Who is the valonquar?

[alguien]

[quote name='Seth' post='1322202' date='Apr 21 2008, 00.09']It would not matter if Jaime's hand could hold a goblet or not, a lot of people seem to be laboring under the misconception that strangulation has to be done with the hands clasped around the throat in a 1940's Price Film-fashion. All that necessitates a strangulation is blocking or applying pressure to the throat and/or larynx.

A golden hand could easily be pressed against the larynx to choke the life out of someone. Also worth noting are various choke/strangle holds utilizing the crook of the arm, and being held with the other arm.[/quote]

Yes, but as EB pointed out, a choke hold such as the Sleeper is not wrapping your hands around someone's throat, something that is impossible for Jaime to do.

If its metaphorical as you say in a later post, then I would expect her to die from Jaime's indifference or poison more readily than clumsy applied pressure to her throat.

But the exactness of the words leads me to doubt its metaphorical. The only way for Jaime to do it as the foretelling dictates is (and this is my favorite pet theory) using the Hand's chain necklace.

[DocBean]

There was a line that I just read in Storm of Swords where Jaime said something to the effect that when he gets back to Kings Landing he was going to have a Hand of Gold made, and he would use it to Strangle someone - I think it was the Goat, but I don't remember.

I don't know where it was in the book, and don't remember it exactly, but I started thinking Jaime at least thinks it will be possible to strangle someone with a golden hand.

[DocBean]

[quote name='DocBean' post='1328077' date='Apr 24 2008, 10.31']There was a line that I just read in Storm of Swords where Jaime said something to the effect that when he gets back to Kings Landing he was going to have a Hand of Gold made, and he would use it to Strangle someone - I think it was the Goat, but I don't remember.

I don't know where it was in the book, and don't remember it exactly, but I started thinking Jaime at least thinks it will be possible to strangle someone with a golden hand.[/quote]

It was the 4th Jaime Chapter, when he saves Brienne from being raped. I think it was before he met Qyburn, but might have been after. Does anyone have an online version they can quote?

[back_packn]

[quote name='DocBean' post='1328086' date='Apr 24 2008, 10.40']It was the 4th Jaime Chapter, when he saves Brienne from being raped. I think it was before he met Qyburn, but might have been after. Does anyone have an online version they can quote?[/quote]

The passage you are thinking of is:
[quote]When I reach King's Landing, I'll have a new hand forged, a golden hand, and one day I'll use it to rip out Vargo Hoat's throat.[/quote]

[quote name='DocBean' post='1328077' date='Apr 24 2008, 10.31']and he would use it to Strangle someone..
I don't know where it was in the book, and don't remember it exactly, but I started thinking Jaime at least thinks it will be possible to strangle someone with a golden hand.[/quote]
You might also be mixing the above passage with another, when Qyburn tells Jaime he'll have to remove his arm, Jaime tells Qyburn that if he does, he better remove the good one as well, else Jaime will strangle him with it. (That's when he actually used the term "strangle".)

[DocBean]

that's exactly it, thanks.

so there is an example where GRRM threw in that Jaime thinks he can strangle someone with one hand, or even rip a throat out with the golden hand.
Granted, I doubt he actually thinks he can do it, especially once he really gets the golden hand and realizes how useless it is.

I just think it's odd that GRRM would throw those two lines in there at a point when we know nothing about Maggy's prophecy, but he obviously did.
Maybe it's not foreshadowing, but I think it's a way to make the reader think it's possible that he can kill with his bare... hand(s).

[WinterRyan]

Not only do I believe Jamie will Kill her, I feel he will also say "Aww, the Things I do for Love" while he does it

[AHackeySackOfIceAndFire]

I don't understand why it would be so hard to strangle someone with one hand, even a static, golden one. if you can lean your weight against the person and use a wall or bed or table as leverage, it would be rather simple to accomplish.

furthermore, as Albus Dumbledore might say--
You put too much stake in the prophecy.

no one but Martin himself has any idea exactly how much detail the prophecy gives accurately. the strangling may very well be a total metaphor. who knows, maybe there's not one valonqar at all, but its rather a series of younger brothers who all contribute to her downfall generally.
and say there is one valonqar. perhaps he traps her, and she feels like she's choking politically or like she's otherwise constrained.

i enjoy idle speculation of the valonqar's identity as much as the next person, but i think speaking of the prophecy as if it is a specific set of rules rather than a loose sketch is, imho, somewhat foolish.

[alguien]

[quote name='AHackeySackOfIceAndFire' post='1332565' date='Apr 28 2008, 17.24']I don't understand why it would be so hard to strangle someone with one hand, even a static, golden one. if you can lean your weight against the person and use a wall or bed or table as leverage, it would be rather simple to accomplish.

furthermore, as Albus Dumbledore might say--
You put too much stake in the prophecy.

no one but Martin himself has any idea exactly how much detail the prophecy gives accurately. the strangling may very well be a total metaphor. who knows, maybe there's not one valonqar at all, but its rather a series of younger brothers who all contribute to her downfall generally.
and say there is one valonqar. perhaps he traps her, and she feels like she's choking politically or like she's otherwise constrained.

i enjoy idle speculation of the valonqar's identity as much as the next person, but i think speaking of the prophecy as if it is a specific set of rules rather than a loose sketch is, imho, somewhat foolish.[/quote]

I think the reason there's been debate about the specifics of wording is that the thread itself is about a wording-specific prophecy.

Valonquar. Its one of the mysteries throughout AFFC of what it means. The very nature of this debate is about how specific it is. And when speaking of something with such precise wording ("the" valonquar as opposed to "your" valonquar) and what light it sheds on identity begs to question other wording as well.

Dumbledore's point (which by the way, is grossly miss-applied in your argument--he's speaking about freedom and choice, not at all about wording) is correct . I don't think a prophecy necesarrily has to come true. You always have a choice.

But, if we're talking about who the valonquar might be, and we're looking at the way the prophecy was worded, I don't think its foolish at all to bring up that Jaime is possibly incapable of literally wrapping his hands around someone's neck.

I think the whole thing could be metaphorical. But if we're going to get specific, than what's wrong with that. :dunno:

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='DocBean' post='1328251' date='Apr 24 2008, 12.24']Granted, I doubt he actually thinks he can do it, especially once he really gets the golden hand and realizes how useless it is.[/quote]
It's not completely useless as a weapon. Ask Red Ronnet Connington.

[Ned Sand]

[quote name='Nadie' post='1332594' date='Apr 28 2008, 17.49']I don't think a prophecy necesarrily has to come true. You always have a choice.[/quote]Whether there is any fate but what we make varies by author. The question for us is, "Does GRRM intend that the aSoIaF prophecies are unavoidable and/or must be fulfilled literally?"

From what I've seen, it appears to me that aSoIaF prophecies are unavoidable. However, they seem to accept great latitude in their fulfillment. Sure, Dany was born amidst salt and smoke, but if those dragons are a magic sword, then I am the Hand of the King.

[alguien]

[quote name='Ned Sand' post='1333790' date='Apr 29 2008, 12.36']From what I've seen, it appears to me that aSoIaF prophecies are unavoidable. However, they seem to accept great latitude in their fulfillment. Sure, Dany was born amidst salt and smoke, but if those dragons are a magic sword, then I am the Hand of the King.[/quote]

I disagree with your assessment that they're unavoidable. Look at the Stallion who Mounts the World. That prophecy was crushed. I guess you could say Dany's dragon's are the Stallion(s), but that just seems off. Another possible thwarted foretelling is perhaps the vision she had of the stone dragons was a possibility that Stannis was going to wake them, but Davos thwarted that future by sending away Edric Storm.

I think part of the reason they get fulfilled is that there is so much ambiguity there. Much like Nostradamus in our own world or horoscopes, you can use predictions to interpret different events. As Marwyn says, it'll bite you in the end, especially if you think you know what it means.

Personally, I think that prophecy in ASOIAF is meant ot portray potential futures, much in the way the mirror of Galadriel does in LOTR.

I also think the more you obsess over prophecy and try to avoid it, the more you let it control your life and it becomes unavoidable, a la Cersei.

Honestly, I don't see GRRM having a theme that you can't avoid fate, but I could be wrong.

[Hodorous]

Writing Jaime as Cersei's valonquar-strangler is just soooo perfect. Honestly, before I came to this site I had never even considered this possibility.

I'm actually a little disappointed that this won't surprise me now. This would have been one of those poetic moments where you just have to stop reading and smile... Not shockingly depressing scenes like Eddard's death and the Red Wedding (where I threw the damn book across the room). Rather, it'd be like Joff's wedding day surprise all over again.

[Ned Sand]

[quote name='Nadie' post='1333915' date='Apr 29 2008, 13.51']I disagree with your assessment that they're unavoidable. Look at the Stallion who Mounts the World. That prophecy was crushed. I guess you could say Dany's dragon's are the Stallion(s), but that just seems off. Another possible thwarted foretelling is perhaps the vision she had of the stone dragons was a possibility that Stannis was going to wake them, but Davos thwarted that future by sending away Edric Storm. . . .

Personally, I think that prophecy in ASOIAF is meant ot portray potential futures, . . .[/quote]Wow. Great post. I think you've changed my mind. I'd forgotten the stallion who mounts the world. I wonder it it's Dany who will mount the world.

[DocBean]

[quote name='Hodorous' post='1333956' date='Apr 29 2008, 13.14']Writing Jaime as Cersei's valonquar-strangler is just soooo perfect. Honestly, before I came to this site I had never even considered this possibility.

I'm actually a little disappointed that this won't surprise me now. This would have been one of those poetic moments where you just have to stop reading and smile... Not shockingly depressing scenes like Eddard's death and the Red Wedding (where I threw the damn book across the room). Rather, it'd be like Joff's wedding day surprise all over again.[/quote]

Ah, Hodoruous you've just pointed out the very reason why i think Forums like this are the end of any new great Fantacy Series. Or at least a Barrier.
All the stuff that's just been hinted at is jumped on by some smart reader then it takes wing and before the next book is out everyone knows what's about to happen.

I read about most things in Feast For Crows before actually reading the book, and it pretty much ruined all the big surprises for me.

With all that said, here I am in a Forum, discussing my own and other peoples theories.
I can claim that I came up with R + L = J theory on my own though.

[valyrian dragonlord]

A: how do plurals work in (what language did maggie use). possibly (crazy theory alert) it could be many peple

B: alarm!!!alarm!!! why didn't any one see this: hand[i]s[/i]!
this probably refers to the chain of hands the hand wears.
but since tyrion killed shae like that GRRM probably won't do it.

[alguien]

[quote name='valyrian dragonlord' post='1335480' date='Apr 30 2008, 11.12']A

B: alarm!!!alarm!!! why didn't any one see this: hand[i]s[/i]!
this probably refers to the chain of hands the hand wears.
but since tyrion killed shae like that GRRM probably won't do it.[/quote]

A. she says "the" valonquar and so unless its a band of little brothers (I guess the the BwoB could apply--but that seems weak to me), I'm pretty sure that its in the singular. Plural valonquar would probably have a different ending, such as valonquari or some such thing. The balance of probability is that its singular.

B. Yeah, I came up with that theory earlier on this thread. I think its a possibility, but someone else wondered if GRRM would use it twice. I do see it as being kinda eloquently used if Jaime was the one to do the deed.

[AvengingAryaFan]

[quote name='Nadie' post='1333915' date='Apr 29 2008, 10.51']I disagree with your assessment that they're unavoidable. Look at the Stallion who Mounts the World. That prophecy was crushed.
...[/quote]
Maggy's prophecies about Cersei and Melara have come precisely, literally true in many respects. "Will the king and I have children?" she asked. "Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you." Now [i]that's[/i] precision!

Who says the crones of Vaes Dothrak are real phophet(esse)s? The Stallion That Mounts the World seems to have been an old Dothraki prophecy, and my sense is that the crones frequently predicted it ... sort of like Bullwinkle: "This time for sure!" The quality of prophecies is likely to vary, so the invalidity of one "prophecy" doesn't render all other prophecies invalid. Or, not all who claim to be are prophets. OTOH, Maegi bloodmagic is generally considered quite powerful, and Maggy's prophecy in particular has already been substantially, literally fulfilled.

[WinterRyan]

[quote name='AvengingAryaFan' post='1337017' date='May 1 2008, 05.55']Maggy's prophecies about Cersei and Melara have come precisely, literally true in many respects. "Will the king and I have children?" she asked. "Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you." Now [i]that's[/i] precision![/quote]


I think you actually make a point that prophecies can have [u]some[/u] truth to it "Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you" we are never given (That I caught) the exact number of Roberts Bastard children, so perhaps she was [i]partially[/i] right.

And if she is only partially right, nearly everything discussed could come true...

I tend to fall into the partially right and Cersei has made more of it come true by her actions...

Clearly the debate hinges upon how accurate GRRM makes his prophesies, I think he is more of a realist in this manner though, and that like all good lies, rumors, and stories a sliver of truth makes it more appealing. Not to mention look how much fun he has given us by this!

[Ned Sand]

[quote name='AvengingAryaFan' post='1337017' date='May 1 2008, 05.55']Maggy's prophecies about Cersei and Melara have come precisely, literally true in many respects. "Will the king and I have children?" she asked. "Oh, aye. Six-and-ten for him, and three for you." Now [i]that's[/i] precision![/quote]I've liked this high-ish number, 16, since I read it. It's so high that we are starting to understand that we'll never find all those kids. Edric, Bella, Barra, Gendry, the twins at Casterly Rock, Mya, . . . That leaves 9 more. Cersei may have killed some of these, but she probably didn't find them all. Robert probably didn't know about many of them. There may even be some of the mothers who didn't figure out who the father of that child was -- too many partners or just too ignorant of politics to ID King Robert.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='AvengingAryaFan' post='1337017' date='May 1 2008, 05.55']The Stallion That Mounts the World seems to have been an old Dothraki prophecy, and my sense is that the crones frequently predicted it ... sort of like Bullwinkle: "This time for sure!"[/quote]
Is your impression that tStMtW is an old prophecy based on a specific passage in the text?