Your Unpopular ASOIAF Opinions/Hot Takes

[csuszka1948]

1 minute ago, sifth said:

You're reaching man, you're reaching. Listen, if you like the burning of the little girl............well that says more about you than it does about me. I'm just saying the possibility of that not happening also exists, given GRRM's track record of changing the faith of supporting characters. I hope we one day get to see what the original drafts for the other books were.

 

I like it as a twist, because it makes absolute sense considering what Stannis does and thinks and what is the natural endpoint of it. 

From the ACOK Prologue Shireen was set up to be burned to wake dragons ("dragons are coming to eat me"), he won't discard all this foreshadowing.

[sifth]

Just now, csuszka1948 said:

I like it as a twist, because it makes absolute sense considering what Stannis does and thinks and what is the natural endpoint of it. 

From the ACOK Prologue Shireen was set up to be burned to wake dragons ("dragons are coming to eat me"), he won't discard all this foreshadowing.

I'm the opposite. I think it was the beginning of us learning that D&D were hack frauds and was basically character assassination for Stannis. Which is why, I'm confident it wont happen in the books. I believe Stannis is doomed, don't get me wrong, I just think he'll die after kicking the Balton's ass.

[kissdbyfire]

8 minutes ago, sifth said:

I love how D&D ran right to, "George told us to do that", to try and shift all the blame away from themselves. Such cowards.

This. And disingenuous af since they said “that” (or this) which could mean the fact that Shireen will burn or that it will be Stannis who burns her.

[Annara Snow]

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

"It wasn't easy for me. I didn't want to give away my books. It's not easy to talk about the end of my books. Every character has a different end. I told them who would be on the Iron Throne, and I told them some big twists like Hodor and 'hold the door,' and Stannis's decision to burn his daughter. We didn't get to everybody by any means. Especially the minor characters, who may have very different endings."

Why are you quoting this at me? I never said that GRRM said D&D lied when they said they got that from him. I pointed out the fact that GRRM said on his blog he  had not written that and may not end up writing it at all. In other words, he may change that plan.

If you don't believe me, go back and look through 2015 posts on Not A Blog and replies to them.

[KingAerys_II]

The most Unpopular Opinion, that would trigger the Fandom is clearly Aegon Dream

[SeanBeanedMeUp]

The fact that Essos is shaped like a rectangle bothers me too much. Makes the continent feel less "real".

[csuszka1948]

3 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

The most Unpopular Opinion, that would trigger the Fandom is clearly Aegon Dream

 

Yes, at least it's the most unpopular opinion here, even though the showrunners admitted that the gist of it (not the exact details) came from GRRM and even Martin said that Aegon in some way foresaw that the Others will be a threat in the future.

Obviously, we can fault him for aspects of his conquest (especially Dorne, which was more about avenging Rhaenys than anything rational), but after the Targaryens were literally saved from the Doom of Valyria due to Daenys's dream, it's quite reasonable that they take such dreams very seriously.

[Craving Peaches]

14 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Martin said that Aegon in some way foresaw that the Others will be a threat in the future.

Where did he say this? And did he say that it would be in the books?

[csuszka1948]

 

Edited August 18 by csuszka1948

[csuszka1948]

21 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Where did he say this? And did he say that it would be in the books?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Aegon finally decided to take over Westeros, and unify the Seven Kingdoms (that existed at the time) under a single rule. There is a lot of speculation that, in some sense, he saw what was coming 300 years later, and wanted to unify the Seven Kingdoms to be better prepared for the threat that he eventually saw coming from the North – the threat that we’re dealing with in A Song of Ice and Fire.” –GRRM in Fir&Blood release video

plus a Forbes interview from the HOTD showrunners:

“That actually came from [Martin] … He told us very early on in the room — just as he does, just casually mentioned the fact that Aegon the Conqueror was a dreamer who saw a vision of the White Walkers coming across the wall and sweeping over the land with cold and darkness. So, with his permission, of course, we infused that into the story because it was such a great way to create resonance with the original show.”

and Vanity Fair interview (https://archive.ph/Cy50X#selection-1995.0-2059.470) with GRRM and Condal:

These are prophecies that ultimately played out as the climax of the original series. This show suggests that not only are they known by the Targaryens 200 years before, but they’ve been known for about a century.

Condal: I think they were very intrigued by that. A lot of them said I committed A Song of Ice and Fire heresy, but I did tell them: “That came from George.” I reassured everybody.

What is the significance of these prophecies, George? Unless I’ve missed it, is this something you wrote in one of the books, or is that an invention of the show?

Martin: It’s mentioned here and there—in connection with Prince Rhaegar, for example [the brother of Daenerys, played on Game of Thrones by Wilf Scolding]. I mean, it’s such a sprawling thing now. In the Dunk and Egg stories [about a future king, “Egg,” a.k.a. Aegon V], there’s one of Egg’s brothers who has these prophetic dreams, which of course he can’t handle. He had become a drunkard because they freaked him out. If you go all the way back to Daenys the Dreamer, why did she leave? She saw the Doom of Valyria coming. All of this is part of it, but I’m still two books away from the ending, so I haven’t fully explained it all yet.

Is one of the implications of this series that the Targaryens might’ve been better prepared for the doomsday prophecy if not for this Dance of Dragons civil war that decimated their family and stripped them of these powerful beasts?

Martin: I don’t want to give too much away, because some of this is going to be in the later books, but this is 200 years before the events of Game of Thrones. There was no sell-by date on that prophecy. That’s the issue. The Targaryens that know about it are all thinking, Okay, this is going to happen in my lifetime, I have to be prepared! Or, It’s going to happen in my son’s lifetime. Nobody said it’s going to happen 200 years from now. If the Dance of the Dragons had not happened, what would’ve happened to the next generation? What would’ve happened in the generation after that? Yeah, there’s a lot to be unwound there.

There is quite a lot of setup in the books as well - the mystery of the 3-headed dragon banner and the 3-heads of the dragon, the weirdness of Aegon marrying both his sisters, Targaryens dreaming that the dragons will return, Marwyn finding documentation of Daenys' visions and knowing about the prophecy that the Targaryens were aware of and Septon Barth (who is shown to be always right and the masters wrong, just like with Old Nan) claiming that the Targaryens came west to stop the doom of men.

Edited August 18 by csuszka1948

[KingAerys_II]

25 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

“Aegon finally decided to take over Westeros, and unify the Seven Kingdoms (that existed at the time) under a single rule. There is a lot of speculation that, in some sense, he saw what was coming 300 years later, and wanted to unify the Seven Kingdoms to be better prepared for the threat that he eventually saw coming from the North – the threat that we’re dealing with in A Song of Ice and Fire.” –GRRM in Fir&Blood release video

plus a Forbes interview from the HOTD showrunners:

“That actually came from [Martin] … He told us very early on in the room — just as he does, just casually mentioned the fact that Aegon the Conqueror was a dreamer who saw a vision of the White Walkers coming across the wall and sweeping over the land with cold and darkness. So, with his permission, of course, we infused that into the story because it was such a great way to create resonance with the original show.”

and Vanity Fair interview (https://archive.ph/Cy50X#selection-1995.0-2059.470) with GRRM and Condal:

These are prophecies that ultimately played out as the climax of the original series. This show suggests that not only are they known by the Targaryens 200 years before, but they’ve been known for about a century.

Condal: I think they were very intrigued by that. A lot of them said I committed A Song of Ice and Fire heresy, but I did tell them: “That came from George.” I reassured everybody.

What is the significance of these prophecies, George? Unless I’ve missed it, is this something you wrote in one of the books, or is that an invention of the show?

Martin: It’s mentioned here and there—in connection with Prince Rhaegar, for example [the brother of Daenerys, played on Game of Thrones by Wilf Scolding]. I mean, it’s such a sprawling thing now. In the Dunk and Egg stories [about a future king, “Egg,” a.k.a. Aegon V], there’s one of Egg’s brothers who has these prophetic dreams, which of course he can’t handle. He had become a drunkard because they freaked him out. If you go all the way back to Daenys the Dreamer, why did she leave? She saw the Doom of Valyria coming. All of this is part of it, but I’m still two books away from the ending, so I haven’t fully explained it all yet.

Is one of the implications of this series that the Targaryens might’ve been better prepared for the doomsday prophecy if not for this Dance of Dragons civil war that decimated their family and stripped them of these powerful beasts?

Martin: I don’t want to give too much away, because some of this is going to be in the later books, but this is 200 years before the events of Game of Thrones. There was no sell-by date on that prophecy. That’s the issue. The Targaryens that know about it are all thinking, Okay, this is going to happen in my lifetime, I have to be prepared! Or, It’s going to happen in my son’s lifetime. Nobody said it’s going to happen 200 years from now. If the Dance of the Dragons had not happened, what would’ve happened to the next generation? What would’ve happened in the generation after that? Yeah, there’s a lot to be unwound there.

There is quite a lot of setup in the books as well - the mystery of the 3-headed dragon banner and the 3-heads of the dragon, the weirdness of Aegon marrying both his sisters, Targaryens dreaming that the dragons will return, Marwyn finding documentation of Daenys' visions and knowing about the prophecy that the Targaryens were aware of and Septon Barth (who is shown to be always right and the masters wrong, just like with Old Nan) claiming that the Targaryens came west to stop the doom of men.

I think you should make a topic with this stuff 

[Alester Florent]

While there are probably people who hate the "Aegon's dream" business in and of itself, I think the mere idea that Aegon had a dragon dream that the Others were coming and that the Targaryens would play a crucial role in this conflict isn't particularly controversial. And it does offer an explanation for his conquest of Westeros, which previously there wasn't beyond "he felt like it".

I think there are two reasons it winds people up when mentioned round here. Firstly, it's presented as a justification for Aegon's actions, rather than merely a motive. There is a difference and that has been discussed at length previously with regard to multiple characters. We don't actually know the details of the dream - in HotD we were told that one existed, but not what it actually was. Did it really require Aegon to conquer the whole of Westeros, and in such a destructive fashion (particularly in Dorne)? He seemed to decide that it did only after the very non-prophetic event that was the mutilation of his envoy, which looks more like an impatient "I can't be bothered to work with these people" than anything else even if we accept the premise of the dream. Aegon may have had a reason for what he was doing beyond simple ambition and greed, but that doesn't in itself make him right.

Secondly, it isn't in the books. It may be in due course. But it's not. Until such a time as it appears in the books - any of the books - it remains a theory, not a fact, and the citing of it as if it's a done deal is the kind of "show creep" that the denizens of this board tend to take issue with.

[csuszka1948]

2 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

 

There is quite a lot of setup in the books as well - 

 

Also, this quote from Dany in AGOT shows that it has been probably always intended:

Ghosts lined the hallway, dressed in the faded raiment of kings. In their hands were swords of pale fire. They had hair of silver and hair of gold and hair of platinum white, and their eyes were opal and amethyst, tourmaline and jade. "Faster," they cried, "faster, faster." She raced, her feet melting the stone wherever they touched. "Faster!" the ghosts cried as one, and she screamed and threw herself forward. A great knife of pain ripped down her back, and she felt her skin tear open and smelled the stench of burning blood and saw the shadow of wings. And Daenerys Targaryen flew

.… wake the dragon …"

[Alester Florent]

35 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Also, this quote from Dany in AGOT shows that it has been probably always intended:

Ghosts lined the hallway, dressed in the faded raiment of kings. In their hands were swords of pale fire. They had hair of silver and hair of gold and hair of platinum white, and their eyes were opal and amethyst, tourmaline and jade. "Faster," they cried, "faster, faster." She raced, her feet melting the stone wherever they touched. "Faster!" the ghosts cried as one, and she screamed and threw herself forward. A great knife of pain ripped down her back, and she felt her skin tear open and smelled the stench of burning blood and saw the shadow of wings. And Daenerys Targaryen flew

.… wake the dragon …"

Yeah, I'm 90% convinced that it will be revealed that Aegon was acting following a dragon dream in the books as well. Until such revelation, though, I think it's moderately important to keep it in the "probably" pile alongside R+L=J, Jon not being permadead, etc. rather than the "unqualified truth" pile.

I think it's also worth noting that from what we know of prophecies in ASoIaF, they are symbolic and open to interpretation. In the D&E books we get two instances of dragon dreams described to us, and both are misinterpreted by the dreamer and those they describe them to: in one case, a dragon is seen dead lying on top of Dunk, and this is interpreted as Dunk killing a member of the Targs (Daeron believes it to be himself). In fact, the dream refers to the death of Baelor Breakspear, who collapses on top of Dunk having sustained a fatal injury at the hands of his brother.

In a later example, Daemon Blackfyre dreams of a dragon emerging from Whitewalls, and believes it to be himself, casting off his disguise and taking his place as rightful king/claimant. At the story's conclusion, Bloodraven says that in fact the prophecy seems to have referred to the triumph of Prince Aegon, who exposes the plot. 

Elsewhere, Mel fervently believes  that Stannis is Azor Ahai reborn, on the basis of a vision, and acts on that basis. It seems very likely that she is wrong, and even she seems to be wondering whether she got it wrong now. Mel sees Renly defeating Stannis outside King's Landing, so Stannis kills Renly to prevent this... but in fact the "Renly" in Mel's vision was Garlan Tyrell, and the defeat happens anyway. Dany sees a vision of what she believes to be an adult Rhaego, but either she or the visions must be wrong there, for obvious reasons. Cersei assumed on the basis of Maggy the Frog's prophecy that she would marry Rhaegar after his accession to the throne, which was wrong. Not apparently getting the message, she continues to justify many of her actions to herself on the basis of a prophecy about the "younger and more beautiful" woman and the valonqar, and she may well have got the identity of each wrong (almost certainly in the former case, probably about 50/50 in the latter). 

I'm actually struggling to think of any prophecy in the series that has proven to be interpreted correctly by those relying on it. Daenys's historic prophecy about the Doom seems to be almost unique in this regard. 

So even if Aegon had a dragon dream (and assuming too that it was his dream and not that of his father or one of his sisters) there's always a chance that he misinterpreted it and that the actions he took in reliance on it were therefore similarly misguided at least to some extent. Chances are, based on what we can surmise of the prophecy, he saw a dragon with three heads fighting a great evil, and determined that this referred to himself and his sisters, or failing that to three Targaryens of the future. He may well have been wrong in that interpretation; indeed, given the general trend of prophecies in the series, he probably was. 

[SaffronLady]

35 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

I'm actually struggling to think of any prophecy in the series that has proven to be interpreted correctly by those relying on it. Daenys's historic prophecy about the Doom seems to be almost unique in this regard. 

Probably because the Doom was partly a geological event, and even in prophecies these are unlikely to be interpreted wrong.

[BlackLightning]

 

On 8/16/2023 at 9:20 AM, sifth said:

I'm the opposite. I think it was the beginning of us learning that D&D were hack frauds and was basically character assassination for Stannis. Which is why, I'm confident it wont happen in the books. I believe Stannis is doomed, don't get me wrong, I just think he'll die after kicking Bolton ass.

Agreed.

 

[BlackLightning]

The family trees of the Great Houses at the start of the series are too small. To be specific, there aren't enough Starks or Targaryens

The Lannisters and the Tyrells are a huge family network. The Starks start off the series with two male adults (one being in the Watch) and six children with one of the six which being half-Stark. The Arryns start off the series with one adult and one child. There's no reason why Hoster Tully only has one sibling.

To be honest, the Targaryen royal family should be a lot larger. Aegon I and Rhaenys should've had another child, the descendants of Saera should be a lot more prominent, the children of Gael and Alyssa should've survived, Rhaenyra should've had a younger sister, Maekar and Aegon V should've had more children, 

Like when I read any of the material, I feel like that there should be a whole cadet branch of the family. Like the absence of the descendants of Saera and Gael are odd and Alyssa could've definitely given birth to another child before her death. It becomes really weird at the time of Robert's Rebellion. I feel like there should've been one cadet branch of the Targaryen family that isn't based out of Dragonstone or King's Landing.

[Alester Florent]

7 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

The family trees of the Great Houses at the start of the series are too small. To be specific, there aren't enough Starks or Targaryens

The Lannisters and the Tyrells are a huge family network. The Starks start off the series with two male adults (one being in the Watch) and six children with one of the six which being half-Stark. The Arryns start off the series with one adult and one child. There's no reason why Hoster Tully only has one sibling.

To be honest, the Targaryen royal family should be a lot larger. Aegon I and Rhaenys should've had another child, the descendants of Saera should be a lot more prominent, the children of Gael and Alyssa should've survived, Rhaenyra should've had a younger sister, Maekar and Aegon V should've had more children, 

Like when I read any of the material, I feel like that there should be a whole cadet branch of the family. Like the absence of the descendants of Saera and Gael are odd and Alyssa could've definitely given birth to another child before her death. It becomes really weird at the time of Robert's Rebellion. I feel like there should've been one cadet branch of the Targaryen family that isn't based out of Dragonstone or King's Landing.

I've done a fair bit of genealogical research in my time and one of the oddities is that you seem to relatively rarely get "medium-sized" families. Either they sprawl hugely or they stay narrow and die out. There is probably a mathematical explanation for this: I suspect part of it is that there's a tipping-point where if a family expands beyond it it becomes functionally immune to attrition but if it can't reach that critical point it remains vulnerable to occasional calamities eliminating large portions of its stock.

Sometimes families just seem to plateau or wither. William I of England had four sons who lived to adulthood, three of whom survived him, and not one surviving male-line grandchild.

Edward III had five sons who made it to adulthood, and five legitimate male-line grandsons (as well as three legitimised ones). Those five produced five more in turn, who produced another five, who produced four, and none of them produced any. The legitimised line fared similarly poorly: of the initial three, they managed to up the number to four in the next generation, who managed another three or four between them (the existence of the fourth is debated), and then none. The Plantagenet family had 13 male members in 1397. By 1499, just over a hundred years later, it was extinct in the male line, as was its legitimised cadet branch.

Of course, the leading cause of death for members of the Plantagenet and Beaufort families during this period was other members of the Plantagenet and Beaufort families. When it comes to noble families in particular, squabbles over successions can claim a lot of lives and rapidly prune branches. For that reason, noble families often like to do a bit of self-pruning and send younger siblings to places where they won't produce children (this is what eventually polished off the royal Stuarts, with their last member being a priest). The Watch and the Kingsguard, and in some cases the Faith and Citadel, may have absorbed a number of would-be founders of cadet branches over the years. Among the Targs, the Kingsguard claimed one; the Faith one (Baelor) and the Citadel two. Bloodraven probably wasn't going to have any kids by the time he went to the Wall, but the prospect of his doing so was ended when he did.

The Targs seem to have hit this critical mass point twice. The first was in the reign of Viserys I, which was apparently the numerical peak of the Targaryen dynasty (according to the World of Ice and Fire; I think they matched his reign in numbers under Daeron II, and certainly had more male members at that time). That edition of the family was destroyed by civil war between branches of the family, and although four Targs survived the Dance (I'm counting Jaehaera as a casualty), only two of them were male and able to continue the family name.
At the height of Daeron II's reign in c.208, there were twelve living male Targs, but a combination of plague, accident, misadventure and indifference whittled them down to low single figures by 221.

Other potential expansions were cut off too. Aenys had three sons, and a brother. The brother killed two of those sons and was infertile himself. Summerhall killed off any prospect of a Duncan-originated cadet branch. The chance of another expansion by the descendants of Aerys II was eliminated by Robert's rebellion and what followed.

IRL, even being around for a long time doesn't necessarily ensure permanence. The Habsburgs got started around 1100, so you'd have thought that by 1700 they'd have built up a healthy bench of reserve members. In fact they were down to two, and were extinct in the male line by 1740.

Something else I guess worth noting is that "families" of this kind don't go back to a Y-chromosomal Adam, but rather to a specific, identifiable member. Female lines are also largely disregarded, since they don't (under usual circumstances) continue the name.

What seems most unrealistic to me is that there are families of this antiquity who've preserved the same name at all. There are, I think, three noble/royal families in the world who can make a vaguely credible claim to ancestry going back two thousand years (the Solomonic dynasty of Ethiopia, the Bagrationi of Georgia, and the Imperial house of Japan). The thousand-year-club is a bit better populated, including the Capetians (who, if actually a cadet branch of the Merovingians as is possible but unlikely, can claim 1600 years), the Welfs, the Wettins, the Lorrainers, the Reginarids, etc. Although none of them actually go by those names in their current guises. But the dozens if not hundreds of ancient families in Westeros seem largely fantastical.

With all of that said, there is a Stark cadet branch, which is both a legitimate and a reasonably numerous one: the Karstarks. There may be others who just aren't relevant to the story, in the same way that the Arryns of Gulltown or the Lannisters of Lannisport aren't.

Likewise, there was until recently a Targaryen cadet branch, albeit, thanks to their actions, not one anyone sensible would call such: the Blackfyres.

Edited August 19 by Alester Florent

[Loose Bolt]

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

What seems most unrealistic to me is that there are families of this antiquity who've preserved the same name at all.

I assume that major reason why certain names are still used is that those names had become brands long time ago. Or when some victorious warlord had wiped out are males of previous ruling Stark dynasty he just started to use name Stark. So actually Starks and also other ancient "families" like Arryns and Lannisters really belong as many dynasties as pharaohs of ancient Egypt.

[KingAerys_II]

On 8/18/2023 at 2:13 PM, csuszka1948 said:

“Aegon finally decided to take over Westeros, and unify the Seven Kingdoms (that existed at the time) under a single rule. There is a lot of speculation that, in some sense, he saw what was coming 300 years later, and wanted to unify the Seven Kingdoms to be better prepared for the threat that he eventually saw coming from the North – the threat that we’re dealing with in A Song of Ice and Fire.” –GRRM in Fir&Blood release video

plus a Forbes interview from the HOTD showrunners:

“That actually came from [Martin] … He told us very early on in the room — just as he does, just casually mentioned the fact that Aegon the Conqueror was a dreamer who saw a vision of the White Walkers coming across the wall and sweeping over the land with cold and darkness. So, with his permission, of course, we infused that into the story because it was such a great way to create resonance with the original show.”

and Vanity Fair interview (https://archive.ph/Cy50X#selection-1995.0-2059.470) with GRRM and Condal:

These are prophecies that ultimately played out as the climax of the original series. This show suggests that not only are they known by the Targaryens 200 years before, but they’ve been known for about a century.

Condal: I think they were very intrigued by that. A lot of them said I committed A Song of Ice and Fire heresy, but I did tell them: “That came from George.” I reassured everybody.

What is the significance of these prophecies, George? Unless I’ve missed it, is this something you wrote in one of the books, or is that an invention of the show?

Martin: It’s mentioned here and there—in connection with Prince Rhaegar, for example [the brother of Daenerys, played on Game of Thrones by Wilf Scolding]. I mean, it’s such a sprawling thing now. In the Dunk and Egg stories [about a future king, “Egg,” a.k.a. Aegon V], there’s one of Egg’s brothers who has these prophetic dreams, which of course he can’t handle. He had become a drunkard because they freaked him out. If you go all the way back to Daenys the Dreamer, why did she leave? She saw the Doom of Valyria coming. All of this is part of it, but I’m still two books away from the ending, so I haven’t fully explained it all yet.

Is one of the implications of this series that the Targaryens might’ve been better prepared for the doomsday prophecy if not for this Dance of Dragons civil war that decimated their family and stripped them of these powerful beasts?

Martin: I don’t want to give too much away, because some of this is going to be in the later books, but this is 200 years before the events of Game of Thrones. There was no sell-by date on that prophecy. That’s the issue. The Targaryens that know about it are all thinking, Okay, this is going to happen in my lifetime, I have to be prepared! Or, It’s going to happen in my son’s lifetime. Nobody said it’s going to happen 200 years from now. If the Dance of the Dragons had not happened, what would’ve happened to the next generation? What would’ve happened in the generation after that? Yeah, there’s a lot to be unwound there.

There is quite a lot of setup in the books as well - the mystery of the 3-headed dragon banner and the 3-heads of the dragon, the weirdness of Aegon marrying both his sisters, Targaryens dreaming that the dragons will return, Marwyn finding documentation of Daenys' visions and knowing about the prophecy that the Targaryens were aware of and Septon Barth (who is shown to be always right and the masters wrong, just like with Old Nan) claiming that the Targaryens came west to stop the doom of men.

I think it's enough to consider Aegon Dream as canonic