What is compelling about having Daenerys be someone other than the daughter of Aerys and Rhaella?

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

What subtle clues about slavery?  I don't remember seeing any mentioned, at least nothing specific to Daenerys.

I provided you with a 35 point list.  Points 8, 18 and 33 were about slavery.

Let me spell it out a bit more.  Illyrio is a SLAVER.  He specializes in SLAVE GIRLS.  And guess who he sells?  It is right there in black and white?  "He had collected a fortune in horses and slaves for his part in selling her to Khal Drogo."  Or how about the part where Dany puts on the gown and jewels Illyrio gives her, looks in the mirror, and remembers that in Khal Drogo's palace even the slaves wear golden collars.  And lest we forget, in Book 2, Jorah and Dany have a conversation where Jorah reminds her that Illyrio is a slaver who sells people, and moreover "He did sell you ... to Khal Drogo."

And Dany has been abused her whole life, since leaving the house with the red door.  She has been treated like a slave and worse than a slave.  "A princess, Dany thought. She had forgotten what that was like. Perhaps she had never really known."

And then we learn that Illyrio the SLAVER has been plotting to sell Dany to Drogo for YEARS, and not just the 6 months she remembers staying in his manse.

How about the clue about Tyrioshi slavers trafficking citizens of Westeros and Ned being so super-pissed about it that he wants Jorah's head.

Would she remember crossing the narrow sea on a slave ship?  How about the time when Dany remembers having crossed the Narrow Sea a "hundred times"?  If she crossed the sea a hundred times, then the first instance it not going to stand out particularly strongly in her mind.  Not unless the Tyroshi slavers shouted SLAVE SLAVE SLAVE every time they passed her.  And why on earth would they do that?

Yeah, okay, okay.  I know, I know.  Too subtle.  Too subtle. 

 

[Gilbert Green]

27 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Yes you told that Dany is born 10 months after Jon, so Rhaegar should still be alive and kicking for at least a month after(Dany not being premature) Jon’s birth, which would put it before the Trident, cause, you know, Iron Bank of Braavos wasn’t a sperm bank that Rhaegar could deposit to so he needs to spend some time with Lyanna. Born before Trident makes Jon too old.

Dude.  There's no point.  I gave you a timeline and a link to a timeline.   It works. 

And yes, Rhaegar is alive after Jon's birth.  And yes, Rhaegar's son (who becomes Jon Snow) is born before the Trident.  Which does not make Jon too old.  Because if you look at the timeline, it works.

You are not interested in what I say.  Let's agree to disagree, okay? 

[Nevets]

16 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

I provided you with a 35 point list.  Points 8, 18 and 33 were about slavery.

Let me spell it out a bit more.  Illyrio is a SLAVER.  He specializes in SLAVE GIRLS.  And guess who he sells?  It is right there in black and white?  "He had collected a fortune in horses and slaves for his part in selling her to Khal Drogo."  Or how about the part where Dany puts on the gown and jewels Illyrio gives her, looks in the mirror, and remembers that in Khal Drogo's palace even the slaves wear golden collars.  And lest we forget, in Book 2, Jorah and Dany have a conversation where Jorah reminds her that Illyrio is a slaver who sells people, and moreover "He did sell you ... to Khal Drogo."

And Dany has been abused her whole life, since leaving the house with the red door.  She has been treated like a slave and worse than a slave.  "A princess, Dany thought. She had forgotten what that was like. Perhaps she had never really known."

And then we learn that Illyrio the SLAVER has been plotting to sell Dany to Drogo for YEARS, and not just the 6 months she remembers staying in his manse.

How about the clue about Tyrioshi slavers trafficking citizens of Westeros and Ned being so super-pissed about it that he wants Jorah's head.

Would she remember crossing the narrow sea on a slave ship?  How about the time when Dany remembers having crossed the Narrow Sea a "hundred times"?  If she crossed the sea a hundred times, then the first instance it not going to stand out particularly strongly in her mind.  Not unless the Tyroshi slavers shouted SLAVE SLAVE SLAVE every time they passed her.  And why on earth would they do that?

Yeah, okay, okay.  I know, I know.  Too subtle.  Too subtle. 

 

So your clues are: that Illyrio deals in slaves, some of whom look a bit like Daenerys; Ned gets really upset when his vassals deal in slaves; and Melisandre has a memory of "Melony" as a slave.  Oh, and Illyrio had been planning something to do with Viserys and/or Daenerys for "years".  That's IT? 

Nothing to do with Dany specifically, except for the mysterious plans by Illyrio, which were probably aimed at sidelining Viserys, so as to give Aegon free reign.  And even that plot doesn't suggest fakery.

I'd say any clues are so subtle they qualify as non-existent.  If you want to come up with ridiculous theories based on forced readings of text and wild speculation, be my guest.  But don't expect me to join you.

[Corvo the Crow]

20 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Dude.  There's no point.  I gave you a timeline and a link to a timeline.   It works. 

And yes, Rhaegar is alive after Jon's birth.  And yes, Rhaegar's son (who becomes Jon Snow) is born before the Trident.  Which does not make Jon too old.  Because if you look at the timeline, it works.

You are not interested in what I say.  Let's agree to disagree, okay? 

How long before Trident was Jon born? How long does it take Rhaegar to travel from ToJ Mahal to Trident?

[Gilbert Green]

13 minutes ago, Nevets said:

So your clues are: that Illyrio deals in slaves, some of whom look a bit like Daenerys; Ned gets really upset when his vassals deal in slaves; and Melisandre has a memory of "Melony" as a slave.  Oh, and Illyrio had been planning something to do with Viserys and/or Daenerys for "years".  That's IT?

I think I said more than that.  But, apart from all the other things I said, yeah, that's it.

And it is only a theory.   Just like R+L=J.

13 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Nothing to do with Dany specifically, except for the mysterious plans by Illyrio, which were probably aimed at sidelining Viserys, so as to give Aegon free reign.  And even that plot doesn't suggest fakery.

Right.  Nothing to do with Dany, except all the things that have to do with Dany.  And they don't prove anything, because it is only a theory.  Just like R+L=J.

13 minutes ago, Nevets said:

I'd say any clues are so subtle they qualify as non-existent.  If you want to come up with ridiculous theories based on forced readings of text and wild speculation, be my guest.  But don't expect me to join you.

Subtle clues, the kind GRRM says he leaves, are always deniable.  Same with R+L=J.  Let's just wait for the books to come out, okay?

Edited July 11, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

9 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

How long before Trident was Jon born? How long does it take Rhaegar to travel from ToJ Mahal to Trident?

Is there any particular reason you can't look at the mini timeline I gave you, and the larger timeline I linked you to, and answer your own questions? 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

9 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

BTW I am not a native English speaker, so explain to me if I am wrong about this.

I believe "Dany was most like named by her mother" doesn't mean that Dany was most likely named by her mother, but that Dany, like most of the children in medieval times, was named by her mother; while Tyrion and Jon were both exceptions, not being named by their mother but Tywin and Ned.

I think you are wrong about this.  "Most like" sounds to my ears like an error, but GRRM probably intends it as an archaism.  In ASOIAF, GRRM uses "most like" to mean "most likely". 

Most children are named by their fathers, because fathers are usually still around.  If the father is not around, the mother names the child.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Corvo the Crow]

12 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Is there any particular reason you can't look at the mini timeline I gave you, and the larger timeline I linked you to, and answer your own questions? 

Among other things such as it being completely made up when in fact due to the wackiness of all things numerical, such as distances, travel times etc. we have no way of tracking time unless we’ve been explicitly told how many days passed such as Ned arriving from Darry to KL in two weeks or whatever, It uses dates based off of calendars of our world when in fact we know even in universe calendar systems differ from eachother.

Quote

How many years have you?" the waif asked her once, in the Common Tongue. "Ten," said Arya, and raised ten fingers. She thought she was still ten, though it was hard to know for certain. The Braavosi counted days differently than they did in Westeros. For all she knew her name day had come and gone.

Do we even know if Westerosi have 12 month years? And how long those months are? 30 days? 28.5 days(split 28 and 29 day months) to fit with the moon’s turn? How long does it even take for Moonos to complete it’s orbitos around planetos?

[Gilbert Green]

2 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Among other things such as it being completely made up when in fact due to the wackiness of all things numerical, such as distances, travel times etc. we have no way of tracking time unless we’ve been explicitly told how many days passed such as Ned arriving from Darry to KL in two weeks or whatever, It uses dates based off of calendars of our world when in fact we know even in universe calendar systems differ from eachother.

Do we even know if Westerosi have 12 month years? And how long those months are? 30 days? 28.5 days(split 28 and 29 day months) to fit with the moon’s turn? How long does it even take for Moonos to complete it’s orbitos around planetos?

So then, I guess the timeline I provided is, at least, a plausible hypothesis (which was all it was intended to be).  Everything you write above is a complete non-sequitur.  After all, you cannot prove that a theory is wrong by speculating that it might be wrong.

[Nevets]

34 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

I think I said more than that.  But, apart from all the other things I said, yeah, that's it.

And it is only a theory.   Just like R+L=J.

Right.  Nothing to do with Dany, except all the things that have to do with Dany.  And they don't prove anything, because it is only a theory.  Just like R+L=J.

Subtle clues, the kind GRRM says he leaves, are always deniable.  Same with R+L=J.  Let's just wait for the books to come out, okay?

With R+L=J the clues are mostly specific facts stated in the memory of a POV or in undisputed historical accounts.  Put together, these clues lead to the conclusion that Jon is most likely the natural child of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

The fDany theory has some vague, general facts heavily enhanced by a lot of speculation.  They are very different.

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Nevets

[Hippocras]

12 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I have provided timelines that work.  People ignore them.  And then say things like this.  What am I to do?

You do this quite frequently. You respond to a post that was not a response to you. Then when a reply is posted as part of the original conversation without quoting you, you do not follow the chain.

Catelyn was bitter towards Jon for her entire marriage to Ned because he brought home a child that was conceived AFTER or only VERY shortly before she married him. A child conceived more than 4 months before the wedding, when she was still betrothed to Brandon, was simply not a problem for her pride and honour and would not have inspired so much resentment. Rob was conceived on their wedding night. Ergo, Jon is no more than 4 months older that Rob and was born, as he was in 283.

Are you a parent? Small age differences are very obvious in small children. Within the same class at school, the kids born in the later part of the cohort are distinctly less mature and farther back in their physical development than those born at the beginning. Differences mean nothing later in life, but in children under 5 years old, it is quite noticeable.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Hippocras

[Sandy Clegg]

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

I'd say any clues are so subtle they qualify as non-existent.

I do think we need to rethink what constitutes 'too subtle' or 'too obscure' when I've already quoted George as saying:

Quote

At least one or two readers had put together the extremely subtle and obscure clues that I’d planted in the books and came to the right solution.

- 2014 Telegraph Interview

@Gilbert Green may not be right about the Rhaegar parentage, but I think the first half of his theory does have merit. Illyrio is a slaver. He sold Dany. That alone is enough to make us suspicious. Re-read Dany's first chapters through the lens of slavery rather than arranged marriage, and it lends a whole new eeriness to them. Which, to me, also give the theory merit. The books take on new meaning - and that's always a good thing. But for me, this is primarily a reason to be suspicious of Dany' origins and investigate further, not an automatic leap to 'daddy Rhaegar'. Sorry Gilbert. I just want to keep other options open.

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Sandy Clegg

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, Sandy Clegg said:

I've already quoted George as saying:

But what clues is he referring to here?

[Sandy Clegg]

46 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

But what clues is he referring to here?

Therein lies the mountain of work before us  

EDIT: for the record, he refers to mysteries PLURAL, so I think this is a consistent feature of ASOIAF rather than just an isolated instance:

Quote

There are some mysteries in these books. There are some things that I’m going to reveal later on, that I’m planting clues for. There are some later plot twists that I’m foreshadowing. There are things that are going to happen in book five and book six, in book seven, where I planted a seed for it in book one.  But I don’t necessarily want to ‘give away my hand’.

- 2006 Podcast

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Sandy Clegg

[Craving Peaches]

36 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

Therein lies the mountain of work before us

Without knowing what clues are, we cannot define more precisely GRRM's standard of what 'subtle' is. So while it does not make sense to dismiss theories off the bat based on clues being too 'subtle', maybe we should look at past mysteries and see how subtle the clues are to come up with a rough 'average subtlety'...

[Sandy Clegg]

52 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

maybe we should look at past mysteries and see how subtle the clues are to come up with a rough 'average subtlety'...

Possibly, although I think we may find that it varies massively from clue to clue. There's a discussion going on now about the Catspaw Dagger, for example, and people are still unsatisfied with the solution George seemingly presents (spoiler: Joff did it).

I have my own ideas on what constitutes subtle and obscure, though, and I know from experience on this forum that they don't jive with many other people's definitions. The wordplay thread is sorely undervisited, for example, even though George references his use of 'wordplay' in some of the quotes I've posted this week.

I think it essentially goes back to the idea of the sphinx. "The riddle is the sphinx" = the books themselves (especially the parts containing clues) are the sphinx. A bit of this, a bit of that. No one single method will ever suffice to crack the mysteries. You need to be part lore-master, part historian, part symbology-nut, part detective, part wordplay-lover, part Lovecraft scholar. Etc, etc. All the things that George loves, in terms of mystery-building, have gone into these books. And we're just spinning in the slipstream trying to make sense of it all.

[Craving Peaches]

32 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

Possibly, although I think we may find that it varies massively from clue to clue.

I agree to a certain extent, but I think there could be a 'base subtlety' level, and if it was something really obscure, I don't know if it would be a clue, especially if it is supposed to be about a major mystery because presumably we should be able to find a solution if we look.

[Sandy Clegg]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

because presumably we should be able to find a solution if we look.

Hmm. Well you are an eternal optimist, Peaches! George doesn't necessarily want us to find the solutions, though:

Quote

while I'm planting the seed, my other hand is up there waving -  and is distracting you with some flashy bit of wordplay, or something that's going on in the foreground, while the seed is being planted in the background.

So, hopefully the seed is there. The foreshadowing is there. But maybe you won't notice it … because it's surrounded by so many other things.

- 2006 Podcast 

I think the key is really to establish George's rationale behind all this.

Any mystery writer faces a conundrum. They have to hide the clue, but make it so that when the reader is presented with the solution they can declare that everything was done 'fairly'. And I think George certainly wants to abide by 'fair play' as the above quote implies. But that doesn't mean he has to make it easy. And I think he stretches the limits of what constitutes a fair clue due to the scale of the project.

A regular mystery writer unveils the solution at the end of the novel. George is attempting to do so on the scale of an epic fantasy series, so of course the parameters are different. Certainly more ambitious. Maybe more ambitious than anything that has ever been attempted before. We really have no equivalent 'unfinished work' of mystery on this scale to compare it to.

Perhaps some will remember the show Lost and the internet forums which followed it. And how the producers changed the ending after reading fan theories. A close parallel, but still nowhere near the scale of ASOIAF. But still, it was a 'living mystery' in the same way ASOIAF is. The author is, to some extent, aware of our attempts to solve the mysteries. We know he didn't change the endings as a result of the few who 'found a solution(s)' but that doesn't mean he didn't respond in other ways. Making the clues going forward more difficult, for example. 

So who knows how ambitious George is being? It's really uncharted territory  - and that should be exciting news, right?

One clue as to the scale of his ambition, for me, is his reference to James Joyce's book Finnegan's Wake in naming Riverrun - which is the first word of that book. That book which is often described one of the most challenging works of prose in the English language, full of arcane wordplay, imagery and references to obscure languages. A book that is described as a 'cryptic crossword in literary form' by some people. Here's that first line:

Quote

riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

Gobbledygook to me - I've tried reading it and can never get past page five. Maybe George had more luck.  

EDIT: @Craving Peaches I feel like we've hijacked this thread, so if you want, you can start a new topic on this and we can continue there.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Sandy Clegg

[Frey family reunion]

18 hours ago, Hippocras said:

I think the breaking of bloodlines happened long before the Dance actually. I have lots of ideas about this theme but there is little solid evidence to work with just yet. Lots of huge gaps in even the more detailed family trees.

Still, I think what it comes down to is that you seem to see Dany as a force of good, and are looking at what we do know of bloodlines from that perspective.

I, on the other hand, see Dany as the Fire equivalent of the Night King. She will bring her dragons and help fight the Night King, yes. But dragons cannot be controlled and nor can Dany, and fire is a truly terrible DESTRUCTIVE force. So when I look at theories for who Dany may be, other than who she thinks she is, I am looking for a story of what makes her the right person to bring something that is ultimately evil to the world.

I don’t particularly view Dany as either good or evil.  I’m more interested in what makes her historically unique in the story.

We’ve already had dragon riders, Aegon and his two sisters rode dragons much larger and more powerful than Dany’s three.  Even despite this they were never able to conquer Dorne, or even destroy Dorne.

We’ve already had dragons hatching.  The Dance dealt with a war of dragons hatched on Westeros of far greater numbers than Dany could currently bring to Westeros.  Despite this war, Westeros was not laid to waste.

So I agree that Dany does represent a possible apocalypse by fire, but why would she represent this as opposed to Aegon or the other dragon riding/hatching Targaryens.

My guess is that it revolves around Dany’s hatching of petrified eggs.  Waking stone dragons.  It appears to be one of the ancient Asshai mysteries concerning Azor Ahai.  I think it’s why Quaithe was urging Dany to go to Asshai (and yes, I think it’s fairly unambiguous that’s where she wanted Dany to go).  I think the Shadowbinders want to wake the thousands of petrified dragon eggs that lay in the Shadow outside of Asshai.  I think Dany is the key to that.

If you look at Bran’s coma vision, Bran sees the Free Cities, then the Dothraki Sea, than the cities on the Jade Sea.  Bran is basically following Dany’s path in Essos.  The vision ends in Asshai with dragons stirring beneath the sunrise.  

I think that is the ultimate threat that Dany represents.  Despite all the blood mages and shadow binders in Asshai they can’t hatch the petrified dragon eggs.  They ultimately need Dany.  Which is why I believe if Dany’s journey to Westeros doesn’t turn out how she anticipates, Quaithe’s urging for Dany to “remember who she is” may hit home.  I think Quaithe is urging Dany to remember her most important role, Mother of Dragons.  When Quaithe comes across Dany in Qarth, that’s the first question Quaithe asks of Dany, “are you the Mother of Dragons”?

When Dany comes to that realization, I think that’s when she truly becomes a threat.  Someone that can bring along an apocalypse by fire.

[Frey family reunion]

6 hours ago, Sandy Clegg said:

@Gilbert Green may not be right about the Rhaegar parentage, but I think the first half of his theory does have merit. Illyrio is a slaver. He sold Dany. That alone is enough to make us suspicious. Re-read Dany's first chapters through the lens of slavery rather than arranged marriage, and it lends a whole new eeriness to them. Which, to me, also give the theory merit. The books take on new meaning - and that's always a good thing. But for me, this is primarily a reason to be suspicious of Dany' origins and investigate further, not an automatic leap to 'daddy Rhaegar'. Sorry Gilbert. I just want to keep other options open

I agree.  While I think the idea that Dany may be a changeling for Viserys’ sister, someone who’s perceived worth was only that she could pass for a Targaryen Princess to be used as coin for Viserys to obtain an army, has merit, I’m wary of the soap opera aspects of making her the daughter of Rhaegar or Eddard or Brandon or fill in the blank.

My suspicion is that George’s obsession with brothels in the story may have an underlying purpose.  If one was trying to reunite bloodlines of people that could hatch and ride dragons, the easiest way to do this is through the brothels.  The bloodline of the last Targaryen dragon riders split off into House Velaryon, House Plumm, House Blackfyre, “House” Longwater etc.  It would be politically untenable to try to reunite these bloodlines through royal marriages.  However, it would be much easier to do so in the brothels frequented by these royals.  If I had to guess, that’s how Dany may have come about.  Someone’s attempt to reunite dragon bloodlines through the brothels.  (Marwyn seems a good suspect perhaps)