The Sleeper Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I'm very keen on the idea that "waking stone dragons" refers to embracing or discovering a dormant (stone) Targaryen identity. To be fair, this could refer to Jon and/or Dany — one or both of them embracing their, uh, inner dragon. Literalists point to Dany hatching the eggs as "waking stone dragons." This makes sense literally, but like I've said, that's not how these dragon-visions unfold. In any case, I think there's something to be said for the idea that Illyrio's "petrified eggs from Asshai" are really from the Targaryen house stash (i.e. the idea that Rhaegal hatched from Aegon V's green egg), in which case, they're probably not as old as has been advertised and may not be stone/petrified at all.To my mind, the more of these "dragons as Targs" visions that stack up, the likelier it is that the dragon prophecies within the main narrative are supposed to be read the same way. We already have two of them, I made a case for a third, and there are a lot of D&E novellas left to go. :)That doesn't mean that all prophesies need to use the exact same symbolism and doesn't preclude any prophesies reffering to actual Dragons. My take on the dreams reffering to dragons in the Dunk & Egg series was that it pertained to Baelor's and Egg' strength of character and them being king material, for which let's face it most Targaryens didn't qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elaena Targaryen Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Awesome! I haven't read any of the Dunk and Egg stories yet and this has helped to clarify a lor of things, I think you're right about the use of "dragons" in prophecies to refer to Targs and Rhaegar being born when Summerhall burned makes perfect sense for the dragon hatched out of Summerhall. Now, are the dragons we know have to be "awaken from stone" according to the AA prophecy also Targs or real dragons? If your theory is right, and as I said makes perfect sense to me, I might not be that wrong in my thinking that Jon (if R+L=J) is the ice dragon.This is why I gave you the bow down in that other thread...see your a genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 That doesn't mean that all prophesies need to use the exact same symbolism and doesn't preclude any prophesies reffering to actual Dragons. My take on the dreams reffering to dragons in the Dunk & Egg series was that it pertained to Baelor's and Egg' strength of character and them being king material, for which let's face it most Targaryens didn't qualify.No, it doesn't. But like I said, these dragon-Targaryen visions do set a precedent. It might not completely preclude literal dragons, but it definitely makes an anecdotal case — multiple times — that it is possible, even practical, to interpret the dragon-visions symbolically. Do you think it's a coincidence that we have dragon prophecies in the D&E stories that refer to Targaryens and dragon prophecies in the main narrative? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Val the Wildling Princess Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 This is why I gave you the bow down in that other thread...see your a geniusHahaha I just saw the heresy topic ^_^ You're so kind, but im not a genius, my brain just loves to overthink every little thing and with GRRM i have learnt that always seems to be more than what just meets the eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elaena Targaryen Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I have to wonder if Rhaegar being upset over the Summerhall incident didn't look for some way to make up for it. Wasn't he real bookish then one day after reading a book he was more concerned about learning martial arts. Ok remember the book "Book of Lost Books" that the Reader was reading when Asha came to see him. Marwyn put that book together.Marwyn claimed he found three pages from a lost book and put them in his. This lost book was called "Sign and Portents" which was put together by and from visions of a Aenar Targaryen's daughter. Aenar lived in Valyria before the Doom and his daugter and her visions and her book must have been a big deal. (I've even seen it speculated that she predicted the Doom so they fled to Dragonstone, which there is no proven connection to Aenar and the line of Targs we know)But what if she predicted this whole Targayen PTWP thing and Rhaegar found this book. Not only could he atone for the Summerhall tragedy but he had more info to the PTWP thing. If it is happening now he would feel a definate sense of urgancy and it would explain a lot with him. This in my mind would disconnect the PTWP from AA also. So what do you guys think? Really why do we have info about this book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 I have to wonder if Rhaegar being upset over the Summerhall incident didn't look for some way to make up for it. Wasn't he real bookish then one day after reading a book he was more concerned about learning martial arts. Ok remember the book "Book of Lost Books" that the Reader was reading when Asha came to see him. Marwyn put that book together.Marwyn claimed he found three pages from a lost book and put them in his. This lost book was called "Sign and Portents" which was put together by and from visions of a Aenar Targaryen's daughter. Aenar lived in Valyria before the Doom and his daugter and her visions and her book must have been a big deal. (I've even seen it speculated that she predicted the Doom so they fled to Dragonstone, which there is no proven connection to Aenar and the line of Targs we know)But what if she predicted this whole Targayen PTWP thing and Rhaegar found this book. Not only could he atone for the Summerhall tragedy but he had more info to the PTWP thing. If it is happening now he would feel a definate sense of urgancy and it would explain a lot with him. This in my mind would disconnect the PTWP from AA also. So what do you guys think? Really why do we have info about this book?That's an interesting idea, and I know I've seen the theory that Aenar's daughter predicted the Doom of Valyria and that's why the Targs made a break for Dragonstone. I still do think that AA, TPTWP, the Stallion That Mounts the World and the Last Hero are probably the same entity, just interpreted differently by different cultures. Azor Ahai has a big emphasis on fire, which makes sense because that prophecy comes from red priests in Asshai, supposedly. The Stallion That Mounts the World comes from the nomadic Dothraki culture that is almost entirely horse-driven. TPTWP comes from Old Valyria and its emphasis on princes and dragons. And the Last Hero is strictly Westerosi, not so much a prophecy but a story (or what seems like a story) about a guy fighting the Others.I think it's entirely possible, even probable, that Rhaegar came upon the prophecy while reading books and that's what spurred him on to become martially skilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanTasy Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 That's an interesting idea, and I know I've seen the theory that Aenar's daughter predicted the Doom of Valyria and that's why the Targs made a break for Dragonstone. I still do think that AA, TPTWP, the Stallion That Mounts the World and the Last Hero are probably the same entity, just interpreted differently by different culture. Azor Ahai has a big emphasis on fire, which makes sense because that prophecy comes from red priests in Asshai, supposedly. The Stallion That Mounts the World comes from the nomadic Dothraki culture that is almost entirely horse-driven. TPTWP comes from Old Valyria and its emphasis on princes and dragons. And the Last Hero is strictly Westerosi, not so much a prophecy but a story (or what seems like a story) about a guy fighting the Others.I think it's entirely possible, even probably, that Rhaegar came upon the prophecy while reading books and that's what spurred him on to become martially skilled.Yep! And I suspect those legends - who could be about the same event or wish, not about the same person, can also be connected to 'the sword of the morning', not the sword but the title for the Dayne that is worthy to carry Dawn. I suspect the constellation 'Sword of the morning' could refer to whatever heroic act a Dayne did. It could also refer to Azor Ahai, who seems to be a hero fighting for the lands where the sun rises, in the east. And maybe the heroic Dayne and Azor Ahai were the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibbison from Ibben Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 It's possible that "dragon hatching" is meant to be ambiguous at each event.In TMK, there were three potential "dragons" that could hatch: the actual dragon egg, Jon the Fiddler/Daemon II Blackfyre, and Egg/Aegon (the future V). Bloodraven interpreted the event as Aegon "hatching".At Sumerhall, Aegon V tried to hatch dragon eggs (according to Alester Florent). Rhaegar was born. Are there other potential "dragon hatchings" there- Jaehaerys or Aerys- as well? Call it Rhaegar "hatching".At Dany's "hatching" event, it is possible to interpret the result as both literal dragons hatching, and Dany herself "hatching", much the same way Egg did.GRRM seems to love multiple meanings and interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sleeper Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No, it doesn't. But like I said, these dragon-Targaryen visions do set a precedent. It might not completely preclude literal dragons, but it definitely makes an anecdotal case — multiple times — that it is possible, even practical, to interpret the dragon-visions symbolically. Do you think it's a coincidence that we have dragon prophecies in the D&E stories that refer to Targaryens and dragon prophecies in the main narrative? I don't.Martin uses prophesy pretty much in a classical way. Plot devices that are obscure enough for their wording to prompt the characters into some sort of action (and the readers to have some expectation) while ineterpreting them in another but valid way reveals their actual meaning, not unlike riddles. Using the same symbolism again and again makes them easy to interpret and thus defeats their purpose. Also, though one part of Daemon's dream in the mystery knight was symbolic (a dragon hatching from an egg, which let's face was rather transparent) the other part (Dunk becoming Kingsguard) was quite literal. It still fit though in the general pattern because Daemon erroneously believed that Dunk would be his Kingsguard. My main concern with your theory is that we haven't seen the word "dragon" anywhere near the Ghost of Highheart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Martin uses prophesy pretty much in a classical way. Plot devices that are obscure enough for their wording to prompt the characters into some sort of action (and the readers to have some expectation) while ineterpreting them in another but valid way reveals their actual meaning, not unlike riddles. Using the same symbolism again and again makes them easy to interpret and thus defeats their purpose. Also, though one part of Daemon's dream in the mystery knight was symbolic (a dragon hatching from an egg, which let's face was rather transparent) the other part (Dunk becoming Kingsguard) was quite literal. It still fit though in the general pattern because Daemon erroneously believed that Dunk would be his Kingsguard. My main concern with your theory is that we haven't seen the word "dragon" anywhere near the Ghost of Highheart.And I'm saying, for the third time now, that I KNOW THIS and that's why it is a THEORY still. We don't know what the Ghost of High Heart actually saw or if she saw anything. If we did, it wouldn't be a theory, it'd be a known fact within the story. I'm just posing an idea as to what SHE COULD HAVE SEEN that she could then pitch to Aegon in order to get them to try hatching a dragon at Summerhall. Her vision, if she had one, could have been the impetus that got them to try hatching a dragon; right now we know (or think we know) that they did try but don't know what prompted them to. Her having a vision of a dragon hatching and Aegon believing her would make sense and provide a motive for the attempt. We know, through her interaction with Arya, that she was somehow involved with the Summerhall tragedy. I'm sorry but I feel like I'm waving giant neon flashcards. Am I not explaining it well enough?I'm aware that part of the visions did unfold literally. The hinge though is that the dragon part didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elaena Targaryen Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 That doesn't mean that all prophesies need to use the exact same symbolism and doesn't preclude any prophesies reffering to actual Dragons. My take on the dreams reffering to dragons in the Dunk & Egg series was that it pertained to Baelor's and Egg' strength of character and them being king material, for which let's face it most Targaryens didn't qualify.I can't say anything because I love Baelor Breakspear to much and you are so right about him. Egg might be great too, he is young so we shall see, but I love him now.Martin uses prophesy pretty much in a classical way. Plot devices that are obscure enough for their wording to prompt the characters into some sort of action (and the readers to have some expectation) while ineterpreting them in another but valid way reveals their actual meaning, not unlike riddles. Using the same symbolism again and again makes them easy to interpret and thus defeats their purpose. Also, though one part of Daemon's dream in the mystery knight was symbolic (a dragon hatching from an egg, which let's face was rather transparent) the other part (Dunk becoming Kingsguard) was quite literal. It still fit though in the general pattern because Daemon erroneously believed that Dunk would be his Kingsguard. My main concern with your theory is that we haven't seen the word "dragon" anywhere near the Ghost of Highheart.I do wonder if a dragon hatching vision originated from the GOHH maybe there was some sabotage going on. A lot of people suspect some sort of foul play but not sure what or who. Maybe the dragon vision started with a Targ and they brought in the GOHH to help with the magic. I do agree with Apple Martini and I think it is a good theory and like any good theory a couple of things might need discussed and tweaked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 I do wonder if a dragon hatching vision originated from the GOHH maybe there was some sabotage going on. A lot of people suspect some sort of foul play but not sure what or who. Maybe the dragon vision started with a Targ and they brought in the GOHH to help with the magic. I do agree with Apple Martini and I think it is a good theory and like any good theory a couple of things might need discussed and tweaked.This is also possible, given that the D&E dragon-visions both came from Targaryens. ETA: It's also possible that, as someone else suggested, Aegon V wasn't responsible at all and the attempt to hatch an egg came from Prince Duncan and Jenny or even someone else, and that was the treason. The crux is basically: The dragon-hatching attempt at Summerhall was the result of a vision that someone had about a dragon hatching there. The attempt went kersplat, and Rhaegar — a symbolic dragon and not a literal dragon — was the "dragon hatched out of Summerhall." That's the gist. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sleeper Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 This is also possible, given that the D&E dragon-visions both came from Targaryens.ETA: It's also possible that, as someone else suggested, Aegon V wasn't responsible at all and the attempt to hatch an egg came from Prince Duncan and Jenny or even someone else, and that was the treason.The crux is basically: The dragon-hatching attempt at Summerhall was the result of a vision that someone had about a dragon hatching there. The attempt went kersplat, and Rhaegar — a symbolic dragon and not a literal dragon — was the "dragon hatched out of Summerhall." That's the gist. :PI got the gist from the start. That would make it the third time a dragon in a vision refferring to an actual targaryen (or fourth if a mummers dragon refers to young griff) which makes their interpretation easy for the reader. I'm not saying it should be literall. It could referr to a great fire or ship with a dragon carved in its prow or Dani's crown or whatever can be associated with a dragon in general shape or form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elaena Targaryen Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I got the gist from the start. That would make it the third time a dragon in a vision refferring to an actual targaryen (or fourth if a mummers dragon refers to young griff) which makes their interpretation easy for the reader. I'm not saying it should be literall. It could referr to a great fire or ship with a dragon carved in its prow or Dani's crown or whatever can be associated with a dragon in general shape or form.But how else could it be interpreted with the info we have? All I know is some of who died there, the GOHH was there, it was a fire of some kind right?, and it was the same day Rhaegar was born and he had some sad connection to Summerhall. Do we know where Rhaegar was born for sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 I got the gist from the start. That would make it the third time a dragon in a vision refferring to an actual targaryen (or fourth if a mummers dragon refers to young griff) which makes their interpretation easy for the reader. I'm not saying it should be literall. It could referr to a great fire or ship with a dragon carved in its prow or Dani's crown or whatever can be associated with a dragon in general shape or form.Except that not every person who reads ASOIAF has read or will read the D&E stories. In fact, I'd wager that most of them haven't. In that case, the dragon-visions in the D&E stories would be more of a tip to the harder-core readers and would not be on the radar of most people reading the main series — in which case, they'd have no point of reference for the "dragons are Targs" idea and it wouldn't necessarily occur to them that that would be the case. I think these visions — which, at least in their first two instances, are more of a "gee, that's neat" thing and not anything game-changing — are subtle clues as to how to read the dragon prophecies in ASOIAF.It could refer to a great fire or ship or Dany's crown or whatever. Except that up to now, it hasn't. I think that in that case you're reaching.Do we know where Rhaegar was born for sure?The Wiki actually says he was born at Summerhall. Which, if that's true, I think strengthens the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sleeper Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Fair enough. I guess it would accentuate the Ghost's grief if what she said/did brought the whole thing along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 OK, here's another line of thinking, for those who are on board with or willing to consider the "dragons are Targs" idea."The dragon has three heads."Rhaegar (by trying for three children) and a lot of readers (by trying to guess three dragon-riders) seem to think that this refers to three separate people. But it specifically says dragon. One dragon — one Targaryen. With three heads. There's also nothing that specifically points to the three heads being dragon-riders. Rhaegar's idea — as evidenced by his naming conventions for his first two children — seems to stem from the original Targaryen conquerers being three people, but near as I can tell, there's nothing to really tie Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya to the PTWP prophecy. Unless there's some as-yet-unknown thing going on there.Wild thought: What if the dragon with three heads is one Targaryen with three distinct identities (heads)? For example, if it turns out to be Jon, the three "heads" would be Jon as a Stark, Jon as a Targaryen and Jon as a Night's Watch brother. If it's Dany (the idea makes me feel blech but I'd be stupid not to consider it), it could be several things: her being a queen, a wife and a mother (eventually); her "three crowns" (Westeros, the Free Cities [eventually] and Slaver's Bay); or something else. I admit that it's easier to apply this to Jon in my head but it could still fit Dany in some context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sleeper Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Three titles. That's an interesting thought ... something like scion of old Valyria, queen on the iron throne, mother of the freedmen perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Three titles. That's an interesting thought ... something like scion of old Valyria, queen on the iron throne, mother of the freedmen perhaps?*grinds teeth*If in fact it's Dany, then sure. I'm not convinced that it is, though. I'm playing devil's advocate by including her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sleeper Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No, I like how it's a perfeclty valid reading of the "Dragon has three heads" and a departure from what everyone expects.How about a greenseer controlling three dragons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.