Every Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 To depart from the Night's King for a sec ...... going back to the idea that Rhaegar was Azor Ahai and that Jon himself is Lightbringer.Elia = Water (Water Gardens in Dorne?)Cersei = Lion (this is a stretch, and it's out of order, but Cersei was a possible bride for Rhaegar, sooo?)Lyanna = Nissa Nissa (yielding Jon)Elia being analogous to water because her family have the Water Gardens is a bit of a stretch I think. Besides which, say we accept the idea that the 'swords' are Rhaegar's children, well Elia's children were killed and so fit with the prophecy of the water-forged sword breaking, but what about Cersei? Unless she and Rhaegar somehow got to making a baby who subsequently died without anyone, apparently including Cersei herself, ever knowing about it, it doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share Posted July 22, 2012 Elia being analogous to water because her family have the Water Gardens is a bit of a stretch I think. Besides which, say we accept the idea that the 'swords' are Rhaegar's children, well Elia's children were killed and so fit with the prophecy of the water-forged sword breaking, but what about Cersei? Unless she and Rhaegar somehow got to making a baby who subsequently died without anyone, apparently including Cersei herself, ever knowing about it, it doesn't work.Yes in hindsight it is a stretch. But talking through stuff like this is how you get to conclusions.I much prefer that kind of analysis to the lazy "So-and-so is AA because so-and-so says they are" literal readings, even if it ends up being out of left field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnorak Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 No one ever looked for a girl... It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor femaleIf the prince that was promised could be a princess because the word for dragon has no gender, does that mean the original prophesy literally reads "the dragon that was promised?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Arc Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Martin put a tremendous amount of work into his world-building. One of the biggest pieces of this world-building is great migrations. These great migrations seem to be a nod to the Indo-European migrations. As they migrated, the Indo-Europeans splintered linguistically, ethnically and culturally. But some pieces of culture such as the myth of Dyaus Pitar held on. The cult of the Sky Father became Zeus to the Greeks, Jupiter to the Romans, Tyr to the Norse, Zius to the Germanics and so on. So my point is that The Last Hero, Azor Ahai, Azor Ahai Reborn, The Prince That Was Promised and The Stallion That Mounts the world are all variations of the same myth. And the myth may have originated in the Far East of Essos, beneath the Shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valyrian_steel Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 This is a very interesting thread i I hope to read it all when I have time. In that regard please excuse this post if it is repetitive. From the OPs original post I sort of like how one and six fit together. Mel says it takes two kings to wake a dragon and the possibility that AA is multiple people. I harken back to Viserys and his constant threats that she will wake the dragon. What if waking the dragon isnt literal and has nothing to do actual dragons. What if it will take two kings to rally Westeros against the Others. Both Dany and Jon seem to fulfill the PTWP. Dany's dragons seem to be her version of Lightbringer. Is the NW Jons version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Été Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 If the prince that was promised could be a princess because the word for dragon has no gender, does that mean the original prophesy literally reads "the dragon that was promised?"Thank you for phrasing that much more clearly that I did. :) And if it's a dragon that was promised, is that meant literally or as a metaphor for a Targaryen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnorak Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Thank you for phrasing that much more clearly that I did. :) And if it's a dragon that was promised, is that meant literally or as a metaphor for a Targaryen?Aemon says that the word "dragon" has no gender not the word "prince." So going with that information the prophesy would have to refer to a metaphorical dragon as the prince. If that is the same prophesy that refers to the return of actual dragons too (Aemon seems to think Dany's dragons prove her the fullfilment of the prophesy) it must be a damn confusing read. It must be like trying to make sense of a prophesy written by the smurfs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 I tend to interpret "the prince that was promised," if we accept that "prince" and "dragon" are interchangeable, as "the Targaryen that was promised." Just about any time a prophecy refers to dragons, it refers to Targaryens, not literal dragons. This is why I'm pretty steadfast in my assertion that Dany's dragons are incidental and are not the actual fulfillment of the specific prophecy (there's also the point that GRRM apparently added the dragons in later — it makes me wonder how they can be the prophetic "solution" if originally they weren't important enough to even be in the story, unless I'm mistaken about that?).Regarding the specific wording of the Prince That Was Promised title, someone brought up that because of the promise Ned made to Lyanna — something Ned refers to as a promise repeatedly and throughout GoT — that might also "fit" the literal definition. Ned promised Lyanna — and by extension, promised Jon himself — to take care of and protect Jon. In that way, the meaning of the title shifts from being a prophesied "promised" messiah figure to simply being a prince/dragon/Targaryen on the receiving end of another's promise. It can completely alter the context if you simply apply different definitions to the word "promised." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Arc Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Why does it have to be a Targ? Why not a Blackfyre? Just because the Targs won the war doesn't mean that the Blackfyres aren't the true line and the fulfillment of the prophecy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Why does it have to be a Targ? Why not a Blackfyre? Just because the Targs won the war doesn't mean that the Blackfyres aren't the true line and the fulfillment of the prophecy.It could be a Blackfyre, sure. But you'd have to disregard the Ghost of High Heart's prophecy saying that it's Aerys and Rhaella's line that's significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Arc Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 It could be a Blackfyre, sure. But you'd have to disregard the Ghost of High Heart's prophecy saying that it's Aerys and Rhaella's line that's significant.Its unclear how much the Ghost of High Heart understands her own prophecies. Perhaps Aegon is the fulfillment of her prophecies. If he's a Blackfyre but publically stating he's Rhaegar's son, she might have been fooled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Its unclear how much the Ghost of High Heart understands her own prophecies. Perhaps Aegon is the fulfillment of her prophecies. If he's a Blackfyre but publically stating he's Rhaegar's son, she might have been fooled.I'd be more willing to buy into that if she hadn't been pretty spot-on before now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Regarding the specific wording of the Prince That Was Promised title, someone brought up that because of the promise Ned made to Lyanna — something Ned refers to as a promise repeatedly and throughout GoT — that might also "fit" the literal definition. Ned promised Lyanna — and by extension, promised Jon himself — to take care of and protect Jon. In that way, the meaning of the title shifts from being a prophesied "promised" messiah figure to simply being a prince/dragon/Targaryen on the receiving end of another's promise. It can completely alter the context if you simply apply different definitions to the word "promised."I've been smitten with this interpretation since the first time I read it a couple of months ago. One thing I often wonder about is the significance of the grammar in the "prince that was promised" phrase. I know the difference between who vs. that and I generally use them correctly even though I don't completely understand the grammatical rule. The 'that' in the phrase always throws me off because it just feels wrong. As a copy editor, can you tell me if the ptwp phrase is grammatically correct and in which ways 'that' might suitably replace 'who'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 there's also the point that GRRM apparently added the dragons in laterIIRC, that was very, very early on in the writing process, when initially he was considering not having any magical elements at all (the Targaryens were originally supposed to have fooled the people that they had dragons using smoke and mirrors and pyrotechnics). His friend convinced him to put in magical elements, including the dragons. His reference to her "making" him put the dragons in is just his sly way of saying that she made him include magical elements in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I've been smitten with this interpretation since the first time I read it a couple of months ago. One thing I often wonder about is the significance of the grammar in the "prince that was promised" phrase. I know the difference between who vs. that and I generally use them correctly even though I don't completely understand the grammatical rule. The 'that' in the phrase always throws me off because it just feels wrong. As a copy editor, can you tell me if the ptwp phrase is grammatically correct and in which ways 'that' might suitably replace 'who'?I won't speak to the grammatical issue, except to say that the use of "that" in this context bothers me as well. That said, I'm pretty sure that George uses both "prince who was promised" as well as "prince that was promised" essentially interchangeably.ETA--Hmm, I'm actually having trouble finding any examples of "prince who was promised" in the books. I think I simply misremembered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 I've been smitten with this interpretation since the first time I read it a couple of months ago. One thing I often wonder about is the significance of the grammar in the "prince that was promised" phrase. I know the difference between who vs. that and I generally use them correctly even though I don't completely understand the grammatical rule. The 'that' in the phrase always throws me off because it just feels wrong. As a copy editor, can you tell me if the ptwp phrase is grammatically correct and in which ways 'that' might suitably replace 'who'?To be completely grammatically correct, "that" refers to a non-human entity and "who" refers to a person. If the "prince" is a person, the Prince Who Was Promised is the grammatically accurate form and not the Prince That Was Promised.Having said that, it's extremely hair-splitting and I have no idea if it's intentional or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last of the Darklyns Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 The original thread, which was locked due to awesomeness, may be read here.The goal of this thread, and its predecessor, is to look a little deeper at the Azor Ahai (and Prince that was Promised) prophecies and toss around some alternative explanations.Here are some of the most interesting ideas from the first thread:1. When Melisandre is getting ready to burn "Mance," Jon overhears someone saying that it takes two kings to wake the dragon, first the father and then the son, so both die kings. Does this have a basis in the actual prophecy? Does it have to be a father and a son, or will any two kings "do" and Mance and his baby are conveniently there? If the two kings have already died, who are they?Really, many options. Viserys Targaryen, Robert Baratheon, Renly Baratheon, Robb Stark, Balon Greyjoy, Joffrey Lannister, Mance Rayder, maybe - Jon Snow. Could LC be interpreted as "king" because he leads an armed force with no overlord? 2. Benerro says that Azor Ahai will usher in an unending summer, and those who serve him (or her) will rise from the dead. Deceptively attractive marketing? Actual prophetic material? Are they referring to goddamn wights?Well, if winter is caused BY the Others, as it seems could be possible, then the once-and-for-all destruction of Others could cause the once-and-for-all destruction of winter.3. Does smoke and salt mean what we think it does? Is it actual smoke and actual salt, or could it refer to, say, colors of a House? Does "from the sea" mean the actual sea, or might seawater frozen into ice on a certain wall also do? Do we differentiate between destructive fire (dragonfire) and life-giving fire (Winterfell's hot springs)?I'm a fan of Jon Snow as AA, so I think that the SMOKE could be caused by bringing together fire (Targ) and ice (Stark). The point made of salt coming from the wall is a good idea and that could be Jon's salt.4. Did the person who made the prophecy actually see smoke and salt, or did they see what they thought was smoke and salt? To a person who had never seen snow, snow might look like salt and mist might look like smoke.I don't think a mistake was made5. Are we working with actual dragons or symbolic ones? The dragon has three heads, but is that three people, or one person? Might "heads" have an alternative meaning, like "crowns"? If this prophecy comes from a time when hatching a dragon wasn't a BFD, why does the prophecy treat it like one? I think actual dragons, actual riders. Only one will be AA, though.6. One savior, or multiple saviors? Do we take the Ghost of High Heart's word that the Prince specifically must come from Aerys and Rhaella's line?Well, as this seems to keep most candidates other than Victarion, and the Ghost of High Heart seems to usually be right, I'm fine with that.7. Is Azor Ahai actually meant to be a "good guy"? Is that the twist, that someone sold all along as a savior is actually an antagonist?Good guy.8. Are we interpreting the candidates and their roles in the right way? Might Jon, for instance, not be Azor Ahai, but rather Lightbringer?No, but Dany's Nissa Nissa.9. If someone in the books is quite sure about what a prophetical interpretation means and who fits it, do we discard it?No, but we don't need to think they're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last of the Darklyns Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 To be completely grammatically correct, "that" refers to a non-human entity and "who" refers to a person. If the "prince" is a person, the Prince Who Was Promised is the grammatically accurate form and not the Prince That Was Promised.Having said that, it's extremely hair-splitting and I have no idea if it's intentional or not.Is a warg a person? Is someone who has already DIED a person? (Jon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Is a warg a person? Yes a warg is a person, why wouldn't they be?Is someone who has already DIED a person? (Jon)Is it a given that he's died? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.