Mourning Star Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Danny Flint's name has two n's, not one. Dany is a perfectly understandable nickname to Daenerys, which is an (uncommon) Targaryen girl name. Danny and Dany are the same name. Just wait until you realize the Willam/Willem piece of the puzzle. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: The 'blocks torn off in a storm' aren't Dany's memory (she obviously doesn't remember the exact circumstances of her birth, nobody does), they are a story she was told by Viserys. This is literally the point of what I’m saying, the things Viserys told Dany are full of nonsense. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Similarly, the hired knives are a story told by Viserys and the poisoning attempt probably convinces Dany that they did indeed exist. But they didn’t, we know they didn’t. Dany was raised on lies 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: 1) No, they don't dispute it. Ned is saying this to Cersei because Cersei herself is guilty and once her guilt becomes known she and her children will be hunted down and they will be searched in every rook of the Seven Kingdoms, they cannot hide there. Ned is literally saying what he would do in the case of a child’s hair color giving evidence to a parentage that would incur Robert’s wrath… 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: In contrast, Ned could easily give a Valyrian looking child for Howland Reed to foster in Greywater Watch. His secret - unlike Cersei's - isn't made public, nobody would search for the child of Rhaegar and Lyanna in Greywater Watch because nobody knows about her existence!!! You can make up your own hypotheticals if you want, I’m inclined to believe the words on the page and find evidence more convincing than creative brainstorming. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: 2) We have evidence that a storm happened - because if it didn't, everybody would laugh at Daenerys calling herself Stormborn, which indicates that she was born amidst a stone. It also explains why Stannis makes no mention of an actual naval battle taking place. That is not evidence. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: In addition, the Undying ones call her 'child of the storm' and everyone in Essos is calling her Stormborn. Child of Storm At least get the quotes right. Been over this several times, the point of traveling from court to court “running” from imaginary knives and announcing Dany with a title like Stormborn is exactly to establish her identity. Ilkyrio could have put them up whenever he wanted, the “begging” was part of the plan. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: We have indirect evidence of those servants - it's completely logical that Stannis would question them after the escape of Rhaella's children, and they are the only people who could have told Stannis that Ser Willam secreted out Viserys and the 'babe'. This is not evidence. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: They are literally saying that NOBODY can doubt her claim. If 'Daenerys Stormborn' wasn't born in a storm, plenty would doubt her claim. It makes no bloody sense to call her Stormborn if a storm didn't happen when she was born. This is a literary tool called dramatic irony. It is used repeatedly in the series. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Yes, and no one who hosted Willam Darry and Viserys noticed that Viserys doesn't have a sister. Who hosted Willam Darry and Viserys? Not a bunch of people… one dead Sealord. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: He absolutely does. He is very often drunk and still never blabbed out to Dany or anyone else that Daenerys is not a Targaryen just the daughter of a Lyseni whore or a slave. Again not evidence. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Viserys as presented in AGOT couldn't maintain such a lie for even a month, not even years. I don’t find hypotheticals with a lack of evidence convincing or worth engaging with. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Tyrion isn't a Targaryen. He was nemed by Tywin, and GRRM told us that he was named by his father: Since all of their mothers died, who gave Jon Snow, Daenerys Targaryen and Tyrion Lannister their names? Mothers can name a child before birth, or during, or after, even while they are dying. Dany was most like named by her mother, Tyrion by his father, Jon by Ned. - GRRM GRRM might have planned Tyrion Targaryen in AGOT (with him dreaming about dragons, just like Jon), but there are plenty of hints that he dropped it since then. Believe what you want, seems off topic here. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Yes, the dream/prophecy is about a three-headed dragon. It's not necessarily three dragonriders (that's just the way Aegon naturally interpreted it, since he had two sisters) it's three 'heads' that work in unison, three 'dragon heads' who trust and can rely on each other fully, and Quaithe warned Dany that she cannot trust Tyrion, Quentyn, Victarion or Young Griff, and she definitely won't trust Euron. Whole lot of interpretation going into this, not worth addressing. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: That leaves Jon as the only potential dragonrider she can fully trust and can form another head, and the third dragon head is likely Drogon himself (the reincarnation of Drogo, who was the only person Dany trusted fully): I disagree. 18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: When she has chained and locked up her dragons, when she has called them monsters, when she has let Hizdahr hold court. Like her entire ADWD arc is about forgetting about being a dragon and giving up more and more for the sake of an unjust peace, because she fears from unleashing her dragons. Her last two chapters she reclaims her 'dragon' identity. They are monsters. You want her to go full fire and blood and destroy or enslave people? Just seems like a really poorly thought out theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourning Star Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Why would he think it important to mention it? It's not important to him, what's important is that William Darry has smuggled out Dany and Viserys before he had reached the island. For the readers benefit, obviously. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: However, the fact that he never mentions that he needed to fight a naval battle (which would be his first real naval battle in his life) against the Targaryens is definitely pointing towards the storm being real: “I defeated your uncle Victarion and his Iron Fleet off Fair Isle, the first time your father crowned himself. I held Storm’s End against the power of the Reach for a year, and took Dragonstone from the Targaryens. I smashed Mance Rayder at the Wall, though he had twenty times my numbers. Tell me, turncloak, what battles has the Bastard of Bolton ever won that I should fear him?” The Targaryen fleet not being there doesn’t mean it was destroyed by a storm. As we see with Aurane Waters, sometimes they sail away. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Why would be she announced as Stormborn in the Free Cities if she wasn't actually born during a storm? Why would anyone come up with such a title, what would they gain from such a lie? Why would the Undying ones call her 'child of the storm'? There may well have been a storm, there are lots of storms, the point is that it wasn’t tearing blocks from the smooth stone fortress to smash a fleet. The reason to be announced with titles all over Essos is so no man will doubt who you are. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Again, this makes no sense whatsoever. Anyone could point out the fact that such a storm (and a storm that destroyed the Targaryen fleet is definitely a notable one that people would remember) didn't happen and her title is fake. The spies of Robert or Varys would definitely bring news that the Targaryen princess is calling herself Stormborn and it would be laughed out. During what interaction would you expect this to happen? Who was there that you expect to object? 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Darry sailed away one or two days (or perhaps a week or two) AFTER the storm has happened, just before the garrison handed over the Targaryens to the Baratheons. On what ship? 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: As for the 'blocks torn from the castle', that's a story Viserys told Dany, and probably an exaggeration. I don't even see why you think it an inconsistency that points towards something secret. Because it’s all the things he told her. the midnight flight, when Jaime remembers it being morning the stone blocks torn from a fused stone structure the usurpers knives that didn’t exist Etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourning Star Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 17 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Sorry, it's not easy to believe that Cat is blind to the fact that her husband's bastard is actually a year older than Robb, because it's something that would improve Jon's claim (and chance to steal WF in her eyes) drastically. But she is blind to it. By a year or a day, it’s pretty impossible for Robb to be older than Jon. So if you want to argue that it’s hard to believe just how much she deluded herself, then ok, but she is deluding herself. 17 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Rhaegar loved Lyanna, but he was also motivated by prophecy, wanting Lyanna to be the mother of his third child, the third head of the dragon. Maybe, we have very little to go on about what actually happened let alone his motivations. What we do know is that he was not at all good at interpreting prophesy. 17 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: It makes no sense that he would impregnate her again when her brother and father have been killed and the country is in war, when he would have the option of overthrowing his father (and that's definitely what Lyanna would want) before the war spirals further out of control (as it happened). Sometimes it’s not about politics or prophesy… sometimes when a man loves a woman… they fuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csuszka1948 Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 47 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: When does Ser Willem call her Dany? He called her "Little Princess" and sometimes "My Lady," It is not possible. The fused stone structures of Valyria don’t get blown down… and we even get a first hand account of Dragonstone and the gargoyles. He wondered if his gargoyles had ever seen its like. They had been hereso much longer than he had, and would still be herelong after he was gone. If stone tongues could speak . . . Such folly. He leaned against the battlement, the sea crashing beneath him, the black stone rough beneath his fingers. 1) Right, Ser Willem didn't call him Dany. Still, the person she spent most of her life with, Viserys, calls her in that nickname. It's not something she has made up. 2) I also don't think it's likely that stone structures collapsed. However, the fact that Viserys' retelling and his details aren't 100% correct doesn't mean he is wrong about the main events, the big picture. He tells Dany about a midnight flight to Dragonstone, while Jaime recalls Rhaella departing in the morning. This is a good example of Viserys being right about the main thing (their flight, fuelled by Robert's victory), but is wrong about some particular details, either because his memory isn't perfect or because he tends to exaggerate. 47 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: She is announced in Essos by a title in every court then news of her travels back to Westeros including the title. Doesn’t really matter if there was just some storm, it seems like there are a lot of storms around Dragonstone. Why would anyone decide to call her Stormborn after a minor storm? It makes no bloody sense. Nobody would understand why she is called by such a name, if it was just an ordinary storm. 47 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: What servants? Do they have names? Is there some account of this event besides the one told to Dany? The ones who told Stannis that Ser Willam secreted away Viserys and the babe Daenerys: "I built a fleet at Robert's command, took Dragonstone in his name. Did he take my hand and say, "Well done, brother, whatever should I do without you?" No, he blamed me for letting Willem Darry steal away Viserys and the babe, as if I could have stopped it." - Stannis, ACOK Prologue It's also telling that Stannis never mentions a naval battle - which would have been definitely necessary without something destroying the royal fleet - or a big battle at Dragonstone against the Targaryen loyalists. This is entirely consistent with what Viserys told Dany - a big storm that destroyed the fleet, garrison who would have sold them out but they got away. 47 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Why don’t the servants mention the baby swap for the pisswater prince? 1) Because Varys's story is likely a lie. It's much less convoluted than your story about Ned somehow secretly getting Dany to a red house, but still convoluted enough that it's likely not true. 2) Because it's much harder for servants to notice that a one year old babe was swapped out with a copy than a mother becoming pregnant and giving birth. The latter 2 events cannot be hidden. 47 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Why don’t the servants talk about Jon’s parentage? Were any of the servants present at Jon's birth (besides Wylla)? Again, it's a wrong comparison. Besides, servants probably speculate about Jon's mother, but it wouldn't occur to them that Ned Stark of all people would lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourning Star Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 (edited) 26 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: 1) Right, Ser Willem didn't call him Dany. Still, the person she spent most of her life with, Viserys, calls her in that nickname. It's not something she has made up. Nobody is claiming Dany named herself… this is a strawman, and a poor one. 26 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: 2) I also don't think it's likely that stone structures collapsed. However, the fact that Viserys' retelling and his details aren't 100% correct doesn't mean he is wrong about the main events, the big picture. Any one discrepancy is easy to hand wave away, but there is a pattern of falsehoods that has emerged from the stories Viserys told Dany, which I think was intentional by the author. 26 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: He tells Dany about a midnight flight to Dragonstone, while Jaime recalls Rhaella departing in the morning. This is a good example of Viserys being right about the main thing (their flight, fuelled by Robert's victory), but is wrong about some particular details, either because his memory isn't perfect or because he tends to exaggerate. The Usurper’s knives are kind of an important detail since they supposedly were why Viserys and Dany ran from court to court. But they didn’t exist. It’s not all trivial details. I would argue the possibility that the Targaryen fleet was not destroyed but co-opted could also be meaningnful. 26 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Why would anyone decide to call her Stormborn after a minor storm? It makes no bloody sense. Nobody would understand why she is called by such a name, if it was just an ordinary storm. Why give her a title at all? Why travel from court to court? 26 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: The ones who told Stannis that Ser Willam secreted away Viserys and the babe Daenerys: "I built a fleet at Robert's command, took Dragonstone in his name. Did he take my hand and say, "Well done, brother, whatever should I do without you?" No, he blamed me for letting Willem Darry steal away Viserys and the babe, as if I could have stopped it." - Stannis, ACOK Prologue The babe… again notice the lack of a name. I don’t think this is coincidence. Rhaella may well have had a baby, but I suspect that child died like the results of so many of her other pregnancies. 26 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: It's also telling that Stannis never mentions a naval battle - which would have been definitely necessary without something destroying the royal fleet - or a big battle at Dragonstone against the Targaryen loyalists. This is entirely consistent with what Viserys told Dany - a big storm that destroyed the fleet, garrison who would have sold them out but they got away. I agree the fleet was not there when Stannis arrived. This does not mean it was destroyed by imaginary blocks of stone. Maybe it simply sailed away. Maybe it was disloyal like the garrison, maybe it was co-opted. 26 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: 1) Because Varys's story is likely a lie. It's much less convoluted than your story about Ned somehow secretly getting Dany to a red house, but still convoluted enough that it's likely not true. People lie, yes. What promise did Ned keep, what promise did he break? What happened to Ashara Dayne. There are holes in the story. 26 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: 2) Because it's much harder for servants to notice that a one year old babe was swapped out with a copy than a mother becoming pregnant and giving birth. The latter 2 events cannot be hidden. The servant we actually read talk about it, Harwin, implies Jon was conceived at the Tourney of Harrenhall: When Ned met this Dornish lady, his brother Brandon was still alive, and it was him betrothed to Lady Catelyn, so there's no stain on your father's honor. There's nought like a tourney to make the blood run hot, so maybe some words were whispered in a tent of a night, who can say? Words or kisses, maybe more, but where's the harm in that? Spring had come, or so they thought, and neither one of them was pledged. 26 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Were any of the servants present at Jon's birth (besides Wylla)? Again, it's a wrong comparison. We don’t know exactly who was at the Tower of Joy (besides the combatants), but I quoted Harwin above, who was a Winterfell servant and knew Jon, as he is who the reader does get a story from. Very clearly the point of the story being a conception at Harrenhall before Cat and Ned were engaged. 26 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Besides, servants probably speculate about Jon's mother, but it wouldn't occur to them that Ned Stark of all people would lie. We know they speculated that his mother was Ashara Dayne, and he was conceived at Harrenhall… Edited June 22, 2023 by Mourning Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csuszka1948 Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Mourning Star said: Danny and Dany are the same name. Just wait until you realize the Willam/Willem piece of the puzzle. It's just your speculation, and there is nothing textual backing it up, no similar example is given (which would be necessary for a proper set-up of such a huge reveal). 4 hours ago, Mourning Star said: This is literally the point of what I’m saying, the things Viserys told Dany are full of nonsense. But they didn’t, we know they didn’t. Dany was raised on lies They aren't full of nonsense. Viserys' retelling seems mostly correct, even if he doesn't get some details right or exaggerates somewhat. They fled to Dragonstone after Robert's victory (as confirmed by Jaime), their fleet was destroyed and Willam Darry smuggled them out (entirely consistent with Stannis' recalling). I don't think that's something uncommon in reality - there are events I remember happening in broad strokes, but don't recall the exact details correctly. The only detail that is notably wrong are the Usurper's Knives, but I think it's pretty reasonable for someone raised like Viserys to believe that Robert - the person who killed his brother and rewarded the murderers of his family - would send assassins after them to eliminate the last remnants of their dynasty. Also, why would Viserys intentionally lie about such details like the leaving date from KL? With the exception of the story about Usurper's Knives (that gives a strong incentive for Dany to hate Robert and explains their continous flight), it makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to build up a secret identity, then it would be the for the best if the 'fake Dany' would have the knowledge about real events, not lies. Overall, I feel the problem is that you are stuck at irrelevant details that can be easily attributed to Viserys being paranoid or his memory not being correct, and none of them are examples of Viserys incorrectly remembering something huge (like Dany with Braavos and the 'house with the red door with lemon trees' - that's something she very vividly remembers!). You think that is some sign that Viserys is lying, but he has absolutely no reason to lie about the date of their departure from KL - if anything, that little detail was put into the text to indicate Viserys's memory of the exact details or some events is not entirely correct!!! 4 hours ago, Mourning Star said: Ned is literally saying what he would do in the case of a child’s hair color giving evidence to a parentage that would incur Robert’s wrath… No, it's not, that's what I tried to explain to you. Ned is saying what would he do if a treason he committed (for example, hiding Jon) was exposed - he would flee accross the Narrow Sea (together with Jon I imagine). 4 hours ago, Mourning Star said: You can make up your own hypotheticals if you want, I’m inclined to believe the words on the page and find evidence more convincing than creative brainstorming. It's not creative brainstorming, it's called 'what would a character like Ned do in such a situation'. 4 hours ago, Mourning Star said: That is not evidence. Why hasn't a naval battle taken place then? Why does nobody mention it? No, the Targaryen fleet didn't sail away, because Stannis says that 'William Darry steal away Viserys and Dany', not that Dany and Viserys sailed away with the Targaryen fleet and he doesn't mention ny subsequent battle with the Targaryen fleet (even though Robert would undoubtedly order Stannis to destroy them). The royal fleet changing sides also makes little sense, because they would be able to cordon Dragonstone and make it impossible for William Darry to steal away Dany and Viserys. Stannis' retelling is much more consistent with Viserys' retelling (in broad strokes) than the headcanon you made up. 4 hours ago, Mourning Star said: Child of Storm At least get the quotes right. Been over this several times, the point of traveling from court to court “running” from imaginary knives and announcing Dany with a title like Stormborn is exactly to establish her identity. Announcing him with a title like Stormborn doesn't help to establish her identity if a large storm didn't actually happen when she was born. 4 hours ago, Mourning Star said: This is not evidence. This is evidence. The only people who could have told Stannis about the existence of the babe that William Darry 'stole away' are the servants and the garrison of the castle. 4 hours ago, Mourning Star said: This is a literary tool called dramatic irony. It is used repeatedly in the series. No, it makes no sense that Varys and Illyrio are such professionals that they can make the whole world believe that 'fake Dany' is real while they are unable to convince people that their chosen candidate Aegon is real. 4 hours ago, Mourning Star said: Who hosted Willam Darry and Viserys? Not a bunch of people… one dead Sealord. Again not evidence. I don’t find hypotheticals with a lack of evidence convincing or worth engaging with. Lack of evidence? Again, characterization exists and ASOIAF is a character-driven story. Your theory - that Viserys is a consummate liar who is patient enough to play a 'long-con' for years - is completely inconsistent with the character of Viserys we see in AGOT. 4 hours ago, Mourning Star said: Believe what you want, seems off topic here. I quoted from the author himself. I see you don't have an answer to this. 4 hours ago, Mourning Star said: They are monsters. You want her to go full fire and blood and destroy or enslave people? Just seems like a really poorly thought out theory. They are monsters AND symbols of liberation at the same time. Going 'fire and blood' in slavers is not necessarily a negative thing, but applying it to Westeros - a place where she will not be welcomed so eagerly as she is welcomed by the slaves - will be negative. I don't see how it's a 'poorly thought out theory', when it's literally in the text: “I am the blood of the dragon,” she told the grass, aloud. Once, the grass whispered back, until you chained your dragons in the dark. “Drogon killed a little girl. Her name was … her name …” Dany could not recall the child’s name. That made her so sad that she would have cried if all her tears had not been burned away. “I will never have a little girl. I was the Mother of Dragons.” Aye, the grass said, but you turned against your children." "No. You are the blood of the dragon. The whispering was growing fainter, as if Ser Jorah were falling farther behind. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were made to be. Remember your words. “Fire and Blood,” Daenerys told the swaying grass." She has forgotten who she is (a Targaryen) and her house words ('Fire and Blood'). Edited June 22, 2023 by csuszka1948 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csuszka1948 Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 58 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: But she is blind to it. By a year or a day, it’s pretty impossible for Robb to be older than Jon. So if you want to argue that it’s hard to believe just how much she deluded herself, then ok, but she is deluding herself. No, she is not: "Ned had lingered scarcely a fortnight with his new bride before he too had ridden off to war with promises on his lips. At least he had left her with more than words; he had given her a son. Nine moons had waxed and waned, and Robb had been born in Riverrun while his father still warred in the south." It's pretty reasonable for Cat to believe that Jon is slightly younger than Robb, even is he is a little bigger. However, the same would be impossible if the age difference was more than 9 months (probably a year), she wouldn't confuse a baby with a straddler. 58 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Maybe, we have very little to go on about what actually happened let alone his motivations. What we do know is that he was not at all good at interpreting prophesy. It seems he was better than all his ancestors (except Daenys the Dreamer) though. 58 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Sometimes it’s not about politics or prophesy… sometimes when a man loves a woman… they fuck If all he was concerned was fucking, then why did Rhaegar return later? Again, the explanation that he waited for Lyanna to become pregnant with his prophesied third child to go back makes much more sense with Rhaegar's characterization of being dutiful. Craving Peaches 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourning Star Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: It's just your speculation, and there is nothing textual backing it up, no similar example is given (which would be necessary for a proper set-up of such a huge reveal). The song of Danny flint, a woman pretending to be a man so she can serve is a parallel to Dany being the prince who was promised and the gender confusion there. Lyanna’s grandmother was a flint. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: They aren't full of nonsense. Viserys' retelling seems mostly correct, even if he doesn't get some details right or exaggerates somewhat. They fled to Dragonstone after Robert's victory (as confirmed by Jaime), their fleet was destroyed and Willam Darry smuggled them out (entirely consistent with Stannis' recalling). There are multiple inconsistencies which with the stories she was told. You can hand wave them away, I think they were intentional. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: I don't think that's something uncommon in reality - there are events I remember happening in broad strokes, but don't recall the exact details correctly. Sure, like the House with the Red Door being in Braavos. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: The only detail that is notably wrong are the Usurper's Knives, but I think it's pretty reasonable for someone raised like Viserys to believe that Robert - the person who killed his brother and rewarded the murderers of his family - would send assassins after them to eliminate the last remnants of their dynasty. I disagree this is the only one, just the most obvious. Again you can hand wave it away, but I prefer to engage with the text. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: No, it's not, that's what I tried to explain to you. Clearly I disagree with you. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Ned is saying what would he do if a treason he committed (for example, hiding Jon) was exposed - he would flee accross the Narrow Sea (together with Jon I imagine). It’s an incredibly strong parallel in my opinion. Followed by Cersei saying Exile is a bitter cup to drink from, which I think is directly referenced in the House of the Undying. “Drink from the cup of ice… drink from the cup of fire” Bitter and sweet being among the list of opposites paralleled with fire and ice (and make and female) given to us by Melisandre. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: It's not creative brainstorming, it's called 'what would a character like Ned do in such a situation'. Same thing. I don’t find much value in engaging with hypotheticals. But do you. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Why hasn't a naval battle taken place then? Why does nobody mention it? I’ve never suggested there was a naval battle, nor that the Targaryen fleet was still there when Stannis arrived. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: No, the Targaryen fleet didn't sail away, because Stannis says that 'William Darry steal away Viserys and Dany', not that Dany and Viserys sailed away with the Targaryen fleet. Maybe they weren’t together. Maybe Stannis’s only information is second hand. Again, it’s only useful to address the story we do have, not the what ifs. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Stannis' retelling is much more consistent with Viserys' retelling (in broad strokes) than the headcanon you made up. I disagree. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Announcing him with a title like Stormborn doesn't help to establish her identity if a large storm didn't actually happen when she was born. Storms are extremely common in the narrow sea. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: This is evidence. The only people who could have told Stannis about the existence of the babe that William Darry 'stole away' are the servants and the garrison of the castle. I don’t understand what you think this is evidence of? That Willem didn’t trust the garrison and servants who were ready to turn them over to Stannis? That Rhaella had a nameless baby? That Viserys and Willem were gone before Stannis arrived? Here’s a fun one. Who was the Maester of Dragonstone when Rhaella was pregnant? There’s a lot we don’t know, so it’s important to pay attention to the details of what evidence we do have. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: No, it makes no sense that Varys and Illyrio are such professionals that they can make the whole world believe that 'fake Dany' is real while they are unable to convince people that their chosen candidate Aegon is real. So there’s no way Jon Connington believes young Griff is Aegon? Is that what you are saying? 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Lack of evidence? Again, characterization exists and ASOIAF is a character-driven story. Your theory - that Viserys is a consummate liar who is patient enough to play a 'long-con' for years - is completely inconsistent with the character of Viserys we see in AGOT. Characterization is generally very weak evidence, especially when being used to contest hard textual evidence. But if that’s the game you’d rather play… Dany is repeatedly characterized as Lyanna’s child. She is a natural rider without training of her stark colored horse, both she and Lyanna are described like centaurs. She loves flowers, and wears them in her hair while dressed in Stark colors. She is afraid of howling alone for a long time in the dark. "You will drink," Dany said, cold as ice. "Empty the cup etc etc 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: I quoted from the author himself. I see you don't have an answer to this. I don’t think a debate about the GRRM quote about who was “most like” to name Tyrion which doesn’t include the fathers name is very relevant to this discussion. Although to be fair, Tywin doesn’t seem the sort of man to name a dwarf after himself, nor is it a similar style to Jaime or Cersei. But again, we digress. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: They are monsters AND symbols of liberation at the same time. Going 'fire and blood' in slavers is not necessarily a negative thing, but applying it to Westeros - a place where she will not be welcomed so eagerly as she is welcomed by the slaves - will be negative. Dragons… liberation? What story are you reading? They are burning swords held over the world, responsible for the enslavement of most of Essos and the conquest of Westeros. Too much light can hurt the eyes, my friend, and fire burns. 51 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: I don't see how it's a 'poorly thought out theory', when it's literally in the text: “I am the blood of the dragon,” she told the grass, aloud. Once, the grass whispered back, until you chained your dragons in the dark. “Drogon killed a little girl. Her name was … her name …” Dany could not recall the child’s name. That made her so sad that she would have cried if all her tears had not been burned away. “I will never have a little girl. I was the Mother of Dragons.” Aye, the grass said, but you turned against your children." "No. You are the blood of the dragon. The whispering was growing fainter, as if Ser Jorah were falling farther behind. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were made to be. Remember your words. “Fire and Blood,” Daenerys told the swaying grass." She has forgotten who she is (a Targaryen) and her house words ('Fire and Blood'). Missing the forest for the trees. Dany has brought fire and blood to slavers bay already. I’ve never suggested that she was not the “blood of the dragon” or born of House Targaryen. Remembering “who she is” and “who she was made to be” are likely two different things, which fits extremely well with what I’m saying. Dany wants to plant trees. I want to plant my olive trees and see them fruit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csuszka1948 Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Nobody is claiming Dany named herself… this is a strawman, and a poor one. I am claiming that Viserys calling his sister Dany makes a lot of sense, certainly better than your alternative explanation. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Any one discrepancy is easy to hand wave away, but there is a pattern of falsehoods that has emerged from the stories Viserys told Dany, which I think was intentional by the author. Yes, and when creating a false identity, it's better not to lie about small, meaningful, easily disprovable details - for example, the date of departure from KL or the circumstances of Dany's birth. The fact that Viserys' recalling of some minor details (details he has no reason to lie about) is incorrect actually points towards Viserys' memory not being perfect and not some elaborate scheme. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: The Usurper’s knives are kind of an important detail since they supposedly were why Viserys and Dany ran from court to court. But they didn’t exist. It’s not all trivial details. I would argue the possibility that the Targaryen fleet was not destroyed but co-opted could also be meaningnful. Except it wouldn't explain how could Ser Willam 'steal away Viserys and Dany' before Stannis arrived to Dragonstone. If the fleet turned sides, they would be able to lock down the island. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Why give her a title at all? Because it's symbolic that the daughter Aerys (and probably Rhaella, since it would end the abuse) so desperately wanted was born the same day a storm destroyed the remaining strength of House Targaryen; the gods gifted a girl but at the same time took away from the Targaryens. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Why travel from court to court? Because magisters were fed up with Viserys' arrogance and annoying behaviour and kicked him out, and Dany went with him. Alternatively, some agents of Varys contacted them and warned them of consequences (in the name of Robert) if they host them for too long. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: The babe… again notice the lack of a name. I don’t think this is coincidence. Rhaella may well have had a baby, but I suspect that child died like the results of so many of her other pregnancies. Robert has immediately known that Ser Willam escaped with Viserys and the babe. This means that some of the garrison or servants have told Stannis that Rhaella was pregnant, gave birth to a daughter and that baby girl wasn't in Dragonstone when Stannis' men have searched for her (as they definitely would). It makes no sense for Ser Willem to escape with a stillborn babe (because he doesn't have foresight that someone will subsitute her in the future). 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: I agree the fleet was not there when Stannis arrived. This does not mean it was destroyed by imaginary blocks of stone. Maybe it simply sailed away. Maybe it was disloyal like the garrison, maybe it was co-opted. Again, because Viserys was wrong about a small detail you assume that he told a full-blown (and easily disprovable) lie. This assumption doesn't make much sense. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: People lie, yes. What promise did Ned keep, what promise did he break? What happened to Ashara Dayne. There are holes in the story. I don't think any of them are holes. Ashara's story has multiple possible explanations (e.g. being Septa Lemore, giving birth to a stillborn child of Brandon and throwing herself into the sea after hearing that her brother is also dead). Similarly, there are multiple options for the promise Ned kept and has broken: for example, he has kept the promise to keep Jon safe from Robert, but didn't keep the promise of telling him the truth or giving him the freedom Lyanna wanted for herself but never gotten. I highly doubt that Lyanna would want her fourteen year old son to choose a lifelong military service without even knowing what that entails (because Ned never told Jon the truth about the NW). 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: We know they speculated that his mother was Ashara Dayne, and he was conceived at Harrenhall… Yes, that's what I am saying: they speculated and gossiped, but didn't have actual evidence, unlike some people in Dragonstone who have definitely seen Rhaella getting pregnant and giving birth. Craving Peaches and Ser Arthurs Dawn 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csuszka1948 Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 29 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: There are multiple inconsistencies which with the stories she was told. You can hand wave them away, I think they were intentional. Yes, I also think they were intentional - they were meant to show that Viserys' memory and retelling is not entirely correct. It makes absolutely no sense to lie about such details when you want to create a false identity for someone. 29 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Sure, like the House with the Red Door being in Braavos. Dany was a 4-5 year old child, Viserys was 8 years old. That's a pretty huge difference when it comes to memories. 29 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: I disagree this is the only one, just the most obvious. Again you can hand wave it away, but I prefer to engage with the text. I don't handwave it, I gave a pretty reasonable explanation of what someone in Viserys' situation might think. 29 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Clearly I disagree with you. It’s an incredibly strong parallel in my opinion. I don't think it's a strong parallel. What reason would have Ned to fear if he had Dany raised with Howland Reed? Not much more than fearing of the exposure of Jon. The other problem with the 'hair color parallel' is that Sansa had to point out the truth about Joffrey's looks to Ned. This really showcases that the issue of 'hair color' didn't come into the mind of Ned naturally, not even after a discussion about Dany's assassination. If the author wanted to give a subtle hint at Dany's true parentage, the best case to do it would be here. 29 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Same thing. I don’t find much value in engaging with hypotheticals. But do you. You are engaging in a hypothetical called 'Dany's entire life is a lie and she is the daughter of Rhaegar and Lyanna', even though the broad strokes of Viserys' story check out. 29 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: I’ve never suggested there was a naval battle, nor that the Targaryen fleet was still there when Stannis arrived. Maybe they weren’t together. Maybe Stannis’s only information is second hand. Again, it’s only useful to address the story we do have, not the what ifs. Yes, I am engaging the story we have. Viserys tells a story about a huge storm that destroyed the Targaryen fleet and William Darry secreting them away before the garrison handed them over to Stannis, and this is perfectly consistent with the story Stannis recounts. Ser Arthurs Dawn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourning Star Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said: No, she is not: "Ned had lingered scarcely a fortnight with his new bride before he too had ridden off to war with promises on his lips. At least he had left her with more than words; he had given her a son. Nine moons had waxed and waned, and Robb had been born in Riverrun while his father still warred in the south." It's pretty reasonable for Cat to believe that Jon is slightly younger than Robb, even is he is a little bigger. I’m not sure what you intend this quote to show. Cat hears the rumor about Jon from the servants in Winterfell. When we hear the rumor from a servant, Harwin, it’s about Jon being conceived at Harrenhall. 1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said: However, the same would be impossible if the age difference was more than 9 months (probably a year), she wouldn't confuse a baby with a straddler. Or the timeline is just a little wonky 1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said: It seems he was better than all his ancestors (except Daenys the Dreamer) though. What? Rhaegar was wrong about just about everything… unless you think he or his son Aegon were the prince that was promised! Hell, the idea that he had to learn to use a sword is even irony, given the way he died. 1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said: If all he was concerned was fucking, then why did Rhaegar return later? When a man loves a woman sometimes they have sex and it’s not about duty or prophesy. Return where? I suspect Lyanna’s disappearance a few months after the Tourney of Harrenhall was when she could no longer hide her pregnancy. She and Rhaegar then resided at the Tower of Joy until Rhaegar’s return to King’s Landing. The Kingsguard remaining to guard his son, with Lyanna dying in a second pregnancy nine months later, when Ned found her. 1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said: Again, the explanation that he waited for Lyanna to become pregnant with his prophesied third child to go back makes much more sense with Rhaegar's characterization of being dutiful. The explanation that the child was already born makes more sense, and explains why the Kingsguard remained even after Rhaegar’s death, they knew a male heir was already born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csuszka1948 Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mourning Star said: I disagree. Storms are extremely common in the narrow sea. Yes, but small, inconsequential storms don't result in a child being named after them. Jahaerys isn't named cruel despite the murderers of Lord Rego were "hung from the walls of the Red Keep, disemboweled, and left to twist until they died, their entrails swinging loose down to their knees.", which is pretty cruel. 1 hour ago, Mourning Star said: So there’s no way Jon Connington believes young Griff is Aegon? Is that what you are saying? No, but much of the realm doesn't believe it, unlike with Dany, for whom Robert and his entire Small Council was convinced of her existance. 1 hour ago, Mourning Star said: Characterization is generally very weak evidence, especially when being used to contest hard textual evidence. But if that’s the game you’d rather play… No, it's not weak evidence when it comes to important characters of a character-driven story like ASOIAF, and in AGOT Viserys is an important character in Dany's story. You are suggesting that the incredibly arrogant, impatient and entitled Viserys is capable of carrying out an eleborate scheme of running with a fake sister and begging for years and never reveals the scheme to anyone (even when drunk). This comes off as incredibly bad storytelling - a good example of such is the 'Joffrey sent the catspaw' reveal, which was very disappointing, and Viserys turning out to be a schemer would be ten times worse. 1 hour ago, Mourning Star said: Dany is repeatedly characterized as Lyanna’s child. She is a natural rider without training of her stark colored horse, both she and Lyanna are described like centaurs. She loves flowers, and wears them in her hair while dressed in Stark colors. She is afraid of howling alone for a long time in the dark. ??? This is not characterization as Lyanna's child, this is Dany set up as a Lyanna (and to a much larger extent Rhaegar) parallel, following their legacies, doing what they set out to do and failed. Characterization matters when it comes to actions and behaviour of characters - for example, Stannis is described as a honest men but if we call his characterization into question then we can deem him as a power-hungry asshole during ACOK, even though ASOS proves that he is more than that. 1 hour ago, Mourning Star said: I don’t think a debate about the GRRM quote about who was “most like” to name Tyrion which doesn’t include the fathers name is very relevant to this discussion. Although to be fair, Tywin doesn’t seem the sort of man to name a dwarf after himself, nor is it a similar style to Jaime or Cersei. But again, we digress. Aerys wasn't present in Tyrion's birth. It's relevant because GRRM says that 'Dany was named by her mother, Tyrion by his father and Jon by Ned'. It clearly spells out that it's the parentage of Jon that can be called into question. 1 hour ago, Mourning Star said: Dragons… liberation? What story are you reading? They are burning swords held over the world, responsible for the enslavement of most of Essos and the conquest of Westeros. Too much light can hurt the eyes, my friend, and fire burns. Yes, dragons and liberation. Dragons represent both violence and freedom. The 'flaming swords' that were usually used as weapons of oppression can also be used as weapons of liberation ('Dracarys'): “There is a reason. A dragon is no slave.” And Dany swept the lash down as hard as she could across the slaver’s face. Kraznys screamed and staggered back, the blood running red down his cheeks into his perfumed beard. The harpy’s fingers had torn his features half to pieces with one slash, but she did not pause to contemplate the ruin. “Drogon,” she sang out loudly, sweetly, all her fear forgotten. “Dracarys." “Unsullied!” Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. “Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.” She raised the harpy’s fingers in the air … and then she flung the scourge aside. “Freedom!” she sang out. “Dracarys! Dracarys!” “Dracarys!” they shouted back, the sweetest word she’d ever heard. “Dracarys! Dracarys!” And all around them slavers ran and sobbed and begged and died, and the dusty air was filled with spears and fire." and can be used to fight monsters: “I looked at that book Maester Aemon left me. The Jade Compendium. The pages that told of Azor Ahai. Lightbringer was his sword. Tempered with his wife’s blood if Votar can be believed. Thereafter Lightbringer was never cold to the touch, but warm as Nissa Nissa had been warm. In battle the blade burned fiery hot. Once Azor Ahai fought a monster. When he thrust the sword through the belly of the beast, its blood began to boil. Smoke and steam poured from its mouth, its eyes melted and dribbled down its cheeks, and its body burst into flame.” Clydas blinked. “A sword that makes its own heat …” “… would be a fine thing on the Wall.” Dracarys.” The black dragon spread his wings and roared. A lance of swirling dark flame took Kraznys full in the face. His eyes melted and ran down his cheeks, and the oil in his hair and beard burst so fiercely into fire that for an instant the slaver wore a burning crown twice as tall as his head.” 1 hour ago, Mourning Star said: Missing the forest for the trees. Dany has brought fire and blood to slavers bay already. I’ve never suggested that she was not the “blood of the dragon” or born of House Targaryen. Remembering “who she is” and “who she was made to be” are likely two different things, which fits extremely well with what I’m saying. Dany wants to plant trees. I want to plant my olive trees and see them fruit. I don't see how it is 'missing the forest for the trees', when it is clearly spelled out that she was 'once' the 'blood of the dragon' (=a Targaryen), but has forgotten and chained her dragons in the dark. She wanted to plant olive trees and see them fruit because she wanted to be a little girl, but in hard times she has to kill the girl (like Jon had to kill the boy) and let the woman be born (the man be born) as Aemon told. Edited June 22, 2023 by csuszka1948 Craving Peaches 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourning Star Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 54 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: I am claiming that Viserys calling his sister Dany makes a lot of sense, certainly better than your alternative explanation. The one time we see Viserys call Dany, “Dany”, is when he pleads for his life before he dies. Usually it’s just “sweet sister.” Give me sweet lies, and keep your bitter truths. He drank his wine Once again the sweet/bitter, fire/ice, lies/truths, female/male, light/dark, symbolism abounds and is worth noting throughout the story. 54 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Yes, and when creating a false identity, it's better not to lie about small, meaningful, easily disprovable details - for example, the date of departure from KL or the circumstances of Dany's birth. The fact that Viserys' recalling of some minor details (details he has no reason to lie about) is incorrect actually points towards Viserys' memory not being perfect and not some elaborate scheme. Or Viserys was lied too. There is good reason to hide a stolen fleet, or a dragonspawn. 54 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Except it wouldn't explain how could Ser Willam 'steal away Viserys and Dany' before Stannis arrived to Dragonstone. If the fleet turned sides, they would be able to lock down the island. Depends what side they turned to. We see Aurane Waters sail right off with a royal fleet to the stepstones. A made up story of a fleet being destroyed would seemingly indicate a motive of trying to hide what actually happened to the fleet. 54 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Because it's symbolic that the daughter Aerys (and probably Rhaella, since it would end the abuse) so desperately wanted was born the same day a storm destroyed the remaining strength of House Targaryen; the gods gifted a girl but at the same time took away from the Targaryens. Why do you think Aerys desperately wanted a daughter? He already has children and grandchildren. Dany was abused, how can you possibly say that it ended the abuse? 54 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Because magisters were fed up with Viserys' arrogance and annoying behaviour and kicked him out, and Dany went with him. Alternatively, some agents of Varys contacted them and warned them of consequences (in the name of Robert) if they host them for too long. Do you have any evidence of this? Illyrio says he was planning Dany’s wedding to Drogo for years, and clearly has the means to house Dany and Viserys, yet they were only there briefly before the wedding. Nobody else in Essos saw value in a pair of Targaryen children? Seems silly. 54 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Robert has immediately known that Ser Willam escaped with Viserys and the babe. This means that some of the garrison or servants have told Stannis that Rhaella was pregnant, gave birth to a daughter and that baby girl wasn't in Dragonstone when Stannis' men have searched for her (as they definitely would). Sounds like you are just making assumptions to suit your theory. Where are you getting Robert knowing the babe’s gender from the text? We don’t know where or when the follow up conversation between Stannis and Robert happened, not the circumstances of how information was passed. You can speculate, but it’s not evidence of anything. That Rhaella was pregnant, and died in childbirth with Ser Willem fleeing with Viserys and a babe is not disputed. 54 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: It makes no sense for Ser Willem to escape with a stillborn babe (because he doesn't have foresight that someone will subsitute her in the future). I agree, it’s more likely the baby just died very young, as so many sadly did. But the difference between that and a stillbirth kept secret is sort of irrelevant and we have no evidence to go on for more details. 54 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Again, because Viserys was wrong about a small detail you assume that he told a full-blown (and easily disprovable) lie. This assumption doesn't make much sense. Again, it’s not one small detail. 54 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: I don't think any of them are holes. Ashara's story has multiple possible explanations (e.g. being Septa Lemore, giving birth to a stillborn child of Brandon and throwing herself into the sea after hearing that her brother is also dead). But there is evidence of a connection between her and Ned, and Ned did go to Starfall after the Tower of Joy. 54 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Similarly, there are multiple options for the promise Ned kept and has broken: for example, he has kept the promise to keep Jon safe from Robert, but didn't keep the promise of telling him the truth or giving him the freedom Lyanna wanted for herself but never gotten. I highly doubt that Lyanna would want her fourteen year old son to choose a lifelong military service without even knowing what that entails (because Ned never told Jon the truth about the NW). Or maybe it’s a reference to the first and only true Usurper’s knife sent after Dany, the wine merchant, who even appears in a House of the Undying vision. 54 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Yes, that's what I am saying: they speculated and gossiped, but didn't have actual evidence, unlike some people in Dragonstone who have definitely seen Rhaella getting pregnant and giving birth. They do have some evidence, Ned didn’t go to Harrenhall or War alone, even if it was only he and Howland who rode away from the Tower of Joy. I don’t think either of us believe their rumors are entirely true, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t truth to be found in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craving Peaches Posted June 22, 2023 Author Share Posted June 22, 2023 Just now, Mourning Star said: Nobody else in Essos saw value in a pair of Targaryen children? Seems silly. It is mentioned that Daenerys and Viserys lost value to the magisters because of the possibility of a Targaryen restoration anytime soon becoming increasingly unlikely. Quote At first the magisters and archons and merchant princes were pleased to welcome the last Targaryens to their homes and tables, but as the years passed and the Usurper continued to sit upon the Iron Throne, doors closed and their lives grew meaner. So they saw the initial value and then that value depreciated when it became clear they could not use them to gain influence in Westeros any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourning Star Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Yes, but small, inconsequential storms don't result in a child being named after them. It is said that, every seventy-seven years, a storm greater than all others comes howling down upon Storm's End, as the old gods of sea and sky try once more to blow Durran's seat into the sea. It is a pretty tale...but a tale is all it is. The records of the maesters of Storm's End show that there are fierce storms nearly every year, especially in autumn, and whilst some are greater than others, there are no records that show unusually powerful storms seventy-seven years apart. The greatest storm in living memory was in 221 AC, in the last year of the reign of Aerys I, and the greatest before that was the storm of 166 AC, fifty-five years earlier. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Jahaerys isn't named cruel despite the murderers of Lord Rego were "hung from the walls of the Red Keep, disemboweled, and left to twist until they died, their entrails swinging loose down to their knees.", which is pretty cruel. Maegor already had that title! 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: No, but much of the realm doesn't believe it, unlike with Dany, for whom Robert and his entire Small Council was convinced of her existance. She does exist, and she is called by that title. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: No, it's not weak evidence when it comes to important characters of a character-driven story like ASOIAF, and in AGOT Viserys is an important character in Dany's story. Oh I agree that Viserys is an important character, I just don’t agree on the assessment of the meaning of the story. Characterization is great, I love it, but it’s clear Viserys did tell Dany things that were untrue, so you need to work that into the characterization. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: You are suggesting that the incredibly arrogant, impatient and entitled Viserys is capable of carrying out an eleborate scheme of running with a fake sister and begging for years and never reveals the scheme to anyone (even when drunk). Viserys isn’t the mastermind of any scheme, that’s pretty clear. But that he would sell Dany to the Dothraki is also clear. Is there some other lie Viserys gives away while drunk you could use to support your point (I don’t remember one), that’s the sort of evidence that supports a theory. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: This comes off as incredibly bad storytelling - a good example of such is the 'Joffrey sent the catspaw' reveal, which was very disappointing, and Viserys turning out to be a schemer would be ten times worse. I don’t believe Joffrey sent the Catspaw. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: ??? This is not characterization as Lyanna's child, this is Dany set up as a Lyanna (and to an extent Rhaegar) parallel, following their legacies. So you agree she’s characterized as a Stark… 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Characterization matters when it comes to actions and behaviour of characters - for example, Stannis is described as a honest men but if we call his characterization into question then we can deem him as a power-hungry asshole during ACOK, even though ASOS proves that he is more than that. "I am not without mercy," thundered he who was notoriously without mercy. A lot of tangents here, I’m getting bored, mostly I love this quote. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Aerys wasn't present in Tyrion's birth. It's relevant because GRRM says that 'Dany was named by her mother, Tyrion by his father and Jon by Ned'. It clearly spells out that it's the parentage of Jon that can be called into question. Counterpoint, it calls into question all three parentages. The three original POVs who aren’t Ned, Cat, or their children. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Yes, dragons and liberation. Dragons represent both violence and freedom. I think there is a lot more of a connection to slavery than freedom when it comes to dragons. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: The 'flaming swords' that were usually used as weapons of oppression can also be used as weapons of liberation ('Dracarys'): “There is a reason. A dragon is no slave.” And Dany swept the lash down as hard as she could across the slaver’s face. Kraznys screamed and staggered back, the blood running red down his cheeks into his perfumed beard. The harpy’s fingers had torn his features half to pieces with one slash, but she did not pause to contemplate the ruin. “Drogon,” she sang out loudly, sweetly, all her fear forgotten. “Dracarys." “Unsullied!” Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. “Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.” She raised the harpy’s fingers in the air … and then she flung the scourge aside. “Freedom!” she sang out. “Dracarys! Dracarys!” “Dracarys!” they shouted back, the sweetest word she’d ever heard. “Dracarys! Dracarys!” And all around them slavers ran and sobbed and begged and died, and the dusty air was filled with spears and fire." and can be used to fight monsters: “I looked at that book Maester Aemon left me. The Jade Compendium. The pages that told of Azor Ahai. Lightbringer was his sword. Tempered with his wife’s blood if Votar can be believed. Thereafter Lightbringer was never cold to the touch, but warm as Nissa Nissa had been warm. In battle the blade burned fiery hot. Once Azor Ahai fought a monster. When he thrust the sword through the belly of the beast, its blood began to boil. Smoke and steam poured from its mouth, its eyes melted and dribbled down its cheeks, and its body burst into flame.” Clydas blinked. “A sword that makes its own heat …” “… would be a fine thing on the Wall.” Dracarys.” The black dragon spread his wings and roared. A lance of swirling dark flame took Kraznys full in the face. His eyes melted and ran down his cheeks, and the oil in his hair and beard burst so fiercely into fire that for an instant the slaver wore a burning crown twice as tall as his head.” So Dany commanding a dragon to burn a man alive represents freedom? The Last Hero is another tangent I’m not going to address here. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: I don't see how it is 'missing the forest for the trees', when it is clearly spelled out that she was 'once' the 'blood of the dragon' (=a Targaryen), but has forgotten and chained her dragons in the dark. This expression means focusing on one part to the point where you miss the bigger picture. I think the idea that the message to take away from this story is that fire and blood is the answer not peace and love is missing the meaning of the larger story. 15 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: She wanted to plant olive trees and see them fruit because she wanted to be a little girl, but in hard times she has to kill the girl (like Jon had to kill the boy) and let the woman be born (the man be born) as Aemon told. Aemon isn’t right about everything, highlighted by the very section where he gives Jon this advice he once gave Egg. I don’t think it’s good advice. Be like Ned, do what’s right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csuszka1948 Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Or Viserys was lied too. There is good reason to hide a stolen fleet, or a dragonspawn. Depends what side they turned to. We see Aurane Waters sail right off with a royal fleet to the stepstones. A made up story of a fleet being destroyed would seemingly indicate a motive of trying to hide what actually happened to the fleet. I am sorry, but you are veering into intricate conspiracy theories at this point with the 'hidden fleet' nonsense. Still, you cannot deny the fact that Viserys didn't recall the details of his departure from King's Landing correctly, and he had no reason to lie about it. 14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Why do you think Aerys desperately wanted a daughter? He already has children and grandchildren. Because it's multiple times stated in the text that Aerys was obsessed with blood purity. He wanted Rhaegar to wed a woman of Valyrian/Targaryen blood, and the best candidate would be his own sister. After years have passed and no daughter was born and lived, he decided to send Steffon to search for a Valyrian noble in Essos, and when it failed, decided to betroth Rhaegar to Elia, who had the most dragonblood out of all perspective ladies of the realm. Even after that, he despised Rhaegar's Dornish looking children and named Viserys his heir as soon as Rhaegar died. 14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Dany was abused, how can you possibly say that it ended the abuse? At this point it didn't matter, but Rhaella birthing a healthy daughter would have ended most of her suffering, since Aerys wouldn't come into her bed to claim his rights. 14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Do you have any evidence of this? It's pretty logical seeming Viserys' behaviour. 14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Illyrio says he was planning Dany’s wedding to Drogo for years, and clearly has the means to house Dany and Viserys, yet they were only there briefly before the wedding. I can believe this, bnut could you please quote this? 14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Nobody else in Essos saw value in a pair of Targaryen children? Seems silly. Dany recalls that the interest in them waned over time. In truth, they are not much use for Essosi magisters who aren't interested in the power politics of Westeros. 14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Again, it’s not one small detail. The problem is that Viserys has no reason to lie about small details. 14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: But there is evidence of a connection between her and Ned, and Ned did go to Starfall after the Tower of Joy. Yes, because (probably) it was her that told Ned the location? 14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Or maybe it’s a reference to the first and only true Usurper’s knife sent after Dany, the wine merchant, who even appears in a House of the Undying vision. It could be (that's not my problem with your theory), I just offered an alternative and pretty valid explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourning Star Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 42 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said: It is mentioned that Daenerys and Viserys lost value to the magisters because of the possibility of a Targaryen restoration anytime soon becoming increasingly unlikely. Illyrio saw value in them. 42 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said: So they saw the initial value and then that value depreciated when it became clear they could not use them to gain influence in Westeros any time soon. But only Drogo saw Dany as a valuable bride? I don’t think it makes much sense. 19 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: I am sorry, but you are veering into intricate conspiracy theories at this point with the 'hidden fleet' nonsense. Aurane’s hidden fleet isn’t a conspiracy theory. We see that ships change hands in the story… if I’m going to be conspiratorial I’d suggest that the Targaryen Fleet formed the basis for Salla’s painted fleet. 19 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Still, you cannot deny the fact that Viserys didn't recall the details of his departure from King's Landing correctly, and he had no reason to lie about it. I think the repeated falsehoods, like the literary clues, are for the benefit of the reader. 19 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Because it's multiple times stated in the text that Aerys was obsessed with blood purity. He wanted Rhaegar to wed a woman of Valyrian/Targaryen blood, and the best candidate would be his own sister. He wed Elia long before Dany was born. 19 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: After years have passed and no daughter was born and lived, he decided to send Steffon to search for a Valyrian noble in Essos, and when it failed, decided to betroth Rhaegar to Elia, who had the most dragonblood out of all perspective ladies of the realm. What about the decedents of Egg’s sisters? 19 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Even after that, he despised Rhaegar's Dornish looking children and named Viserys his heir as soon as Rhaegar died. This is never mentioned in the main series, although it does seem to be the case in the world book, although only after Rhaegar’s death when Aerys thought Dorne betrayed him. The Kingsguard in the story don’t seem to have believed Viserys was the heir. 19 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: At this point it didn't matter, but Rhaella birthing a healthy daughter would have ended most of her suffering, since Aerys wouldn't come into her bed to claim his rights. Would it? Again seems like a silly hypothetical. 19 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: It's pretty logical seeming Viserys' behaviour. I can believe this, bnut could you please quote this? Had I not taken the precaution of posting guards upon her door, Viserys might have undone years of planning." 19 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Dany recalls that the interest in them waned over time. In truth, they are not much use for Essosi magisters who aren't interested in the power politics of Westeros. They are though… as we see from Illyrio. 19 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: The problem is that Viserys has no reason to lie about small details. But the author has reason to leave the reader clues. 19 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said: Yes, because (probably) it was her that told Ned the location? So you’re saying Ned might have reason to trust her? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csuszka1948 Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 (edited) 11 hours ago, Mourning Star said: She does exist, and she is called by that title. Yes, but Robert and the Small Council clearly believes her a Targaryen, otherwise he wouldn't want to kill her and her unborn child. 11 hours ago, Mourning Star said: Oh I agree that Viserys is an important character, I just don’t agree on the assessment of the meaning of the story. Characterization is great, I love it, but it’s clear Viserys did tell Dany things that were untrue, so you need to work that into the characterization. Yes, but some of the untrue things he told - for example, his departure date from KL - obviously weren't lies (because he has no reason to lie about them), but faulty memory/exeggarations. This is something you should really factor in. Your belief that they are clues that Viserys is part of a conspiracy doesn't make sense, since it leads to the opposite conclusion - that there is no conspiracy he plays a part of, he just misremembers small details. 11 hours ago, Mourning Star said: Viserys isn’t the mastermind of any scheme, that’s pretty clear. But that he would sell Dany to the Dothraki is also clear. Yes, and he was willing to sell his mother's crown before considering selling her (you think fake) sister. Willing to give up more and more to keep himself alive and get his vengeance and slowly becoming a monster. 11 hours ago, Mourning Star said: I don’t believe Joffrey sent the Catspaw. The author said that the solution of the catspaw mystery will be revealed in ASOS. What did he reveal in ASOS that points towards anyone other than Joffrey? 11 hours ago, Mourning Star said: So you agree she’s characterized as a Stark… She has some parallels to Lyanna, but probably more to Rhaegar. I think Arya is likely closer to a Lyanna parallel, but the Jon-Dany pairing might be meant to be a parallel to the Rhaegar-Lyanna pairing. 11 hours ago, Mourning Star said: "I am not without mercy," thundered he who was notoriously without mercy. A lot of tangents here, I’m getting bored, mostly I love this quote. This is not proof of his dishonesty, just that others perceive his actions differently. Stannis is honest, he believes that giving Renly, a traitor who had no claim to the Throne a choice to surrender is a sign of mercifulness. 11 hours ago, Mourning Star said: Counterpoint, it calls into question all three parentages. The three original POVs who aren’t Ned, Cat, or their children. Context is important. Their parentage wasn't directly called into question, the question was who named them, and the answer makes it pretty clear that the father of Tyrion is Tywin. Q: Since all of their mothers died, who gave Jon Snow, Daenerys Targaryen and Tyrion Lannister their names? GRRM: Mothers can name a child before birth, or during, or after, even while they are dying. Dany was most like named by her mother, Tyrion by his father, Jon by Ned. 11 hours ago, Mourning Star said: I think there is a lot more of a connection to slavery than freedom when it comes to dragons. So Dany commanding a dragon to burn a man alive represents freedom? It's a symbol of the slave revolution whose goal is to achieve freedom, yes. It's pretty difficult to get freedom in nonviolent ways, it often takes centuries and usually it is the fear of violence that causes the elite to reform the system. 11 hours ago, Mourning Star said: This expression means focusing on one part to the point where you miss the bigger picture. I think the idea that the message to take away from this story is that fire and blood is the answer not peace and love is missing the meaning of the larger story. I would say against the slavers - who are introduced as a parallel to the Others (enslaving other men to do their whim, the Astapori Unsullied being the most clear example, for the rest it's more ambiguous) - fire and blood might be the correct answer, not 'peace and love', since allowing slavery is allowing mass violence on a scale larger than 'Fire and Blood' in long term. The 'peace' that Dany achieved seems fake (since the Volantene fleet soon arrives) and profoundly unjust (it involves allowing the slave trade to continue everywhere outside Meereen+the slaves themselves don't believe that Dany would ever make peace, they want her to smash the Yunkai masters), and - as both Barristan and Dany realise - it's worth breaking. 11 hours ago, Mourning Star said: Aemon isn’t right about everything, highlighted by the very section where he gives Jon this advice he once gave Egg. I don’t think it’s good advice. Be like Ned, do what’s right! I don't think Aemon's advice is bad. Ned is a good men, but he is stuck in his own ways and it shows and partly leads to his downfall. I think the story meant to show that he has a very good moral guideline that is worth following, but being more open about the boundaries (for example, sometimes willing to break your oaths or lying to slavers, or in Ned's case accepting Renly's offer even if it means spilling blood while Robert is dying) is part of being a good leader in times of crisis. His treatment of the 'Jon issue' is another example. It's incredibly noble and examplary what he did, but his lack of flexibility (probably partially coming from his PTSD from the rebellion) - refusing to tell Cat even that Jon's mother is dead and instead frightening her into silence, refusing to send Jon to foster for a few years despite it would give Jon more options in the future and defuse Cat's worries - causes problems. The entire situation is as much (if not more) his fault - for refusing to tell his wife even a semblance of truth about his bastard, using the power imbalance between them as a weapon - than Cat's. Edited June 23, 2023 by csuszka1948 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craving Peaches Posted June 22, 2023 Author Share Posted June 22, 2023 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Illyrio saw value in them. Yes, for his plot with Varys, nothing suggests any other magisters have a scheme going on like this. Illyrio is plotting for more than wealth, most likely something ideological, there are no indications anyone else in a similar position has that kind of interest in Westeros. 19 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: But only Drogo saw Dany as a valuable bride? Why would any of the magisters want to marry Daenerys when the chance of a Targaryen restoration looks very slim and they gain little to no wealth/influence for marrying her? And in fact potentially set themselves up for harm by angering Robert? This isn't an issue for Drogo because he is not concerned with wealth or politics in the way these people are, and will be mostly 'out of range' by constantly being on the move in the Dothraki sea, not dependent on trade etc. Also, Drogo and Illyrio must have had prior negotiations which we are not privy to, Illyrio may have offered him some concessions to accept Daenerys. Edited June 22, 2023 by Craving Peaches Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csuszka1948 Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Aurane’s hidden fleet isn’t a conspiracy theory. We see that ships change hands in the story… if I’m going to be conspiratorial I’d suggest that the Targaryen Fleet formed the basis for Salla’s painted fleet. There is no such thing as 'Aurane's hidden fleet'. Aurane has stolen the royal fleet, that's a known fact. He could get away with that because the rest of the fleets loyal to the crown (Redwyne fleet) are on the other side of the continent and are occupied with defeating the Ironborn. The situation is very different in the aftermath of Robert's Rebellion, when pretty much the entire realm (except Dorne) was unified under Robert. If the royal fleet has sailed away from Dragonstone, Robert would have sent Stannis to deal with them. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: I think the repeated falsehoods, like the literary clues, are for the benefit of the reader. You are literally grasping at straws. Viserys deliberately lying about the date of his departure makes no sense whatsoever, and you still think it's somehow a clue of an elaborate conspiracy, not clue of the fact that Viserys' retelling isn't completely correct and he remembers certain details wrongly. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: He wed Elia long before Dany was born. Because he didn't think it likely a daughter will be ever born to him. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: What about the decedents of Egg’s sisters? I don't think GRRM ever bothered creating their descendants. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: This is never mentioned in the main series, although it does seem to be the case in the world book, although only after Rhaegar’s death when Aerys thought Dorne betrayed him. The Kingsguard in the story don’t seem to have believed Viserys was the heir. Would it? Again seems like a silly hypothetical. I admit this is indeed heavy speculation, but it seems to be consistent with Aerys' attitude from the Worldbook. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: Had I not taken the precaution of posting guards upon her door, Viserys might have undone years of planning." One of the strongest pieces of evidence that Illyrio would have never involved Viserys in such a conspiracy. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: They are though… as we see from Illyrio. No, they are not, because they are generally not interested in Westeros, unlike Illyrio. Tyrion immediately recognizes that he has more motives (perhaps more emotional ones) to help Aegon and Dany than he shows. 59 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: But the author has reason to leave the reader clues. This is a poor explanation since these clues point towards being no conspiracy and every falsehood of Viserys is being a result of his imperfect memory (not remembering little, unimportant details he has no reason to lie about) or paranoia. You just want your theory to be true and ignore everything that points otherwise. Craving Peaches 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.