Duskfire Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Does the cloth dragon imply he is false though? I always thought it meant that he had been used and manipulated by others.I just dont see why Varys would set up a false dragon when he had two real dragons at hand. Granted Viserys was obviously completely insane, but Dany wasn't. Why not focus attentions on her, rather then this fake Aegon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Does the cloth dragon imply he is false though? I always thought it meant that he had been used and manipulated by others.I just dont see why Varys would set up a false dragon when he had two real dragons at hand. Granted Viserys was obviously completely insane, but Dany wasn't. Why not focus attentions on her, rather then this fake Aegon.The cloth dragon is a fake dragon. Yeah, it does kind of imply that it refers to a fake dragon.Varys doesn't want any old Targaryen on the throne, he wants a king built specifically to his own specifications. Dany was a completely unknown quantity and female to boot. Most of Westeros is very patriarchal, a male heir to the throne just makes things easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
variance Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The cloth dragon is a fake dragon. Yeah, it does kind of imply that it refers to a fake dragon.No it doesn't. The point of a 'cloth dragon' is that it means it is a puppet. Prophecies are abstract. Do you think it is a literal blue rose in a wall of ice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duskfire Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 No it doesn't. The point of a 'cloth dragon' is that it means it is a puppet. Prophecies are abstract. Do you think it is a literal blue rose in a wall of ice?Yeah thats what I assumed it was. A puppet. Which describes Aegon to a T. Especially since he is a puppet of a Mummer. And even if Varys isnt one by trade now, he still behaves as one with his acting and sneaking about and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
variance Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Yeah thats what I assumed it was. A puppet. Which describes Aegon to a T. Especially since he is a puppet of a Mummer. And even if Varys isnt one by trade now, he still behaves as one with his acting and sneaking about and whatnot.The problem is, it also describe Dany. She is controlled by those around her as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 No it doesn't. The point of a 'cloth dragon' is that it means it is a puppet. Yes, but mummer's dragons aren't just puppets, they're used to play the role of dragons in performances. "Playing a role" implies pretending to be something you're not. Now add in the "slayer of lies" line, and it seems perfectly clear to me that Aegon will turn out to be fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 No it doesn't. The point of a 'cloth dragon' is that it means it is a puppet. Prophecies are abstract. Do you think it is a literal blue rose in a wall of ice?And puppets are not alive, not real in the same way that people or living animals are. Puppets are copies of living beings that can be moved by the puppeteer in order to make them seem more like the real thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
variance Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Again, prophecies are abstract. I don't get why people don't understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Again, prophecies are abstract. I don't get why people don't understand this.Sure they are. Dany's vision is unlikely to refer to a particularly popular mummers' show, it's more likely to refer to someone pretending to be a Targaryen.If on the other hand it was referring to a hidden Targaryen heir, the dragon in the vision would be a real dragon, not medieval SFX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Again, prophecies are abstract. I don't get why people don't understand this.The fact that prophecies are abstract can support both theories. Jon AS is not saying that Aegon is literally made of cloth, nor am I saying that Aegon is literally performing in a show. Likewise, you are not saying that Aegon is literally being controlled by strings. We are all drawing metaphorical conclusions about Aegon using the concrete characteristics of the mummer's dragon as seen in the House of the Undying. So please, quit it with the patronizing attitude.EDIT--Also, this topic really needs to be merged with the "Young Griff 2" thread. How do you alert a mod that a topic ought to be merged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
variance Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The fact that prophecies are abstract can support both theories. Jon AS is not saying that Aegon is literally made of cloth, nor am I saying that Aegon is literally performing in a show. Likewise, you are not saying that Aegon is literally being controlled by strings. We are all drawing metaphorical conclusions about Aegon using the concrete characteristics of the mummer's dragon as seen in the House of the Undying. So please, quit it with the patronizing attitude.EDIT--Also, this topic really needs to be merged with the "Young Griff 2" thread. How do you alert a mod that a topic ought to be merged?According to Dany, her brother wasn't a real dragon because he got burned. That doesn't mean he wasn't a Targayren and heir to their dynasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duskfire Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 And puppets are not alive, not real in the same way that people or living animals are. Puppets are copies of living beings that can be moved by the puppeteer in order to make them seem more like the real thing.Not neccessarily. In the context of actual puppets sure, but in context of people many have been described as pulling the strings of another. In the case of Ageon being real, it essentially means since being young his fate has been controlled and manipulated by Varys and Illyrio, in essence they are his puppetmasters. Doesnt mean he himself is fake.I guess this could go around and around :P I for one think he is real, mostly because of the context of the story. But it could go either way I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The thing is - the eventual appearance of "Aegon" was inevitable. Basically, you have the perfect set-up for a pretender to the throne: the heir to the throne is murdered as an infant and murdered in such a way that he is unrecognizable. This is too good an opportunity to pass up. Someone is going to seize on it and claim that the babies were switched and that the heir to the throne is alive and well. The pretender to the throne who claims to be descended from the true king is both a standard device in fiction and something that happened in European history over and over again. Some posters have claimed that "Aegon" is an unbelievable plot device. On the contrary, this is one of the more realistic events in the series. This kind of thing happened all the time. If Aegon didn't exist (as a real baby switcheroo), he would have to be invented. And so he was. Cooked up by Varys and Illyrio. As Rhaegar's BFF, Jon Connington (who is "conned" into believing this story) is the perfect straight man to make people believe in the mummer's dragon.And "mummer's dragon" absolutely means fake, no matter how you slice it. The "mummer's dragon means Varys's dragon" reading is clever, but it doesn't get around the fact that mummer's dragon also clearly implies fake dragon. And it doesn't get around the fact that you wouldn't refer to the true heir to the throne with a phrase as dismissive as "mummer's dragon." I also think it significant that both times we get the big reveal about Young Griff's true identity (first to Tyrion and then to the Golden Company), it's completely anti-climactic. The question is what are Varys and Illyrio up to. And why is the Golden Company supporting the wrong side of the Targaryen coin (from their perspective)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The question is what are Varys and Illyrio up to. And why is the Golden Company supporting the wrong side of the Targaryen coin (from their perspective)?For the first part I'm leaning towards agreeing with Ran's reading: "Aegon" (which may very well be his real name) is Illyrio's son.For the second: the Blackfyre line is, for all intents and purposes, extinct. The Golden Company can no longer put Daemon's rightful heir on the throne, but they are still a bunch of exiles (and the descendents of exiles) who want to go home. So why not support "Aegon"? After all, the Targaryens would now be the rightful kings of Westeros even in the eyes of die-hard Blackfyre supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j52y Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Guys, "mummer's dragon" is only the words Jorah put on Dany's vision. We do have the vision, it's in the "slayer of lies" triplet:Glowing like sunset, a red sword was raised in the hand of a blue-eyed king who cast no shadow. A cloth dragon swayed on poles amidst a cheering crowd. From a smoking tower, a great stone beast took wing, breathing shadow fire.... mother of dragons, slayer of lies...From that point, it has been obvious a fake Aegon would pop up, and be unmasked by Dany. (By the same token, Stannis will be proved to be no AA by Dany, no idea who is the stone beast, maybe Melisandre's concept of making stone dragons)You know, this prophecy really seems more like Stannis to me. Blue-eyed king who casts no shadow? Definitely Stannis. And I think that the rest of the prophecy is referencing an event that hasn't happened yet, but shadow fire sounds like something Melisandre would have. Perhaps the lie that she slays is Stannis's, not Aegon's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 You know, this prophecy really seems more like Stannis to me. Blue-eyed king who casts no shadow? Definitely Stannis. And I think that the rest of the prophecy is referencing an event that hasn't happened yet, but shadow fire sounds like something Melisandre would have. Perhaps the lie that she slays is Stannis's, not Aegon's.The other prophecies tend to reference three different people grouped together. So the blue-eyed king is obviously Stannis, but he is not the same as the cloth dragon or the stone beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 According to Dany, her brother wasn't a real dragon because he got burned. That doesn't mean he wasn't a Targayren and heir to their dynasty. Exactly. Even if we agree that a mummer´s dragon is a fake dragon, I´m not certain that every Targaryen counts as a "true" dragon. Dany was the only Targaryen in the present who was able to birth dragons. So, even if Young Griff IS a Targaryen, he might be a "fake dragon". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voodooqueen126 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 For the first part I'm leaning towards agreeing with Ran's reading: "Aegon" (which may very well be his real name) is Illyrio's son.For the second: the Blackfyre line is, for all intents and purposes, extinct. The Golden Company can no longer put Daemon's rightful heir on the throne, but they are still a bunch of exiles (and the descendents of exiles) who want to go home. So why not support "Aegon"? After all, the Targaryens would now be the rightful kings of Westeros even in the eyes of die-hard Blackfyre supporters.Hence the very popular "Serra was a Blackfyre descendant" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Hence the very popular "Serra was a Blackfyre descendant"Except that Varys and Illyrio can't really tell anyone that, if it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felice Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Nah Quaithe says specifically mummer's dragon: “No. Hear me, Daenerys Targaryen. The glass candles are burning. Soon comes the pale mare, and after her the others. Kraken and dark flame, lion and griffin, the sun’s son and the mummer’s dragon.Except the griffin and the mummer's dragon didn't come, they changed their minds and went to Westeros instead. Did Tyrion invalidate Quaithe's prophecy, or does becoming major players on the other side of the world qualify as "coming"? The other five all showed up at Mereen, or are fast approaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.