I am not convinced by Lemongate

[three-eyed monkey]

12 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I don't understand this.

Isn't the moral better if she doesn't have the right but chooses duty anyway?

Well there's a strong theme about sacrifice to consider. I believe Dany will have to sacrifice her right to do her duty, rather than just do her duty.

12 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

How so? When does her right and duty ever come into conflict? Or do you mean her right to rule Westeros vs her duty to the Slaver's Bay she conquered?

I mean her right as a queen versus her duty as a queen, regardless of the setting. Viserys was all about his rights, but everyone knows he would have made a terrible king. Dany is determined to be a good queen and bring peace and justice to the realm but the problem is she needs to wake the dragon and bring fire and steel if she wants to win the throne.

12 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Stannis sees his duty and his right as being the same thing, but in conflict with his blood. I do not think this supports the point you are trying to make.

No he doesn't, unless he thinks a horse and a cart are the same thing. All he could think of was his rights until Davos reminded him of his duty. Stannis accepted that he had the cart before the horse.

12 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I don't think this is the case. I just think the conflict isn't what you are describing.

Then we disagree.

12 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I don't follow the connection you are trying to make here.

A vow is clearly not the same as parentage.

I'm not sure what this has to do at all with Dany being a Targaryen (and if she were the child of Rhaegar and Lyanna she would still have Targaryen blood.)

I'm not saying vows and parentage are the same. The connection is the character's inner-conflict, and how it relates to their character. In Jaime's case the characteristic of being a kingsguard, that's the characteristic that creates the conflict when he kills Aerys. I feel the same about Dany and her characteristic of being a Targaryen. I don't know what other way to put it.

12 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I actually think this is a common mistake. What you are describing is a childs tale, where the good guys always win and the bad always get their comeuppance.

No, what I'm describing is the intrinsic connection between theme, character, and plot in any story.

And when you say good guys always win, well that's the case for more than children's stories. Do I think the heroes of the story will bring the dawn? Yes, I do. Do I think they'll all win? No. Do I think they'll all live happily ever after? No. I suspect both Dany and Jon will pay a heavy cost to save the realm.

12 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Being "good" should not come with an expectation of "good" results.

Ned is, in my opinion anyway, the example we are given of a "good" man, he still get's beheaded.

Good men don't get good results in a corrupt realm ruled by false kings who only consider protecting their rights. If the realm was true, then Ned would not have been beheaded. So true kings and queens are needed to bring the light of truth back to the realm, which is symbolized by the dawn.

12 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

All that said, I do think this is a romantic tale at it's heart  and their are moral lessons, just not that one can have some expectation of pure divine justice.

All the justice will be man made, that's why it comes down to the character's choices. The moral lessons you are talking about are expressed in the themes and will be brought to life by the characters actions.

12 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I think it's better made if she does her duty despite having no right to rule.

How are her duty and right to rule even in conflict?

The point is if you put the horse before the cart and do your duty then you earn the right to rule. Therefore the right to rule is not something that should be inherited. Mance makes a lot of points about this too. As someone who inherited the right to rule, this lesson is important for Dany for reasons I've explained.

12 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Counterpoint, the rightful king/queen has the commitment of the realm. 

Stannis and Viserys both considered themselves the rightful king, but neither had the commitment of the realm. A true king or queen who puts the realm first would have the commitment of the realm.

12 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Anyone can sacrifice themself for the good of the realm, they don't need to be a king/queen by birth.

Yes they can, and many will, but the point about duty being more important than rights is best made by someone who has the right to the throne but sacrifices it to do their duty to the realm.

Edited April 5, 2023 by three-eyed monkey

[Frey family reunion]

5 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

That's assuming you consider Aerys to have been lawfully deposed. There's a reason Dany and her supporters talk about "the Usurper" rather than "King Robert".

 

 live by your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather’s sword and dragons and die by your cousin’s hammer.  Aerys only was able to rule over people by virtue of his ancestor’s violent, forcible conquest, so it’s only fair that he loses his right and the right of his descendants to rule over people because someone came along that overcame your violence with their own.  

So now, the “legal right” to rule Westeros is only if your last name is Baratheon, not Targaryen.  

Personally, I think GRRM made his opinion known through Varys’ speech to Tyrion about the nature of power.  It’s all a trick, an illusion.  

5 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

In systems which recognise hereditary succession, which Westeros very much is, at seemingly most levels of society, connexion to previous rulers is important as a means of establishing claim. They wouldn't consider that Dany has no more right to the throne than, say, Hot Pie.

 

Well that would depend on if Hot Pie rode in on his own dragon.

Your argument is that people will accept Dany as a ruler only if she has the right surname.  I disagree.  I sure didn’t get the impression that the books were implying that Westeros was pining for Viserys triumphant return.  He had the right surname.  But the problem was Viserys was a joke, a loser.  Which wouldn’t have been a problem before the rebellion, but sure became a problem for him after the rebellion.  That’s what happens when you take away the smoke and mirrors.  

And we know for a fact having the right surname isn’t the only thing that matters even with the nobles.  Daemon Blackfyre, didn’t have the right surname, but he had the right look, and the right sword, and wasn’t dirtying himself with Dornish influences.  At least that’s what Ser Eustace thought made Daemon a better King than Daeron.

Dany’s parents have become irrelevant.  What matters is her children, her dragons.  That’s what gives her legitimacy.  My point is the books (especially F&B) have made it clear that you don’t need to have the right surname to hatch the dragons.  In fact, just the opposite.  Having the Targaryen surname after the Dance insured that you couldn’t hatch them.

5 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

In Westeros, Robert became the figurehead of his eponymous rebellion because he had royal blood, where Jon and Ned didn't. When the Tyrells rose up against Joffrey, they crowned Renly king, because he (unlike Mace) had royal blood. When Arianne launched her own rebellion, she used Myrcella, another royal, as a figurehead.

You may deride the hereditary principle and I'm not going to argue with you about it. But in a world where it's considered important, it does matter, and it does have a bearing on Dany's (and others') perceived legitimacy.

You’re talking about the Game of Thrones.  Which are played by the nobles, when it benefits them, they follow the rules, when it doesn’t they break them.  Renly for example.  If they had followed the rules of “legal succession” they should have backed Stannis if they felt that Robert’s children were all illegitimate.  But it benefited them to crown Renly instead.  That’s the point of this.  It’s all BS.  

Which is why I find it amazing the need for so many to make Jon a “legitimate Targaryen”.  Or the distaste people have for the possibility of Dany not being a “legitimate Targaryen”.  Like this fictitious nonsense somehow makes them more worthy of rule.

It reminds me of some lines from one of my favorite movies:

Quote

Arthur: (very angry) Be quiet! I order you to be quiet! 
Woman: "Order", eh, 'oo does 'e think 'e is? 
Arthur: I am your king! 
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you! 
Arthur: You don't vote for kings! 
Woman: Well 'ow'd you become king then?

Arthur: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king! 
Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony! 
Arthur: (yelling) Be quiet! 
Man: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! 
Arthur: (coming forward and grabbing the man) Shut up! 
Man: I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away! 
Arthur: (throwing the man around) Shut up, will you, shut up! 
Man: Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system! 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Frey family reunion

[three-eyed monkey]

6 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Which is why I find it amazing the need for so many to make Jon a “legitimate Targaryen”.  Or the distaste people have for the possibility of Dany not being a “legitimate Targaryen”.  Like this fictitious nonsense somehow makes them more worthy of rule.

I don't think Jon's legitimate for much the same reason that I think Dany is. Being a bastard is a characteristic of Jon's that is central to his inner-conflict. I think one of the points his character will make is that bastards can have honor, and to do that he needs to be a bastard. R+L=J, sure, I even believe they were married, but I don't think he's legitimate.

You're misunderstanding me if you think I'm saying being a Targaryen makes Dany more worthy to rule. In fact I'm saying quite the opposite. It has nothing to do with it, it only gives her dragons and puts her in a position to rule, but she must set that aside if she wants to be a true queen.

I don't have distaste for the possibility of her not being who she is, I just don't believe it because I expect her to have to sacrifice the idea or fictitious nonsense that being a Targaryen gives her the right to rule if she's to save the realm.

[Gilbert Green]

On 4/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, Alester Florent said:

 I knew a pair of identical twins well when I was growing up, and they matured into quite different people.

Sure.  Rather like Viserys I and his brother Daemon.  But I'll get to that.

On 4/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, Alester Florent said:

Likewise, the physical differences between them are easily explained by circumstance. Rhaegar was a priviled prince who never wanted for anything and had access to the best martial training in Westeros. Viserys is neither as well-nourished nor as well-trained.

I think you are taking the epithet "beggar prince" too literally, if you think Viserys was ever malnourished.  Or at least, if he was malnourished, it is for the same reason that his father Aerys was malnourished -- madness.

On 4/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, Alester Florent said:

Social/emotional traits are in any case not the same as "mental traits", and madness is clearly heritable in ASoIaF, although I don't think Viserys is mad anyway... though Rhaegar might be.

If you like.  But according to Barristan, Viserys showed signs of madness from an early age, whereas Rhaegar did not.  Jorah says that Rhaegar was the last dragon, but Viserys was less than the shadow of a snake.  Disagree all you want, but my ideas have some basis in the text. 

On 4/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, Alester Florent said:

We have a pair of actual twins in the series (Jaime and Cersei), and they are not really very much like each other.

They are fraternal twins.  Maybe slightly inbred in the sense of being products of cousin-marriage (if Tywin is the dad), but still far below the level of persons born of two successive generations of full sibling incest, in terms of the level of inbreeding and shared genetics.  Fraternal twins are not what I had in mind when I said that such doubly-inbred persons were the next best thing to twins.

On 4/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, Alester Florent said:

We also have hosts of inbred Targs from generations past. Viserys I and Daemon were the product of two consecutive generations of inbreeding, like Rhaegar and Viserys, and they're nothing like each other.

Several issues here.

Firstly, Jaehaerys and Alysanne were two hugely talented and healthy persons (and products of outbreeding).  Their children and grandchildren were significantly less impressive than they were, mainly due to the effects of inbreeding.  Yes, I agree that two successive generations of inbreeding did not lead to complete disaster.  But this is mainly due to the quality of the original source material.  Again, Jaehaerys and Alysanne were two hugely talented and healthy persons.

Secondly, Jahaerys and Alysanne did not just have two children and force them to marry.  They had 13 children, most of whom were messed up in one way or another.  Out of this 13, there were, by luck, a few who were more healthy, talented and well adjusted than the rest.   Two of these married, and produced Viserys and Daemon.

Thirdly, they had dragons.  It seems that the dragon-bond can be a great benefit to a Targaryen who might otherwise be sickly and mal-adjusted.  See, for example, the case of Aenys I, who began to thrive after a dragon-egg was placed in his cradle.

Fourthly, Viserys did inherit his parents flaws.   His dad died of a burst belly and so did Viserys.  If Viserys' dad had been mad and his mom sickly, Viserys would probably have been mad and sickly too.   For all we know, Daemon would have died of a burst belly too, if he had not died in battle.

Finally, are Viserys and Daemon really "nothing like each other"?  That's more than I know.  They are not described in detail, but for all I know, it could easily be that they have the same height, the same build, the same coloring, and the same general features.  Viserys was born first, and hence was more complacent.  Daemon was a younger son, and therefore more dissatisfied, driven, and ambitious.  When Viserys chose a dragon he bonded with an old, tired dragon, because of its status.  Perhaps this bond influenced his personality in some ways.  And perhaps Daemon would have done the same thing in his place, had he been born first, and for the same reasons.    But then that dragon died; a problem for Viserys because no rider ever flew two dragons.  Viserys lost his other half and became half a man, or at least half a Targaryen; a void he could never fill.  Daemon, on the other hand, bonded with a young, vigorous and active dragon, and kept it throughout his life.  Perhaps if Daemon had been born first he would have turned out almost exactly like Viserys, and vice versa.

On 4/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, Alester Florent said:

I was wondering earlier how excarnation actually happens in Westeros,

The tradition is for silent sisters to do it using secret methods. 

On 4/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, Alester Florent said:

but however it's done, if Ned always intended to take Lyanna's bones home, he wouldn't build a cairn for her.

Depends on the alternative.  If the alternative is to ride around with a rotting corpse tied to his horse in summertime, he would probably built a cairn.  If the alternative is to risk wild animals digging up her body and dragging her bones back to their lair to chew, he would probably build a cairn.

On 4/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, Alester Florent said:

The cairns at the ToJ - like tombs in general - are clearly permanent structures,

The function of a cairn is to keep wild animals away from the body and also mark its location.   It is a perfectly logical tool for anyone who wants to retrieve a body at a later time, and when used that way, they are not intended as permanent structures.

Maybe you don't know what a cairn is.  A cairn is a pile of rocks.

Tombs are permanent structures, but not necessarily intended as permanent resting places.  It is the practice in some cultures to re-enter the tombs when decomposition is complete, and move the bones to a more permanent resting place.

On 4/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, Alester Florent said:

so Ned would take Lyanna's body with him to the nearest place where he can excarnate it, and bury the others.

And exactly how near is this nearest place?  Maybe you know something I don't.  If there is some place reasonably close, then fine.  But riding around in summer with the rotting corpse of a beloved family member tied to your mount would obviously be highly distasteful for anyone.

On 4/3/2023 at 12:56 PM, Alester Florent said:

It would actually be much weirder if he'd made a cairn for her and brought her bones home anyway: the bonus "empty cairn" would raise a lot more questions.

Why though?  Calling normal practices weird just means you know nothing about cairns.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[three-eyed monkey]

I'll add my thoughts on the inheritance of madness because it's related to the points I've made.

GRRM says he's not really into the genetics and stuff, it's more about the story. We see that with Robert's bastards all having black hair. I don't know how that works genetically but I know that GRRM doesn't care because he's using it as a story-telling device to clue Ned and the reader into the fact that Joffrey is not Robert's heir.

I don't know if madness can be inherited genetically or not, but I feel that's beside the point being made in the story. It is power that is inherited, and power can corrupt. It comes down to the individual characters and the choices they make when faced with the tests and trials of their journey. Dany can turn towards greatness or turn towards madness, they are the two sides of the coin, but her coin is still turning in the air while she continues her journey because she still has choices to make before she reaches the climax of the story and resolves her arc. When Dany makes her final choice, her third and final plot-point, her third and final mount and treason and fire, only then will the coin land on madness or greatness.

One more point on madness and the moniker, the Mad King. I can't help but think that GRRM is referring here to concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. This is pretty much what Aerys was saying when he talked about leaving Robert to rule over charred bones and ash. If he can't have the throne nobody will have the throne. It's the ultimate expression of a perceived right to the throne and the antithesis of a king's duty to his people. Again it demonstrates the conflict between right and duty, which is very relevant to Dany.

[Frey family reunion]

3 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

This is pretty much what Aerys was saying when he talked about leaving Robert to rule over charred bones and ash. If he can't have the throne nobody will have the throne. It's the ultimate expression of a perceived right to the throne and the antithesis of a king's duty to his people. Again it demonstrates the conflict between right and duty, which is very relevant to Dany.

It’s a little more complicated than that.  Aerys also thought that sacrificing King’s Landing to wildfire would enable him to be reborn as a dragon.  So it’s not just that if I can’t have it no one else can.  

But regardless, you seem hung up on the concept that Dany (or the reader) should believe that Dany only has a right to the throne if she is a “legitimate” Targaryen.  In other words the issue of Aerys and Rahella during the legal term of their marriage.

But deep down, that’s not really what the Iron Throne represents.  The Iron Throne was created because Aegon and his sisters controlled dragons.  That’s what gave them the swords used to make up the throne.  Then Balerion literally welded the swords together to make up the throne.

The throne and the kingdom were created by dragons and created for dragon riders.  Regardless of the “legal”  status of her birth, Dany could still believe that it’s her “right” to take the throne, because she’s the one who brought back the dragons.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Frey family reunion

[three-eyed monkey]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

It’s a little more complicated than that.  Aerys also thought that sacrificing King’s Landing to wildfire would enable him to be reborn as a dragon.  So it’s not just that if I can’t have it no one else can.  

Aerys said to Rossart, he'd leave them nothing but ash. Let Robert be king over charred bones and cooked meat. That's where the point is made that if he can't have it no one can. Jaime believed Aerys thought he would be reborn as a dragon to come back and turn his enemies to ash, we don't know if Aerys believed that but if he did then the end result would be that everything except the dragon would be ash.

The clear parallel here is to Dany, who did emerge from a funeral pyre with dragons, but who must ultimately resist turning all her enemies to ash in order to win the throne if she wants to avoid becoming the Mad Queen.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

But regardless, you seem hung up on the concept that Dany (or the reader) should believe that Dany only has a right to the throne if she is a “legitimate” Targaryen.  In other words the issue of Aerys and Rahella during the legal term of their marriage.

But deep down, that’s not really what the Iron Throne represents.  The Iron Throne was created because Aegon and his sisters controlled dragons.  That’s what gave them the swords used to make up the throne.  Then Balerion literally welded the swords together to make up the throne.

The throne and the kingdom were created by dragons and created for dragon riders.  Regardless of the “legal”  status of her birth, Dany could still believe that it’s her “right” to take the throne, because she’s the one who brought back the dragons.

Well, as I said, you could make it work perhaps with some Targaryen bastard. My question is which Targaryen bastard can a convincing case be made for? I don't find any of the options convincing. I don't think it's as good a story-telling choice as her being the daughter of Aerya and Rhaella, and the sister of Rhaegar and Viserys, with the true Targaryen claim once Viserys dies.

Why I think she must be the daughter of Aerys and Rhaella is not entirely to do with her claim. Bastards can have a claim too, especially when there are no trueborn children left, so it's not that. As I said, I believe Dany has a brilliantly constructed character arc, with a central conflict between her right to the throne and her duty as a queen. I think this is reflected in so many parts of her arc, including in her direct family, which I believe to be her two parents and her two brothers; that's Aerys, Rhaella, Rhaegar and Viserys. I think there's a beautiful symmetry in GRRM's construction of her family because one of parents and one of her brothers, Aerys and Viserys, are all about their right to the throne. This is the madness side of the coin. On the other side we have Rhaegar and Rhaella. Rhaegar was trying to save the realm from prophesied doom, and Rhaella died giving birth. To me, this combination perfectly represents what Dany must do; sacrifice herself to save the realm and essentially die giving birth to spring. This is the greatness side of the coin.

I get it that you don't agree with what I'm saying, but I really don't have anything else to add to my argument so we'll have to agree to disagree. I remain convinced Dany is who we think she is and if the lemon tree hints at something, it's not hinting at Dany being someone else, but that's just my opinion.

[Tyrosh Lannister]

The House with the Red door is in the disputed lands very close to tyrosh. Checks out because its in the south , lots of farmland -> fertile soil for lemon trees to grow , and Dany has a tytoshi accent. 

[Gilbert Green]

14 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'll add my thoughts on the inheritance of madness because it's related to the points I've made.

GRRM says he's not really into the genetics and stuff, it's more about the story. We see that with Robert's bastards all having black hair. I don't know how that works genetically but I know that GRRM doesn't care because he's using it as a story-telling device to clue Ned and the reader into the fact that Joffrey is not Robert's heir.

This point, to my mind, illustrates the opposite of what you are trying to say.

In genetics there is this concept of dominant and recessive genes, and it is generally known that black haired genes are, or at least tend to be, dominant over recessive blond genes.

If a black haired man carries a recessive blond gene, he has some chance of giving birth to a blond child.  But in theory there are at least some black haired men with only dominant black haired genes to pass on.  Such men will, in theory, never have a blond child no matter how many hundreds of natural blondes they impregnate.

Obviously, no-one has put this theory to any kind of vigorous test because it would be hugely unethical.  But the theory at least is well known, and even laymen like me have heard of it.

When I read about King Robert and his "strong seed", I immediately understood that GRRM had created a fictional illustration of modern genetic theory.

14 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I don't know if madness can be inherited genetically or not, but I feel that's beside the point being made in the story.

The brain is a physical organ, so presumably some kinds of madness are heritable.

It is generally believed that inbreeding can lead to madness just as it can lead to all sorts of other defects, and GRRM was surely aware of this just as he was aware of the dominant/recessive issue.   But again, nobody is going to verify this issue by vigorous controlled experiments because that would be hugely unethical.

There is a saying in Westeros that every time a Targ is born the gods roll a dice.  But after 200 years of Targ history, some had already begun to suspect that it was a bit more nuanced than that.   For instance, the Counsel passed over baby Maegor, in part due to his father's madness, rather than simply leaving it up to the gods.  Egg studied Targ history and came to the conclusion that incest was not such a good idea.  We don't have all the information Egg had, but I think we can reach more or less the same conclusion by examining such information as GRRM has given us.

Nonetheless, some fans seem eager to believe that Targ madness is really just a crapshoot after all.  When they take this position, the examples they seem to primarily  have in mind are Rhaegar and Dany, who turned out reasonably well (in the opinions of some at least) in spite of being the children of (at least so we are told) a mad inbred father and a sickly inbred mother.

Of course, there are theories that Rhaegar and/or Dany are not children of the Mad King at all.  But these are the kinds of theories that many in this thread want to make go away.

14 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

It is power that is inherited, and power can corrupt. It comes down to the individual characters and the choices they make when faced with the tests and trials of their journey.

One of the choices you can make is not to boink your sister.  That was a choice Aegon V made, and I think it was the right one.  Two of his children made a different choice, and I think it was the wrong one.

14 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Dany can turn towards greatness or turn towards madness, they are the two sides of the coin, but her coin is still turning in the air while she continues her journey because she still has choices to make before she reaches the climax of the story and resolves her arc.

Sounds like you are talking about MORAL choice.  I agree that MORAL choices matter.  But one of the traditional ideas about madness is that takes away a person's free will.  Mad people cannot, necessarily, be blamed for their actions.  They cannot help themselves.  Because they are mad

I sometimes feel a bit sorry for Aerys and Viserys, monsters though they were.  In part because they did not choose to be mad.  They are victims of the choices that OTHERS made.   But such people are minor characters.

If Dany is free to make moral choices -- to choose between good and evil -- to reject the power that corrupts --  then perhaps she is not truly mad in the above sense.  But then again, perhaps one of the reasons she has that choice is because she is not truly the doubly-inbred daughter of the Mad King.  It's only a theory, but I don't see why it should be rejected out of hand.

I don't see how Dany NOT being the Mad King's daughter would in any way detract from her free will.  If anything, it would underscore the fact that she HAS free will.  And to the extent she has done bad things in the past, she will have to accept responsibility for them.

14 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

When Dany makes her final choice, her third and final plot-point, her third and final mount and treason and fire, only then will the coin land on madness or greatness.

Is it up to her at all?  Or are you just endorsing the "gods flip a coin" idea?

Edited April 6, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

On 4/3/2023 at 1:22 PM, Mourning Star said:

You’ve made a lot of nice points in a logical and measured way that does you credit.

I’m intrigued, what’s the case for Bonifer being Rhaegar’s dad?

My starting point was the ancient trope of the treacherous prophesy.  A character who acts on a prophesy or puts his faith in a prophesy somehow gets it wrong.  Oedypus, Herodotus, Macbeth.  The most famous example in modern fantasy is that of the Witch King facing down a human soldier, confident in the prophesy that no man (which he understands as "no member of the race of Man") will slay him; but then the soldier pulls off her helmet and says "nope, not a man; a woman".  This was of course inspired by Macbeth's death scene (paraphrase:  Macbeth: "You cannot win Macduff; no man born of woman can harm me" / Macduff:  "Not me; C-section; prepare to die" / Macbeth:  "Curse those witches and their lying treacherous prophesies").

 

When Gorghan of Old Ghis gave his quote about treacherous prophesy, I understood this to be GRRM referencing this ancient trope.

 

So when I heard that Jaehaerys had acted to bring about the terms of a prophesy, my immediate thought was that somehow, someway, this was not going to work as expected.  Somehow, Jaehaerys had screwed up.  Just like Oedipus.

 

Deepening this suspicion was my horror of what Jaehaerys did to his own daughter, forcing her into a loveless incestuous marriage with her own creepy brother, while tearing her apart from the boy she truly loved.  I will admit the thought has crossed my mind that maybe GRRM is not quite so opposed to sibling incest as I am.   Even so, I guess that, at the very least, he draws the line at the non-consent variety.  Would GRRM really write a fantasy where incestuous rape-sex with a weeping maiden is implicitly justified as a mechanism for saving the planet?  Feel free to guess otherwise, but my own guess is no.

 

So my next question was HOW Jaehaerys had screwed up.  And the only theory I could think of was that while TPTWP would be born of the line of Aerys and the line of Rhaella, he/she would not be born of their direct union.  Rather, a child of Aerys would unite with a child of Rhaella.   And the result would be TPTWP.  Feel free to suggest alternatives.

 

There is more, but already I am suspecting this post will grow too long if I try to continue.  For now, I will merely say that once I had the above notion, I quickly found it intersecting with all sorts of other mysteries I had pondered over the years such as:  What is the deal with Bonifer, and what is the tragedy that haunts him?  Who are the by-blows of Aerys from his fetish for married noblewomen and how will it affect the plot?  Why did Rhaegar think he was TPTWP, and why did he change his mind?  Why did he choose Elia?  Why did he choose Lyanna?  Who is the descendant of Dunk who GRRM trolled us about so many years ago? (I never thought it was Brienne)   WTF happened at Summerhall?  Who are the 3 heads of the dragon?  Lots of parentage theories.  Etc.

 

There are also curious parallels between the Aerys/Rhaella/Bonifer situation, and the Aegon/Naerys/Aemon situation.  In both cases, the timeline is vague enough that the firstborn child could have been conceived before the marriage, before any vows of marriage and/or celibacy were made by the ill-starred lovers.  I will also mention that when Aerys falsely accused Rhaella of adultery based upon all the sickly, deformed, and stillborn infants she bore him, this immediately struck me as an ironic clue that her firstborn child -- the only one who was healthy and well-adjusted -- was not his.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[three-eyed monkey]

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Is it up to her at all?  Or are you just endorsing the "gods flip a coin" idea?

Given that I'm saying it all comes down to character choices, no I'm clearly not endorsing the gods flip a coin idea, you're just misunderstanding me. The coin flip is just another story-telling device.

There is another theme running through the story, gods versus man. I'm not going to get into that whole theme now but here's a pertinent quote.

Quote

In King's Landing, the High Septon would prattle at me of how all justice and goodness flowed from the Seven, but all I ever saw of either was made by men."

I think Stannis is right about this - all justice and goodness is made by men. I believe Stannis himself is slowly changing his belief and getting on board with the Red God and the idea that he is guided by a divine hand, but this choice will only lead to his ruin.

[Mourning Star]

13 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

There is more, but already I am suspecting this post will grow too long if I try to continue. 

That Stork of a man!

Thanks for the intro, the irony of trying to stop a prophesy only to cause it has roots as far back as storytelling goes, no doubt.

There is clearly something important for us to learn about the ghost of high heart’s prophesy and the tragedy of Summerhall.

I don’t hate the theory and am open to reading more if you feel like sharing.

[Gilbert Green]

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Given that I'm saying it all comes down to character choices, no I'm clearly not endorsing the gods flip a coin idea, you're just misunderstanding me. The coin flip is just another story-telling device.

I was not misunderstanding you.  I was just double checking that you meant what I thought you meant. 

The reason I was double checking, is because you referenced a quote from the book (about gods flipping a madness/greatness coin every time a Targ is born).  And that quote isn't about personal choice.  It is about congenital madness as viewed through the lens of medieval philosophy.  It also comes through the lens of politics, since it is a way of saying "half those Targs are batshit crazy from birth" without too deeply offending the ruling powers.

Unless you think I am misunderstanding the book quote, in which case I disagree.

Madness versus Greatness does not sound much like a moral choice to me, anyhow.  When Galadriel rejected the corrupting influence of the Ring of Power, she rejected both at the same time ("I shall diminish and remain Galadriel").

I'm not saying Dany will not face choices.  All I am saying is that particular quote is not about choice.  It about something determined at birth.

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

There is another theme running through the story, gods versus man.

If you would rather view the quote through the lens of modern rationalist materialist philosophy, you are perfectly free to do that.  In this particular context, the "gods" primarily represent genetics.  As for personal choice, most materialist/atheists don't really believe in it.  Determinism is an atheistic philosophy.  What is not caused by nature is caused by environment.

Quotes about gods rolling dice do not tend to be about personal power and choice.  As the ABBA song goes:  "The gods they roll the dice / Their minds as cold as ice / And someone weak down here / Loses someone dear".

Those lines were, I think, penned by an atheist.  He did not really believe in "the gods".  But nonetheless I understand his metaphorical point.  The power of mortals to control their own destinies is limited, to say the least.

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm not going to get into that whole theme now but here's a pertinent quote.

I think Stannis is right about this - all justice and goodness is made by men.

We certainly don't choose our own genes, though.  And that is what the quote is about, assuming it is not actually about "the gods".

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I believe Stannis himself is slowly changing his belief and getting on board with the Red God and the idea that he is guided by a divine hand, but this choice will only lead to his ruin.

Stannis the quasi-atheist has an angel (Davos) on one shoulder, and a devil (Melisandre) on the other.  But you are I think confusing the books with the show if you think that Davos is on Team Atheism.   

Edited April 6, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[three-eyed monkey]

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I'm not saying Dany will not face choices.  All I am saying is that particular quote is not about choice.  It about something determined at birth.

GRRM is playing with the words. War is madness. Saving the realm is greatness. You're not born either mad or great, but you can make choices that take you down different paths, like to war, which is madness, or to saving the realm, which is greatness. That's how the coin toss represents the paths Dany can choose.

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

If you would rather view the quote through the lens of modern rationalist materialist philosophy, you are perfectly free to do that.  In this particular context, the "gods" primarily represent genetics.  As for personal choice, most materialist/atheists don't really believe in it.  Determinism is an atheistic philosophy.  What is not caused by nature is caused by environment.

I'm talking about story structure, you keep going off about genetics and modern rationalist materialist philosophy. What's next? ABBA lyrics?

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

As the ABBA song goes:  "The gods they roll the dice / Their minds as cold as ice / And someone weak down here / Loses someone dear".

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Stannis the quasi-atheist has an angel (Davos) on one shoulder, and a devil (Melisandre) on the other.  But you are I think confusing the books with the show if you think that Davos is on Team Atheism.

When did I say Davos is on team atheism... wait a minute, there are books too?

Edited April 6, 2023 by three-eyed monkey

[three-eyed monkey]

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Quotes about gods rolling dice do not tend to be about personal power and choice. 

I'll add my thoughts about the theme of gods versus men. I'm not getting into religion here and I certainly don't want to offend anyone's beliefs. I'm only talking about a theme in the story.

To begin with, I think it is an important theme. We hear a lot about in the eyes of gods and men, and of course there is the God's Eye, all of which relate to the theme.

The Seven are seven aspects of one god, but they are also aspects of any one person, including the dark aspect known as the stranger. This is an aspect that needs to be kept in check, an aspect that should remain a stranger because you don't want to get too friendly with your dark side.

Next we have the dualism of the Lord of Light and the Great Other. This can also represent two sides of someone's personality. We're all capable of being cruel or kind, being true or false, etc. We see this dualism best expressed through Stannis and his shadow, as in Renly's assassin, which was essentially part of Stannis. It's also expressed in the Targaryen coin toss.

Then there's the Many-Faced God, and that can represent the many faces of the people of the realm.

And finally, the Old Gods, who watch through faces carved in the trees. We know that it is greenseers who watch through the trees and greenseers are men, like Bran and Bloodraven.

So I feel that GRRM is saying that the fate of mankind is in human hands and not in the hands of the gods. That's what I think GRRM is getting at when Stannis says that all he ever saw of justice and goodness was made by men. And that's why I think the choices the characters make will determine their fate and indeed the fate of the realm.

But we're way off topic now, and I don't have anything else to say about Lemongate. I don't believe Dany is someone else. I've given my reasons why. Everyone's free to disagree.

[Gilbert Green]

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

GRRM is playing with the words. War is madness. Saving the realm is greatness. You're not born either mad or great, but you can make choices that take you down different paths, like to war, which is madness, or to saving the realm, which is greatness. That's how the coin toss represents the paths Dany can choose.

I agree that Dany has choices to make.  Whatever cards the universe has handed her, she is going to have to play that hand. 

But the quote isn't about that.  It is not how mortals play their hands.  It is about the gifts, and curses, that nature gives to the Targaryens by virtue of their heritage.  At birth.  Explicitly at birth.  The quote does not deny that teenagers have free will and moral agency.  But it does not happen to be about that.

These gifts and curses are said to be entirely random.  That is because the speaker, in his medieval ignorance, fails to realize that sibling incest, and especially consecutive generations of sibling incest, is a big part of the problem.

How Dany copes with these gifts and curses, and how she plays those cards, at the age of 15, 16 and 17 is entirely separate question.   The coin-flip quote is not the choices made as a teenager.  It is about the cards dealt at birth.

But whatever cards she's been dealt, she still is going to have to play her hand.

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm talking about story structure,

I'm talking about what that specific quote means.  I expressed no opinion about the story structure.  I agree with you that Dany will have choices to make.

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

you keep going off about genetics and modern rationalist materialist philosophy. What's next? ABBA lyrics?

The ABBA lyrics and the GRRM quote are more or less about the same thing.  It is about the cards the universe deals us.  It is about those factors we cannot control.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

8 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

So I feel that GRRM is saying that the fate of mankind is in human hands and not in the hands of the gods. That's what I think GRRM is getting at when Stannis says that all he ever saw of justice and goodness was made by men.

In the context of THIS discussion, what you seem to be saying is that WE are the gods.  We are born as blank slates, and then we create ourselves.  Completely from scratch.  Tyrion could have been 8' tall, if only he had faith in himself.  That must be why you are trying to twist a quote that was clearly and explicitly about the cards dealt at birth into a quote about a "choice" for "greatness" made at the age of 16.

That, I guess, is why you are fighting tooth and nail against any idea that two consecutive generations of full sibling incest can possibly result in any kind of congentital madness.

And again, I am not saying that Dany is mad, or that if she is mad, her madness is congentital, or that (mad or not) she won't make choices.

Stannis has nothing to do with our disagreement.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[three-eyed monkey]

3 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

In the context of THIS discussion, what you seem to be saying is that WE are the gods.  We are born as blank slates, and then we create ourselves.  Completely from scratch.  Tyrion could have been 8' tall, if only he had faith in himself.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Tyrion's fate is in his own hands and the choices he makes, it's not down to the will of the gods.

3 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

That must be why you are trying to twist a quote that was clearly and explicitly about the cards dealt at birth into a quote about a "choice" for "greatness" made at the age of 16.

I'm not twisting the quote. I accept that in the view of people in Westeros, Targaryen's are born either mad or great, and that this is down to the gods. The gods flip a coin, and the world holds it breath hoping that it doesn't land on madness. However, I'm saying that it's not really down to the gods, it's actually down to the choices said Targaryen makes.

Regardless of the cards you are dealt at birth, it's how you choose to play your cards that determines who you are.

3 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

That, I guess, is why you are fighting tooth and nail against any idea that two consecutive generations of full sibling incest can possibly result in any kind of congentital madness.

I'm not fighting against that idea at all. I agree that incest is a problem. This point is made by Ygritte talking about a man stealing a wife.

Quote

You know nothing, Jon Snow. A true man steals a woman from afar, t' strengthen the clan. Women who bed brothers or fathers or clan kin offend the gods, and are cursed with weak and sickly children. Even monsters.

The suggestion is that incest can lead to monsters. I agree with you that the reason for this is genetic, rather than a curse of the gods. That may be the hand Dany is dealt, but it does not have to define her. She can choose a different destiny.

4 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Stannis has nothing to do with our disagreement.

The themes of the story connect every character. I used the quote to support the point I was making about my belief that all justice and goodness will flow from men. I quoted that in response to your claim that I was endorsing what you called the gods flip a coin idea, which is the opposite of what I'm saying.

[Gilbert Green]

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Tyrion's fate is in his own hands and the choices he makes, it's not down to the will of the gods.

But Tyrion's fate is NOT in his own hands.  Not to the extent of justifying grandiose delusional inspirational statements of self-made autonomy.  He did not choose to be a dwarf.  He did not choose to have a good brain.  He did not choose to be born into the privileged top 1%.  He did not choose to get kidnapped by Catelyn (and Catelyn there is also a victim of circumstance).  He did not choose to win his first trial by combat.  He did not choose to have his nose cut off, or to have Pod drag his unconscious body from the river.  He did not choose to lose his second trial by combat.  He did not choose to be framed by circumstances for Joffrey's poisoning (some of his choices played into that, but not in ways he intended).  He did not choose to be rescued by Jaime.  He did choose to be sent by Varys to Illyrio, or by Illryio to Meereen.  Etc. Etc.  Etc.

If it is not the gods kicking Tyrion around, then maybe it is a blind, uncaring universe kicking him around.  But I'm not interested in that argument.  I'm just saying that EITHER WAY he is not some grand all-encompassing master of his own destiny.

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm not twisting the quote. I accept that in the view of people in Westeros, Targaryen's are born either mad or great, and that this is down to the gods. The gods flip a coin, and the world holds it breath hoping that it doesn't land on madness. However, I'm saying that it's not really down to the gods, it's actually down to the choices said Targaryen makes.

And I'm saying the only reason you are arguing with the quote is because you do not understand it. You mistake a metaphor for a serious statement of religious doctrine.

Whenever you see statements about gods rolling dice (or flipping coins, or playing cards), this is a metaphor.  It is a metaphor for those factors in the universe that are cold, uncaring, impersonal, and RANDOM.  It is, in short, a metaphor for exactly the sort of universe atheists believe in.  There are plenty of cynics and quasi-atheists in Westeros, and this is sort of person who would make this statement.  A religious person might (possibly) make such a statement too, but even he would understand it was a metaphor, and not some serious religious doctrine about "the gods".

When the faithful of Westeros go to their septs and hear sermons from septons, they will hear sermons about kind, loving personal gods, or about vengeful gods imposing justice for wickedness, or about merciful gods who take repentance into account.  This quote is about something else.

The quote is about the gifts and curses of our heritage, which is a real phenomenon, whether you blame them on "the gods" or not.  We do not choose these gifts/curses.   If GRRM disagrees with the statement, it is only to the extent of knowing about the link between inbreeding and congenital madness, which he expects his readers to be familiar with, even though he knows most in Westeros are unaware of it.

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Regardless of the cards you are dealt at birth, it's how you choose to play your cards that determines who you are.

Nope.  I agree that your choices are important, but they do not determine "who you are" in any grand all-encompassing sense.  You come from your parents, and have no control over the genes they pass to you, or how they raise you, nor over the vast majority of experiences that have a formative influence over you throughout life.

You denied claiming that we create ourselves.  But now you are right back to claiming that we create ourselves.

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm not fighting against that idea at all. I agree that incest is a problem.

Great.  But that's exactly what the quote is about.  Congenital madness, which GRRM and the modern reader know are caused by inbreeding, but which the Westerosi speaker does not realize is caused by inbreeding, so he calls it completely random. 

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

This point is made by Ygritte talking about a man stealing a wife.

Also by Aegon V when he examined Westerosi history and decided sibling marriages were a bad idea.  Obviously, GRRM is aware of the issue.  This is not  a fantasy where the rules don't apply to Targs because Targs are special.

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The suggestion is that incest can lead to monsters. I agree with you that the reason for this is genetic, rather than a curse of the gods. That may be the hand Dany is dealt, but it does not have to define her. She can choose a different destiny.

Sure.  Even mad people can make moral choices in their lucid moments.  For instance, she could accept she is not destined for greatness, and that she is not designed to handle to stresses of rulership; she could then choose (for instance) to surrender power and join the Silent Sisters, in the hopes of preventing herself from blowing up any more cities or committing any further massacres.

I'm not predicting that.  I'm not saying she suffers from congenital madness.  But if she does NOT suffer from congenital madness, it could (possibly) be a clue that she is not really the Mad King's daughter.  Which circles back around to an issue vaguely connected to the topic of this thread.

Either that or she got VERY lucky with the genes she inherited from her father and mother.  And I'm not ruling that out either.  All i am saying is that, now and then, lucky breaks and coincidences can actually turn out to have been clues when the dust settles at the end of the story.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[three-eyed monkey]

3 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Nope.  I agree that your choices are important, but they do not determine "who you are" in any grand all-encompassing sense.  You come from your parents, and have no control over the genes they pass to you, or how they raise you, nor over the vast majority of experiences that have a formative influence over you throughout life.

You denied claiming that we create ourselves.  But now you are right back to claiming that we create ourselves.

I'm not saying we create ourselves, and I'm not saying every event in our lives is within our control, because that's clearly not true. I'm talking about the things the characters can control and the choices the characters must make, particularly at their major plot-points, which are decisions the characters will make that determine the direction of the plot. These choices will determine who the characters are in the end, whether they are heroes or villains in simple terms.

This point is made by Jaime and the White Book.

Quote

 

Ser Gerold Hightower had begun his history, and Ser Barristan Selmy had continued it, but the rest Jaime Lannister would need to write for himself. He could write whatever he chose, henceforth.

Whatever he chose . . .

 

Every character's future is a blank page, one they fill with what they choose because they are the ones writing their own stories, so to speak.

Jaime's has a similar choice laid out before him in his arc as Dany does, because the author constructed it that way. Jaime can be the Smiling Knight or Ser Arthur Dayne. This is the thematic equivalent of madness or greatness. That's why the Smiling Knight is referred to as a madman, and as we know Arthur Dayne was a great knight.

Quote

The Smiling Knight was a madman, cruelty and chivalry all jumbled up together, but he did not know the meaning of fear. And Dayne, with Dawn in hand . . .

He wanted to be Arthur Dayne, but he became the Smiling Knight. But his future is a blank page so he can try to change that and write whatever he chooses, henceforth.

3 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

But if she does NOT suffer from congenital madness, it could (possibly) be a clue that she is not really the Mad King's daughter. 

I don't see any convincing argument that she is not the Mad King's daughter, nor do I see any convincing argument that she is someone else. So...