another dragon, and other dragonriders, who wanted another one after their dragon died? Maybe the imprint on the rider can differ? Balerion is a very old and wilful dragon, while Aegon III is really very young then his dragon dies...

Others also lose their dragons during the Dance and live (for a time) - Baela, Rhaenyra, Aegon II. Only the latter shows signs of this really affecting him - and that seems not because of 'the dragon bond' but rather the very close relationship these two seem to have had later on. Although, of course, Sunfyre being a dying ruin could also just have helped showing Aegon II how much he lost during the war and what it cost him, physically, to go after the Iron Throne.

4 hours ago, Morte said:

Here I hope @Lord Varys is right and we get more informations in FaB II, maybe combined with Cannibal's further whereabouts, as Baela not even trying to get another dragon, imho feels strange for her character.

We also have to keep in mind that we are likely going to see multiple dragons hatch during the reign of Aegon III. Even if Baela were not to mount one of the large dragons, she could certainly bond with and eventually mount one of those hatchlings. Many of those dragons will likely be stunted and twisted, etc. but not necessarily all of them. The idea that Morning is going to be the last healthy dragon isn't confirmed as of yet.

17 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

What I think you MEANT to say, before the devil on your left shoulder got the best of you, was something like:  "Yes, you are right, no dragonrider ever rode a second dragon after his first dragon died."

I actually know this, but this is clearly not proving that nobody can ride two or more dragons in succession if the earlier one dies. Because George R. R. Martin himself confirmed that Viserys I decided not to mount another dragon after Balerion's death. He didn't say he couldn't mount another dragon, he said he decided not to do this - confirming that he could have, that it was possible.

17 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Rhaenyra was broken hearted and in mourning.  If she really hopes to bond with a new dragon, if that is what she was hoping, it hardly follows that the hope is realistic.  She is not presented as having any real confidence in her ability to do this; it is rather presented as a last desperate hope of a woman with no hope.  Nor is it 100% clear, in her case, if she wanted a new dragon for herself or for her side.

In Aegon II's case, he is explicit that he does not want Silverwing, nor is there any reason to suppose he thinks he CAN bond with Silverwing.  What he wants is a "new Sunfyre".  Curious choice of words, that, no?  So he gets himself a new dragon egg to sleep with and tries to hatch it.  He fails.  If he tries and fails, does that prove you right?  And if he doesn't even try (as withis Silverwing) I guess that also proves you right.  It seems to me, you just can't lose.

It is pretty clear why we can assume that these people knew dragonlore better than you or I. They were both dragonriders, and descendents of the dragonlords of Old Valyria. They lived with dragons their entire lives, they had access to knowledge Viserys III and Dany never even knew existed. Their family would not only have passed crucial knowledge like that to their children - we also know that their great-grandfather Jaehaerys' best friend was a certain septon with a deep interest in all things magical, so the Targaryen generation which had access to Barth's book may have even been more informed about certain aspects of dragonlore than, say, Aenys and Maegor.

If, as you so boldly claimed, no-nothing Daenerys would magically know about hypothetical precedents of Targaryens/dragonlords unsuccessfully trying to mount a new dragon after their original dragon predeceased them ... then Rhaenyra and Aegon II and the people advising them would know about that, too. Which would mean nobody would make any such attempts.

You can also not wiggle out of your bold statement there - Rhaenyra may have just wanted a new dragon for her side? To her knowledge, she still had a dragonrider on Dragonstone in her step-daughter Baela. She didn't know that Aegon II had taken Dragonstone, so she certainly also didn't know Moondancer was dead. FaB makes it pretty clear for who the dragon would have been:

Quote

She was adamant on returning to Dragonstone. There she would find dragon’s eggs, she told her loyalists; she must have another dragon, or all was lost.

She wanted to hatch a dragon egg for herself. The only other potential candidate would be her sole remaining son Aegon, but he was a dragonrider, too, so if you were right then Rhaenyra would know that, too, and she wouldn't have need to return to Dragonstone to hatch dragons she could not use. Baela would have still had her Moondancer as I pointed out, and Rhaena was in the Vale with her own dragon eggs. So Rhaenyra also wouldn't have to return to Dragonstone to hatch eggs for Rhaena's benefit.

The implication there is that Rhaenyra felt she needed another dragon to regain the prestige and the the legitimacy that comes with a dragon - Aegon II is driven by pretty much the same thing later on - not necessarily as an immediate instrument of war. In Aegon's case everything is as plain as it can be:

Quote

Though years would need to pass before Morning grew large enough to be ridden to war, the news of her birth nonetheless was of great concern to the green council. If the rebels could flaunt a dragon and the loyalists could not, Queen Alicent pointed out, smallfolk might see their foes as more legitimate. “I need a dragon,” Aegon II said when he was told.

Aside from Lady Rhaena’s hatchling, only three living dragons remained in all of Westeros. Sheepstealer had vanished with the girl Nettles, but was thought to be somewhere in Crackclaw Point or the Mountains of the Moon. The Cannibal still haunted the eastern slopes of the Dragonmont. Silverwing at last report had departed the desolation at Tumbleton for the Reach, and was said to have made her lair on a small, stony isle in the middle of Red Lake.

Queen Alysanne’s silvery she-dragon had accepted a second rider, Borros Baratheon pointed out. “Why not a third? Claim the dragon and your crown is secure.” But Aegon II was as yet unable to walk or stand, much less mount and ride a dragon. Nor was His Grace strong enough for a long journey across the realm to Red Lake, through regions infested with traitors, rebels, and broken men.

That answer was no answer, plainly. “Not Silverwing,” His Grace declared. “I will have a new Sunfyre, prouder and fiercer than the last.” So ravens were sent to Dragonstone, where the eggs of the Targaryen dragons, some so old they had turned to stone, were kept under guard in undervaults and cellars. The maester there chose seven (in honor of the gods) that he deemed most promising, and sent them to King’s Landing. King Aegon kept them in his own chambers, but none yielded a dragon. Mushroom tells us His Grace sat on a “large purple and gold egg” for a day and a night, hoping to hatch it, “but it had as well been a purple and gold turd for all the good it did.”

Now while I certainly agree that Borros Baratheon is likely no expert on dragonlore, either - the other people on the king's council (including he himself) as well as our author Gyldayn might know a thing or two about those things.

Yet the argument against King Aegon II trying to mount Silverwing is his own ill health not the fact that he as a former dragonrider could not possible mount another dragon even if he tried. They could and would have told him so if this were the case. It wouldn't necessarily have been the end of the Green dragon dreams since Princess Jaehaera was yet alive, and while she did have a dragon in Morghul she never mounted him, so Aegon II could easily enough have given the seven eggs he had brought from Dragonstone to his daughter.

But he didn't.

As to your take on discussing things: I noticed a tendency that you pick and choose what fits your (preconceived) view. I mean, you play up the alleged belief of some smallfolk about the origin of the Cannibal but refuse to draw obvious conclusions from Rhaenyra's and Aegon II's intentions regarding new dragons. You interpret a quote of Daenerys Targaryen (who is neither an expert on Westeros nor on dragonlore) as if it contained confirmed truths while completely ignoring the fact that George himself did confirm that Viserys I could have chosen another dragon after the death of Balerion.

Which means this issue is settled.

And I do not sneer. I just write things ... and I'm overall pretty polite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no need to interpret the correct meaning of Dany's words considering she clearly has no clue about dragonlore - all her knowledge about dragons comes from Viserys who, in turn, would have been told whatever bits and pieces he passed on to Dany from his parents or perhaps Rhaegar.

I don't claim any information in the books is infallible.  But nor do I buy the theory that words are wind, whenever you declare them to be. 

GRRM used Dany to convey information to the reader.   And she does not just get her information from Viserys.  She also read books.  More books, perhaps, than you or I have read.  She mentions books in the same breath, but for some mysterious reason you choose to leave it out. 

And the only books available to us seem to confirm that the information is right -- no rider ever flew two dragons.

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Daenerys Targaryen the POV character is no authority on dragonlore ... but George R. R. Martin is, and he confirmed that Viserys I could have mounted another dragon after Balerion's death but chose not to. That settles this issue.

GRRM never said "Viserys I could have mounted another dragon after Balerion's death".  You added that to make your argument more compelling than it actually is. 

Viserys I chose not to try. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 You interpret a quote of Daenerys Targaryen (who is neither an expert on Westeros nor on dragonlore) as if it contained confirmed truths while completely ignoring the fact that George himself did confirm that Viserys I could have chosen another dragon after the death of Balerion.

The only quote I could find was
 
Viserys I flew Balerion, I seem to recall. When the Black Dread died (of old age, not in war), he did not take a second dragon.
 
(This was in 2014 response to a question about who Viserys' dragon was).
 
 
Which does not come within 1000 miles of saying what you claim.  If there is another GRRM quote out there that does support you, please produce it.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2023 at 9:02 PM, Ring3r said:

All good points.  I do still think it's highly unlikely but it's entirelly possible that GRRM could find a way to bring Cannibal back....though I don't see how it could factor into the story.  3 heads of the dragon is a major theme.

He's my fave dragon tho, so if it could make sense I'd be for it.  Maybe linking with a rider shortens their life span?  Cannibal never did.

Since you find Cannibal's survival to present day too unlikely, here's a theory that may fit your liking better.

Perhaps the real significance of Cannibal is that he is a clue pointing to the plausible survival of Sheepstealer in the present day.

Sheepstealer and Cannibal were both wild dragons, possibly of the same wild-dragon heritage; which may differ from that of Balerion.  Cannibal is supposed by some on Dragonstone to have lived there since before Aenar arrived in 114 BC, and he was still surviving wild and dangerous, and without the aid of feeders and handler, until at least 135 AC.  He would have been over 249 years old by then, possibly well over.

Meanwhile, the Sheepstealer was born in King Jaehaerys' youth, which could plausibly mean when he was 26, or in 60 AD.  Hence Sheepstealer could be as little as 240 years old today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

GRRM used Dany to convey information to the reader.   And she does not just get her information from Viserys.  She also read books.  More books, perhaps, than you or I have read.  She mentions books in the same breath, but for some mysterious reason you choose to leave it out. 

The only books Dany has partially read were the books given to her by Jorah - which are definitely not books on dragonlore.

The only dragonlore knowledge Dany has comes from Viserys, e.g. er remembering that he told her once that dragons only eat cooked meat.

That no dragonrider Dany or we know about (so far) ever flew dragons doesn't establish what you think it does.

You also shared an annoying tendency to accept things that are obvious - like the fact that the appendices do convey information that do not reflect the limited knowledge of the book POVs.

13 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:
The only quote I could find was
 
Viserys I flew Balerion, I seem to recall. When the Black Dread died (of old age, not in war), he did not take a second dragon.
 
(This was in 2014 response to a question about who Viserys' dragon was).
 
 
Which does not come within 1000 miles of saying what you claim.  If there is another GRRM quote out there that does support you, please produce it.
 

The word 'take' there implies he could have taken another. If George had wanted to say that he couldn't have taken another he would have said something along the lines of 'When the Black Dragon died, he couldn't take a second dragon.' But he didn't. George doesn't seem to think that you can only ride one dragon in his universe.

10 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Since you find Cannibal's survival to present day too unlikely, here's a theory that may fit your liking better.

Technically the Cannibal could have survived to the main series. I never doubted that. The notion that he would still be around if he was already on Dragonstone before the Targaryens came there is stretching things - as is assuming that this is true.

But I don't think FaB II is not going to address the issue of the Cannibal. I think we will learn what happened to him there, even if he just 'disappeared'. That we'll get the final end of Morning and Silverwing is equally obvious. Just as Sheepstealer might get some proper closure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The only books Dany has partially read were the books given to her by Jorah - which are definitely not books on dragonlore.

Now you're doubling down with more invented facts.  Where does it say that the only books Dany read, before or after her marriage, were the books Jorah gave her?

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The only dragonlore knowledge Dany has comes from Viserys, e.g. er remembering that he told her once that dragons only eat cooked meat.

"No rider ever flew two dragons" is a historical claim.  Which is basically confirmed, at least for the last 300 years, by F&B.  And she does not have to be a great reader to remember an author noticing and mentioning this fact.   And some of the books given her by Jorah were histories.

And that GRRM is aware of the pattern shown in F&B, is revealed by Dany commenting on the pattern in ADWD.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That no dragonrider Dany or we know about (so far) ever flew dragons doesn't establish what you think it does.

Nothing is 100% certain.  I think only about 5 riders, and I guess Rhaena will make a 6th, have outlived their dragons, and I suppose you can argue that is too small a sample size (it is still a pattern, explicitly pointed out in the text by GRRM).  If you want to fantasize that Dany or whoever will be the first person in recorded history (for at least the last 300 years) to fly two dragons, I guess you are free to do so.  Hope springs eternal.  Rhaenyra can hope, Aegon II can hope, and so can you I guess.  I'm just pointing out what the books say.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You also shared an annoying tendency to accept things that are obvious - like the fact that the appendices do convey information that do not reflect the limited knowledge of the book POVs.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The word 'take' there implies he could have taken another. If George had wanted to say that he couldn't have taken another he would have said something along the lines of 'When the Black Dragon died, he couldn't take a second dragon.' But he didn't. George doesn't seem to think that you can only ride one dragon in his universe.

Come off it.  You asked GRRM who Viserys' dragon was.  He told you "Balerion", and, just to make things clear, went on to say that he never took a second dragon.   Viserys never took/flew a second dragons, and no rider ever took/flew a second dragon, are 100% consistent statements.

Then you asked another bunch of questions, which GRRM largely ignored, except to briefly point out that Balerion was not alive in 101 AC.  Then you asked the questions specifically at issue here.  GRRM had had enough by that point, and did not respond.  Which is where it stands. 

What you said before was not true.  Which is fine.  We all make mistakes.  But now, instead of admitting your error, you are doubling down on and trying to justify it.  So was it a mistake?  Or a lie?  You are not going to earn any respect that way, at least from me.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Technically the Cannibal could have survived to the main series.

I agree it is possible that Cannibal survived the main series.  That is in the realm of possibility no matter how old he is.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The notion that he would still be around if he was already on Dragonstone before the Targaryens came there is stretching things - as is assuming that this is true.

I agree that the older Cannibal is, the less likely it is that he survived to the main series.  Cannibal could have been 249+ years old at the end of the Dance, or he could have been younger.  Maybe significantly younger.  GRRM leaves both possibilities open.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But I don't think FaB II is not going to address the issue of the Cannibal.

I don't even know if F&B2 will ever be released.  TWOIAF says the Cannibal will vanish.  I would tend to guess that F&B2 will be consistent with this preview, and maybe also provide a few more details.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think we will learn what happened to him there, even if he just 'disappeared'.

"Vanished" implies we won't find out what happened to him.  But sure, we could get a few more clues and details of the circumstances of his disappearance.

And yes, we are more likely to get a a definite resolution on Silverwing and Morning.  We are never explicitly told that they "vanished", IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

@Lord Varys was mistaken.  GRRM never said what he claimed.

GRRM said just what @Lord Varys claimed he said, that Viserys I did not take another dragon after Balerion's death. The wording indicates that it would be possible, at worst it says nothing about it being impossible for a rider to claim another dragon after the death of the first.

On 2/4/2023 at 8:42 PM, Gilbert Green said:

My problem is, you are ignoring the immediate context, within the sentence itself.

How do you explain the word "but"?  According to you, the marriage of rider and dragon is symmetrical.  A widowed dragon can re-bond AND a widowed rider can re-bond.  There must be some non-symmetry, otherwise the word "but" makes no sense.

Daenerys is talking about Aegon never flying the dragons of his sisters, nor them trying to mount Balerion. Then she points out that dragons live a lot longer than humans, and during their lifetime more than one rider. I see the following "but" in the context as either a filler in Daenerys' thoughts, or her simply not knowing of any rider who outlived their dragon. As the sentence is about lifespans, this would make perfect sense (as Daenerys really doesn't know much about Westerosi history, and because she still - and most likely always will - sees the three as her children, they are what will be left of her, and she thinks they will live a lot longer than she herself).

So, I guess we have to agree to disagree. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Morte said:

GRRM said just what @Lord Varys claimed he said, that Viserys I did not take another dragon after Balerion's death. The wording indicates that it would be possible, at worst it says nothing about it being impossible for a rider to claim another dragon after the death of the first.

Yes, I'm pretty much with the discussion at this point. I mean, we all know which take on this subject is more backed by textual evidence and which isn't.

38 minutes ago, Morte said:

Daenerys is talking about Aegon never flying the dragons of his sisters, nor them trying to mount Balerion. Then she points out that dragons live a lot longer than humans, and during their lifetime more than one rider. I see the following "but" in the context as either a filler in Daenerys' thoughts, or her simply not knowing of any rider who outlived their dragon. As the sentence is about lifespans, this would make perfect sense (as Daenerys really doesn't know much about Westerosi history, and because she still - and most likely always will - sees the three as her children, they are what will be left of her, and she thinks they will live a lot longer than she herself).

Looking at the quote in detail again, I remember how I originally misinterpreted it as definitely meaning a dragonrider could not ride another dragon. Dany goes on about how Aegon and his sisters stuck or had to stick to their own dragon and then she goes on about dragons having other riders after the death of their first rider but no rider ever riding another dragon.

But none of this is prescriptive. She herself says her only sources on dragonlore are Viserys and the books she read (which aren't books on dragonlore but stories from the Seven Kingdoms). One imagines - but that's just conjecture - that Dany learned something about who rode which dragon, etc. from those books (like she did learn about Baelor's sisters being imprisoned by their brother from those books) while the tidbit about the dragon bond being fixed between one rider and one dragon might be something she learned from Viserys - because that clearly was a tidbit of dragonlore the Targaryens passed down amongst themselves and Aerys might very well have told his son about that when when he walked him up and down the dragon skulls in the throne room.

Dany may very well conclude that since she knows that Aegon and his sisters had to stick to their dragons and that, to her knowledge, no dragonrider rode another dragon after his mount died (which, as we went on about, didn't happen all that often, anyway).

But like we have yet to read a thorough account on the reign of Aegon III or the Targaryens on Dragonstone or a detailed history of the dragonlords of Old Vaylria and all their dragons ... Daenerys may simply have no clue that Baela Targaryen, say, mounted another dragon after the death of Moondancer. If this were to happen in FaB II it would contradict nothing.

It would simply confirm Rhaenyra's and Aegon II's beliefs that something like that was possible ... as George himself indicated that it was.

Due to the lack of dragons in the main series I deem it very unlikely that this question will ever be raised much less answered in the main series. I don't expect Drogon to predecease Daenerys, so she is very unlikely to have to look for another mount. Any other potential dragonrider is also not very likely to outlive his mount - it is much more likely it will be the other way around, especially if Jon Snow is going to become a dragonrider.

That only leaves FaB II ... and if the issue isn't raised and answered there, it might remain a completely academic question. Unless/if we get a book on those Dragonstonian Targaryens or a history of the dragonlords of Valyria and their dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Morte said:

GRRM said just what @Lord Varys claimed he said, that Viserys I did not take another dragon after Balerion's death.

Is that what @Lord Varys claimed that he said?  I don't care to argue.  As long as we all agree with what GRRM said now.

3 minutes ago, Morte said:

The wording indicates that it would be possible, at worst it says nothing about it being impossible for a rider to claim another dragon after the death of the first.

I agree with the second half of this sentence, but not with the first part up to the comma.  GRRM only said what he did and didn't do.  It says nothing about he could or couldn't do.  And in the context of the question, all he is saying was that Viserys' dragon was Balerion, and, since Viserys' never flew two dragons, this is a complete answer to the question asked.

The sentence, by itself, leaves open the possibility that Viserys could fly two dragons, but does not assert this possibility. @Lord Varys asked GRRM if Varys could have flown a second dragon if he wished, and GRRM declined to answer, and that's where the matter rests.  He did not say yes.  He did not say no.  He did not agree with me; nor did he agree with you or @Lord Varys.  He just didn't answer. 

I'm happy to agree to disagree, but you and @Lord Varys don't get to say "We're right 'coz GRRM said so".  He did not say so.  He did not say you were right.  And he did not say I am right either.  Fair?

3 minutes ago, Morte said:

Daenerys is talking about Aegon never flying the dragons of his sisters, nor them trying to mount Balerion. Then she points out that dragons live a lot longer than humans, and during their lifetime more than one rider.

Sure.  I have already agreed that this part of the context vaguely supports your position, or is at least reasonably consistent with it.

However, she never claims that riders never outlive their dragons.  But she DOES go on to claim that no rider ever flew two dragons. 

3 minutes ago, Morte said:

I see the following "but" in the context as either a filler in Daenerys' thoughts, or her simply not knowing of any rider who outlived their dragon.

There's the problem.  You can't explain that pesky "but".  And calling it "filler" does not count as an explanation.  You are ignoring a word because you do not like where it leads you.

It makes no sense to speculate she believes that riders never outlive their dragons.  She knows that dragons die; does she think this automatically kills the rider?  And it makes no sense to interpret "no rider ever flew two dragons" as "I have no idea whether any rider ever flew two dragons or not".  She must think she has some basis for the statement.

3 minutes ago, Morte said:

As the sentence is about lifespans, this would make perfect sense (as Daenerys really doesn't know much about Westerosi history, and because she still - and most likely always will - sees the three as her children, they are what will be left of her, and she thinks they will live a lot longer than she herself).

I agree she has no particular plan to outlive whatever dragon she flies.  And I expect this is true of most dragonriders.  Such things happen, nonetheless.

3 minutes ago, Morte said:

So, I guess we have to agree to disagree. :)

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That only leaves FaB II ... and if the issue isn't raised and answered there, it might remain a completely academic question. Unless/if we get a book on those Dragonstonian Targaryens or a history of the dragonlords of Valyria and their dragons.

We are likely to get WINDS before F&B2.  Or have you ruled out the possibility that Drogon will die.

Oops, sorry, missed this part.

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Due to the lack of dragons in the main series I deem it very unlikely that this question will ever be raised much less answered in the main series.

To what extent the main series will lack dragons is one of the issues raised by this thread.

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't expect Drogon to predecease Daenerys, so she is very unlikely to have to look for another mount.

And yet ... three mounts shall she ride.  First horse, then dragon, then ___?____.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why we would NOT expect Drogon to predecease Dany.  A dragon that devours little maidens is obviously a dragon that must be slain.   Dany could die first, of course, but I don't wish that on her.

And if the pattern is a clue, it may signify that Dany's third mount will NOT be a second dragon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue of Dany's three prophesied mounts is an entire can of worms. While we can interpret it literally, Dany also rides her consorts, so there might be metaphorical aspect to this.

Aside from that, there is the simple fact that, so far, the Silver yet lives and hasn't been replaced by Drogo as Dany's mount. If she doesn't die in the coming battles in Slaver's Bay and is eventually reunited with Daenerys she will ride both Drogon and the Silver whenever she feels like it (just as any other Targaryen dragonrider also happened to be horserider when he or she felt like it). Thus we have no reason to believe that Dany will ride those three mounts in succession rather than at the same time. Of course, the prophesied events of her first riding those mounts will take place in succession, but she can ride another mount - as she did, with Drogon - while another yet lives.

Unless, of course, the third mount were to be another dragon. The first mount she rode to bed (her marriage bed under the stars), the second she will ride to dread (she already kind of did that in the Daznak's Pit but certainly might use Drogon to terrorize other people in the future), the third to love. That kind of implies that the third mount is tied to her getting to Jon Snow somehow, and since we would assume that their romance/deep love is going to start prior to and not after the last battle, Drogon should still be around by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The issue of Dany's three prophesied mounts is an entire can of worms. While we can interpret it literally, Dany also rides her consorts, so there might be metaphorical aspect to this.

Aside from that, there is the simple fact that, so far, the Silver yet lives and hasn't been replaced by Drogo as Dany's mount. If she doesn't die in the coming battles in Slaver's Bay and is eventually reunited with Daenerys she will ride both Drogon and the Silver whenever she feels like it (just as any other Targaryen dragonrider also happened to be horserider when he or she felt like it). Thus we have no reason to believe that Dany will ride those three mounts in succession rather than at the same time. Of course, the prophesied events of her first riding those mounts will take place in succession, but she can ride another mount - as she did, with Drogon - while another yet lives.

Unless, of course, the third mount were to be another dragon. The first mount she rode to bed (her marriage bed under the stars), the second she will ride to dread (she already kind of did that in the Daznak's Pit but certainly might use Drogon to terrorize other people in the future), the third to love. That kind of implies that the third mount is tied to her getting to Jon Snow somehow, and since we would assume that their romance/deep love is going to start prior to and not after the last battle, Drogon should still be around by then.

I said nothing about the "three mounts" prophesy implying succession.

I predicted Drogon's death based on the fact that he devours little maidens (and, most likely, bigger ones as well) and therefore ought to be killed.

I predicted her third mount would not be a dragon based on "no rider ever flew two dragons".

But none of us knows what is going to happen.  It is all guesswork. Nothing I guessed at was meant to imply certainty.  Rather I was responding to your statement that it was unlikelyDany outliving Drogon.  And I disagree.  This COULD happen, and I think it is more likely than not.   The maiden-muncher has got to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drogon will be around as long as the plot needs him ... and so far neither he nor the other dragons had much plot relevance. Those beasts are not there just to kill some slavers or to be not stolen by Quentyn Martell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Drogon will be around as long as the plot needs him ... and so far neither he nor the other dragons had much plot relevance. Those beasts are not there just to kill some slavers or to be not stolen by Quentyn Martell.

GRRM has not had much success pushing the plot forward.  But I never suggested Drogon would die in Essos.  He must come to Westeros, where there are crops to burn, more maidens to eat, and an entire capital city to blow up.  It is there that I predict he will meet his end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...