jack merridew Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I thought the Mummers dragon was someone pretending not to be a dragon. not someone pretending to be a dragon who actually isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popinjay 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)Interesting that the tower is smoking. Could the stone beast be Jon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
variance Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Interesting that the tower is smoking. Could the stone beast be Jon?How does that even compute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popinjay Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 How does that even compute?Assuming Jon is not actually dead (which no one seems to believe), he may be "reborn in smoke and salt" per the prophecy. Plus he's a warg - aka beastling.Of course what doesn't work about it - maybe - is that the phrasing implies that all three are lies - Stannis, Young Griff, & stone beast. So that would imply Jon is somehow a false dragon as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Dany and Jorah seem certain it means a fake Targaryen...Technically they don't, IIRC. Neither one of them bothers to interpret the meaning of the "mummer's dragon." Jorah simply asks Dany what exactly a mummer's dragon is, she answers, then she goes on to talk about other parts of the prophecy. The theory of the mummer's dragon being a fake dragon is just the readers' interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Wolf of Winterfell Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Technically they don't, IIRC. Neither one of them bothers to interpret the meaning of the "mummer's dragon." Jorah simply asks Dany what exactly a mummer's dragon is, she answers, then she goes on to talk about other parts of the prophecy. The theory of the mummer's dragon being a fake dragon is just the readers' interpretation.Ah, thank you for that clarification. I only re-read the prophesy that is listed on this site not their assessment of it. Do you remember what exactly she tells him a mummer's dragon is?Edit: Nevermind I found it. "..What is a mummer's dragon, pray?""A cloth dragon on poles," Dany explained. "Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Ah, thank you for that clarification. I only re-read the prophesy that is listed on this site not their assessment of it. Do you remember what exactly she tells him a mummer's dragon is?Here's the only quote I could find where Dany and Ser Jorah talk about the mummer's dragon. Perhaps there are other chapters, either in ACoK or ASoS, where they talk about this further, but I don't recall them. “A dead man in the prow of a ship, a blue rose, a banquet of blood . . . what does any of it mean, Khaleesi? A mummer’s dragon, you said. What is a mummer’s dragon, pray?”“A cloth dragon on poles,” Dany explained. “Mummers use them in their follies, to give the heroes something to fight.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Assuming Jon is not actually dead (which no one seems to believe), he may be "reborn in smoke and salt" per the prophecy. Plus he's a warg - aka beastling.What about the breathing of shadow fire, and the stone part? Seems to me the only link is that maybe, if one interpretation of Mel's fire is not wrong, then if another prophecy comes to pass literally, and it actually happens in a tower, then we'd have a smoking tower.Smoking towers with salt around near the assassination site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The cloth dragon may not be hinting that Aegon is a fake or even hinting at Aegon at all, the dragon just happen's to be a universal symbol used in mummers' plays. A dragon is a beast that is feared and dangerous, sufficient cause for a hero to fight one. Heroes typically slay dragons, but in the prophesy they seem to be cheering for one.Here's roughly how the thought process that links the cloth dragon with "Aegon" works:-Assumption: the prophetic visions refer to people (all except the stone beast are pretty easy to interpret in this way, really).-The dragon is the symbol of house Targaryen (the only other house with dragon imagery would be the Blackfyres, and their male line is extinct).-The prophecy shows a fake dragon (there's really no way around the fact that the cloth dragon is just that; if it was supposed to refer to a real dragon, why not show a real dragon instead?).-Conclusion: the vision of the mummer's dragon refers to a fake Targaryen (who might win the adoration of the people of Westeros, see cheering crowd). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Wolf of Winterfell Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 @BlackfishThanks, I found it as wellIn light of what Dany actually says to Jorah puts a new spin on the prophesy for me. The cloth dragon may not be hinting that Aegon is a fake after all, but instead the cloth dragon represents a potential enemy, of course this doesn't even have to imply Aegon, it could be anyone. The dragon is apparently a universal symbol used in a mummer's play. A beast that is feared and dangerous, a perfect antagonist symbol for the hero. Heroes typically slay dragons. She could be the hero meant to slay this dragon or enemy, believing it to be a lie. The lie could be that the dragon is her enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
variance Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Assuming Jon is not actually dead (which no one seems to believe), he may be "reborn in smoke and salt" per the prophecy. Plus he's a warg - aka beastling.Of course what doesn't work about it - maybe - is that the phrasing implies that all three are lies - Stannis, Young Griff, & stone beast. So that would imply Jon is somehow a false dragon as well.It's the tower that is smoking, not the beast, and Jon isn't stone.-The prophecy shows a fake dragon (there's really no way around the fact that the cloth dragon is just that; if it was supposed to refer to a real dragon, why not show a real dragon instead?).Because it is a prophecy. Why is Patchface blabbering about crows under the sea being white?@BlackfishThanks, I found it as wellIn light of what Dany actually says to Jorah puts a new spin on the prophesy for me. The cloth dragon may not be hinting that Aegon is a fake after all, but instead the cloth dragon represents a potential enemy, of course this doesn't even have to imply Aegon, it could be anyone. The dragon is apparently a universal symbol used in a mummer's play. A beast that is feared and dangerous, a perfect antagonist symbol for the hero. Heroes typically slay dragons. She could be the hero meant to slay this dragon or enemy, believing it to be a lie. The lie could be that the dragon is her enemy.Does make sense. Maybe it is Aegon. He may appear to be her enemy, but really isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Jon isn't stone.The big revelation about Jon in the next book will be that he was born in the Vale and should more accurately be called Stone, not Snow.:P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Wolf of Winterfell Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 -The dragon is the symbol of house Targaryen (the only other house with dragon imagery would be the Blackfyres, and their male line is extinct).Except Dany doesn't seem to think it means a symbol of her house. It's not a three headed dragon she sees. Although I admit that doesn't necessarily mean anything. But a mummer's dragon is what she calls it. They're used by mummers to represent the enemy or antagonist from what she tells Jorah. Dragons are an obvious symbol of this given that they are considered dangerous monsters.-The prophecy shows a fake dragon (there's really no way around the fact that the cloth dragon is just that; if it was supposed to refer to a real dragon, why not show a real dragon instead?).Prophetic imagery is hardly ever literal. It is usually symbolic, otherwise it would be easy to figure them out. You don't need a real dragon for the dragon to be real. In this sense, according to Dany's assessment the mummer's dragon is something given to heroes for them to fight. This could imply a false enemy, not a false Targaryen. -Conclusion: the vision of the mummer's dragon refers to a fake Targaryen (who might win the adoration of the people of Westeros, see cheering crowd).Maybe this interpretation of the prophesy is correct. However,I think there is the possibility of a different one after re-reading what Dany tells Jorah of a mummer's dragon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popinjay Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 What about the breathing of shadow fire, and the stone part? Seems to me the only link is that maybe, if one interpretation of Mel's fire is not wrong, then if another prophecy comes to pass literally, and it actually happens in a tower, then we'd have a smoking tower.Smoking towers with salt around near the assassination site?Well, since the NW seems about to go up in flames (figuratively, anyway), that doesn't seem impossible. And Jon was stabbed under Val's tower, right? (Plus they have lots of salted meat in their food cellars... ;) )Obviously I'm not that attached to this theory, but since every part of the prophecy comes in threes and Aegon seems a likely bet for lie #2, it's interesting to contemplate who it might be for lie #3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Except Dany doesn't seem to think it means a symbol of her house. It's not a three headed dragon she sees. Although I admit that doesn't necessarily mean anything. But a mummer's dragon is what she calls it. They're used by mummers to represent the enemy or antagonist from what she tells Jorah. Dragons are an obvious symbol of this given that they are considered dangerous monsters.They aren't used to represent generic enemies, they are used to represent dragons. Dragons are iconic, recognizable and associated (in the Free Cities, where Dany grew up) with the Valyrian empire. That makes them great enemies to fight for a fictional hero in a play.In Westeros the reaction might be quite different, depending on the audience. A mummer's dragon being immediately associated with house Targaryen kicks off the events of the first Dunk and Egg short story, for example.Prophetic imagery is hardly ever literal. It is usually symbolic, otherwise it would be easy to figure them out. You don't need a real dragon for the dragon to be real. In this sense, according to Dany's assessment the mummer's dragon is something given to heroes for them to fight. This could imply a false enemy, not a false Targaryen. Sure, false enemy could work. If Dany wasn't a Targaryen and thus very much associated with dragons. Cast in a mummer's play, Dany's character wouldn't fight the cloth dragon, she'd be riding it.And the dragon is shown in a cheering crowd. That has to play into the interpretation as well. Seems to me that the lie to be slain is the crowd's view of the dragon. Dany will show it to be a fake.Maybe this interpretation of the prophesy is correct. However,I think there is the possibility of a different one after re-reading what Dany tells Jorah of a mummer's dragon.Of course there's room for different interpretations. I just think that all alternative interpretations brought up so far require a lot more twisting of words and over-emphasize what characters say about the vision, not what the vision itself shows. Characters in the story so far have proven to be very bad at interpreting prophecy and they generally have less information than the reader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
variance Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Sure, false enemy could work. If Dany wasn't a Targaryen and thus very much associated with dragons. Cast in a mummer's play, Dany's character wouldn't fight the cloth dragon, she'd be riding it.And the dragon is shown in a cheering crowd. That has to play into the interpretation as well. Seems to me that the lie to be slain is the crowd's view of the dragon. Dany will show it to be a fake.You're assuming the crowd is cheering the dragon. In a mummery, the crowd is usually cheering the hero trying to kill the dragon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 You're assuming the crowd is cheering the dragon. In a mummery, the crowd is usually cheering the hero trying to kill the dragon.All the better. Not only will Dany get to kill "Aegon", she'll get standing ovations for it.;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I guess Jon could end up becoming the stone-shadow-beast. If there is some kind of weird merging between him and Ghost, and if his resurrection process goes terribly wrong, such a thing could happen. And he can always conduct Greyscale from Shireen, I guess.The important point here might also be that this thing is a 'stone beast, breathing shadow fire', not necessarily a stone dragon. It might be something completely different, possibly connected to some of the other sorcerer guys out there. Qyburn, Thoros and/or UnCat, and yes, also Melisandre. It might also be an ace up Euron's sleeve. Apart from Stannis, Aegon, and Tommen he would be the only other 'pretender/would-be-king' out there, and he is not that uninterested in magic. Mel has already her false Azor Ahai. I doubt she is going to be responsible for the stone beast as well.But I guess if it's going to become a plot point, it has to hurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
variance Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The 'slayer of lies' could be what is pictured in the three visions as well. So each of those could be a slayer of lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The 'slayer of lies' could be what is pictured in the three visions as well. So each of those could be a slayer of lies.No, the epithets refer to Dany....mother of dragons, daughter of death......mother of dragons, slayer of lies......mother of dragons, bride of fire... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.