Jump to content

R+L=J v.21


Angalin

Recommended Posts

I'm beginning to think that R + L=J is just alittle too obvious. Isn' t there another boy that was Jon's milk brother who has Targ features? There needs to be another twist, another baby swap, or the birth of twins or something.

If Jon is a Targ, why was he so badly injured by the fire of the lantern that he used to defend Mormont at the Wall? Jon is always flexing his hand from his old injury, like a reminder to us that he is not imune from fire, like Dany. Maybe he is Targ, just not "blood of the dragon", like Viserys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think that R + L=J is just alittle too obvious. Isn' t there another boy that was Jon's milk brother who has Targ features?

That's Edric Dayne. His features are found among other male members of House Dayne. He's also a few years too young to be Rhaegar's son.

There needs to be another twist, another baby swap, or the birth of twins or something.

Why?

If Jon is a Targ, why was he so badly injured by the fire of the lantern that he used to defend Mormont at the Wall? Jon is always flexing his hand from his old injury, like a reminder to us that he is not imune from fire, like Dany. Maybe he is Targ, just not "blood of the dragon", like Viserys.

Oh for ... :bang: :bang: :bang:

TARGS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE!

Martin has already said, multiple times, that Targaryens are not immune to fire. Not even Dany is immune to fire — she was ONE TIME, when she birthed her dragons. She burned just fine in the fighting pit. It's not going to happen again. Multiple Targaryens have died in fire-related incidents — molten gold, normal fires, wildfire, dragonfire, etc. People see one isolated incident and read into it what is not really there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think that R + L=J is just alittle too obvious. Isn' t there another boy that was Jon's milk brother who has Targ features? There needs to be another twist, another baby swap, or the birth of twins or something.

If Jon is a Targ, why was he so badly injured by the fire of the lantern that he used to defend Mormont at the Wall? Jon is always flexing his hand from his old injury, like a reminder to us that he is not imune from fire, like Dany. Maybe he is Targ, just not "blood of the dragon", like Viserys.

But, you know, it really isn't that obvious to the casual fan who just watches the series, but may not choose to read the books.

In fact, I'd never heard of it until the HBO series, and I've read everything from Herbert, Bradbury, Michael Moorecock, etc.

It's been a while since I've committed to a work as vast as this, and even then, I probably speed-read a lot, because with my schedule, I just don't have the time to get that involved like I used to, so that said, no, Jon as Lyanna and Rhaegars son, will still be a surprise.

But, I think Martin has to be careful that this doesn't turn into a soap opera, rather than a great story.

As long as it is a story well told, it can be what some have referred to as "cliche," because a well told story, though done before, is better than one done soley for the sake of "originality," (which is a tall order at this point in time), but badly done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing like encouraging people to participate and discuss that all caps, emoticons, red text and frustration. Take time to offer your thoughts to those who do not have 4,000 posts. It is a reasonable question, and there are reasonable answers. Even if it is true that Targs have some fire immunity, the Stark genes seem dominant and Jon may be more ice than fire. Perhaps the ice dragon reference. I cannot wait to see what emotional response may come from this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it is true that Targs have some fire immunity, the Stark genes seem dominant and Jon may be more ice than fire. Perhaps the ice dragon reference. I cannot wait to see what emotional response may come from this post.

But it's not true, that's the entire point. I feel like I've seen "Jon can't be a Targ because he got burned" about 50 different times on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My appologies, I only found this forum a few weeks ago and haven't had time to read very many threads. I will try to educate myself.

I apologize for getting frustrated, it's not your fault you didn't know. It just adds up and I feel like I've clarified it about a few dozen times. :P

There was a "Targs aren't immune to fire" PSA thread around for a while but it filled up fast. It might need a reincarnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing like encouraging people to participate and discuss that all caps, emoticons, red text and frustration. Take time to offer your thoughts to those who do not have 4,000 posts. It is a reasonable question, and there are reasonable answers. Even if it is true that Targs have some fire immunity, the Stark genes seem dominant and Jon may be more ice than fire. Perhaps the ice dragon reference. I cannot wait to see what emotional response may come from this post.

If what you mean, Jon as an embodiment of that balance, of ice and fire, with it his own uniqueness, because of ice, then I think the Ice Dragon analogy fits.

In fact, that itself would be a twist, because everyone is looking to the three dragons of Danys, and the prophesy about the three heads, but if there were a mysterious fourth, and Martin did do a childrens book called the "Ice Dragon," that was unique even among dragons, it would match Jon the best.

(But admittedly, perhaps I rely a little too much on what Martin has done before, and how he may tie it all together).

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's not true, that's the entire point. I feel like I've seen "Jon can't be a Targ because he got burned" about 50 different times on here.

I see this as a testement to George's wondrefull storytelling because of all these red hearings he sprinkled all over the books in regards to various mysteries/issues/events we still have, after so many years, new people coming and asking the same questions. It is a proof, for me, of the shear complexity and beauty of the world he created.....Our George is a devious guy :devil: - he shows the reader one big moment (birthing of dragons) and it has such a strong impact that people tend to forget other moments when, under similar circumstancies (Targs in contact with fire), the outcome was not the same because George just put them all over the books, few houndred pages appart, often not related to the big event.

Also, I guess people are coming here to discuss their ideas and some get intimidated when they see #21 on this tread so they tend to skip previous incarnations - all in their eagerness to share their ideas with other fans :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a question: do you believe GGRM is unwavering?

Like say this WAS the plan, but the unexpected degree of fandom and speculation made for too much light being shone where he'd expected shadows...is he the type to still go there, and try and spice up the anti-climax with plotting, or is he the type to go plan B?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a diffenance between being a Targ and a dragon? Are all dragons Targs and not all Targs dragons? Dany said fire cannot kill a dragon.

All Targs are dragons as much as all Starks are direwolves and all Lannisters are lions. Those individuals in any given house who display the traits that are valued in their house are considered to be the embodiment of their emblem, but they obviously aren't literally dragons or wolves or lions. It is just a manner of speaking.

Dany says a lot of things, but you have to consider her source: Viserys. A lot of what she says (eg Targs don't get sick) is just plain wrong and is mainly born of her arrogance. Dragons - literally the animal - I am guessing may be flame proof. Dragons - symbolically Targaryen people - are not flame proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a diffenance between being a Targ and a dragon? Are all dragons Targs and not all Targs dragons? Dany said fire cannot kill a dragon.

This is open to interpretation. There's an idea that "Targaryens" and "dragons" are interchangeable. Then there's an idea that there's a "higher" class of Targaryens who are "true" dragons (not literal dragons, but somehow "greater" people).

Even if the "real dragons" thing is true, it doesn't point to any kind of fire-immune or superhuman powers. In the Dunk & Egg stories, Baelor Breakspear and Aegon V (Egg) show up in prophetic dreams in dragon form, suggesting that they're "true" dragons. Their personalities — decent, fair, upstanding, honorable, etc. — sort of support this. Baelor dies from a head wound and Aegon V later dies in a fire at Summerhall. Daeron II was "the Good" and died of the plague. Being "real" dragons didn't save them from fire or disease or a mace. Interestingly, the Targaryens who go nuts and identify themselves as literal dragons have the most ignominious ends: Aerion Brightflame drank wildfire, Aerys II was going to set King's Landing on fire, Viserys got molten gold poured over him, etc.

As for what Dany said ... Dany's not that informed and probably has no idea what happened to certain past members of her family. Her "fire cannot kill a dragon" line should be taken with huge shaker of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a question: do you believe GGRM is unwavering?

I think he's sticking to his plan.

Like say this WAS the plan, but the unexpected degree of fandom and speculation made for too much light being shone where he'd expected shadows...is he the type to still go there, and try and spice up the anti-climax with plotting, or is he the type to go plan B?

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. Edited.

Basically, Martin has the Jon solution in his mind and he's not going to change it because of what a few fans have figured out.

Ok, cool, thanks for clarifying.

I hope you're right, and that's where my bet would go, but I wonder if his exceptional openness with fans/the internet isn't possibly double edged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, cool, thanks for clarifying.

I hope you're right, and that's where my bet would go, but I wonder if his exceptional openness with fans/the internet isn't possibly double edged.

Just a few things.

1. I think that most readers — casual readers, most of whom don't visit forums — either don't know the R+L=J theory or they've thought about it but not too much. I think people on here have convinced themselves that it was more obvious than it really is.

2. It was meant to be figured out. So I don't understand people (not necessarily you) complaining that it can't be the solution because people can figure it out. Well, duh? He has enough clues and hints that yes, you can figure it out if you piece them together. That's what makes it good writing. He has a major development that he was able to tease under the radar in a way that a lot of people missed, but they can go back on rereads and see that clues were there all along. If Martin was a hack, then he would have a cheap "gotcha" solution that no one could see coming. But he's better than that, and it baffles me that some people apparently want that type of solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, but I think his thematic chore speaks most consistently to the idea of defying formulaic expectations. What Cornwell enjoys doing with the glory of war, GRRM enjoys doing with fantasy givens. So, not even just because it's been spotted, but because of how it's being spot-able (sic) speaks to the kind of dovetailing I think he sees as crass, I wonder if feedback wouldn't reinforce a need to change tack if R+L+J seems so right for so many.

And while I agree we aren't necessarily representative of the average reader, we are probably the type whose temperature he can most readily take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...