Jump to content

R+L = Jon and Meera Reed?


houseHB

Recommended Posts

I wonder if the StarWars movie proximity is the factor causing this whole "twin" uprising... I ( and many others in this thread) don't think that's the case, for multiple reasons that people have already posted here.. But I will tell you my main 2

1. Meera is a crannogman, her appearance fits the description of one.. And she is compared to Jojen multiple times

2. Why would GRRM introduce us to meera so late if she was going to be of great importance?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has more to do with the dragon having 3 heads; and the explicit suggestion in the text that this would normally or could possibly be interpreted as referring to 3 siblings.

 

Explicit suggestions about such important and mysterious stuff before it happens are usually red herrings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Explicit suggestions about such important and mysterious stuff before it happens are usually red herrings.

 

Not when they are explicitly dismissed and explained away by the main characters.  Readers who ignore this information as irrelevant are being led by the author by the nose.   It his hardly tricky enough to be called a red herring.

 

Edit:  Anyhow, it is one thing to say that a reader has been led astray by the author's red herring, and another thing to suggest they are being led astray by Star Wars.  Calling it a "red herring" at least acknowledges there is a basis for it in the text, which happens to be the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon is also described as being unusually short (he can't wear his sword on his belt or it drags the ground).  Another clue to Meera being his twin?


Idk, if anyone pointed this out but that's not an indication he's short it's a bastard sword that hits the ground when he walks. Those are lengthy swords and he does wear longclaw at his side nearly all throughout dance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
It has more to do with the dragon having 3 heads; and the explicit suggestion in the text that this would normally or could possibly be interpreted as referring to 3 siblings.


Then if we're introducing the third dragon head later, wouldn't that make Aegon a fitter choice?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not when they are explicitly dismissed and explained away by the main characters.  Readers who ignore this information as irrelevant are being led by the author by the nose.   It his hardly tricky enough to be called a red herring.

 

Edit:  Anyhow, it is one thing to say that a reader has been led astray by the author's red herring, and another thing to suggest they are being led astray by Star Wars.  Calling it a "red herring" at least acknowledges there is a basis for it in the text, which happens to be the truth.

 

Three heads of the dragon = three people = three dragonriders is a red herring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Three heads of the dragon = three people = three dragonriders is a red herring.

 

I agree.  People just read "The Dragon must have 3 heads", and then believe it is referring to 3 separate people.

 

Has anyone actually, you know, considered it to be a metaphor or a Red Herring?  People just take it as face value that it's 3 people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree.  People just read "The Dragon must have 3 heads", and then believe it is referring to 3 separate people.

 

Has anyone actually, you know, considered it to be a metaphor or a Red Herring?  People just take it as face value that it's 3 people.

 

Not only that but the people who believe in it are not reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol @ how the show only crowd has just found this theory and are currently freaking out over it.
 
I bet the main reason they believe it is because Kit Harington and Ellie Kendrick both happen to have curly hair.


Apparently, you are on to something. I have friends that are show only watchers and they think King Robert is Jon's real father because of hair color or did think this till online articles told them about the r+l=j theory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then if we're introducing the third dragon head later, wouldn't that make Aegon a fitter choice?

 

Assuming Baby Aegon survived (setting aside the question of whether Young Griff and Baby Aegon are the same person); and further assuming that R+L=J, we still have only 2 dragon siblings, not 3.  Dany would not be a sibling unless R+L=D or R+?=D (which I'm willing to consider, but I'm in the minority). 

 

And without necessarily pushing Meera, I'd say characters introduced fairly early are better choices than ones introduced in Book 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Not only that but the people who believe in it are not reliable.


Pre-note I hate when I have to back to back to back quote.

Correct me if I'm wrong but only 2 people talk of the 3 heads. Quaithe when she says the whole remember the undying and Dany first hearing it in the undying. Oh I guess three, Rheagar too..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pre-note I hate when I have to back to back to back quote.

Correct me if I'm wrong but only 2 people talk of the 3 heads. Quaithe when she says the whole remember the undying and Dany first hearing it in the undying. Oh I guess three, Rheagar too..

 

I don't remember Quaithe ever mentioning the three heads of the dragon. Rhaegar and Aemon clearly believed that three people = three heads of the dragon. But they are known to misinterpret prophecies and that is why they are unreliable. Jorah said that Dany's two husbands and Dany would be the three dragonriders and three heads of the dragon. We know that Jorah was thinking with his dick in that occasion. Dany believes that three heads of the dragon means three people and she should find two people she could trust to be dragonriders and the heads of the dragon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The three heads of the dragon are three people, and they are dragonriders. The mystery is supposed to be who the heads are, not some metaconceptual BS about 'what does it all MEAN?' Just because something makes obvious sense doesn't mean it's automatically false.

 

Except George himself said that prophecies should not be easy to solve.

 

Besides, we do not even know what “the Dragon has three heads” mean or where does it come from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except George himself said that prophecies should not be easy to solve.
 
Besides, we do not even know what “the Dragon has three heads” mean or where does it come from.

Of course it's difficult to solve. Who on their first read realized that both Jon and Tyrion are Targs? The board has analyzed these things to death so it seems simple to us, but for the average first time reader it's not easy at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I don't remember Quaithe ever mentioning the three heads of the dragon. Rhaegar and Aemon clearly believed that three people = three heads of the dragon. But they are known to misinterpret prophecies and that is why they are unreliable. Jorah said that Dany's two husbands and Dany would be the three dragonriders and three heads of the dragon. We know that Jorah was thinking with his dick in that occasion. Dany believes that three heads of the dragon means three people and she should find two people she could trust to be dragonriders and the heads of the dragon.


How could I forget Aemon's speech to Sam. But seeing this in a broad break down is very compelling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's difficult to solve. Who on their first read realized that both Jon and Tyrion are Targs? The board has analyzed these things to death so it seems simple to us, but for the average first time reader it's not easy at all.

 

Tyrion is not a Targ.

 

That theory is the natural continuation of this red herring I am talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...