R+L=J v 61

[The guy from the Vale]

Agreed as well.

I think what I am most surprised by is the hostility that sometimes accompanies these strongly held opinions.

I have favorite characters too, and a vision of what I think might happen, but at the end of the day, it's Martin who makes the decisions and if it's not my particular vision, I'm okay with that, and don't have an over arching need to be right.

Martins one responsibility is to be a good story teller, and even if his themes have been done before, (sometimes known as the cliché), as I've always said, I'd rather a well told cliché than a badly done attempt at "edgy," whatever that is.

Seriously, almost every theme has been done before at some point. I don't even understand the "it's cliché" argument. By the same token, Classical Greek Tragedy is cliché. So are Shakespeare and Goethe. Goethe himself acknowledged that all art was imitation, there was nothing that had not been thought before; the important part was rethinking those older thoughts, putting a new spin on them. And Martin is doing that alright, with the story he tells being both very much a child of our time (the "edgy" part) while at the same time being timeless in the themes he actually touches in the story.

And even then, "jaded" medieval fantasy has uite some history. Anybody who doesn't believe me should read the Nibelungenlied or some Chrétien de Troyes. Yep, back in the 12th century AD, there were stories about treacherous knights, adulterous queens and people whose honor leads to their doom.

[WhiteOwl18]

Agreed as well.

I think what I am most surprised by is the hostility that sometimes accompanies these strongly held opinions.

I have favorite characters too, and a vision of what I think might happen, but at the end of the day, it's Martin who makes the decisions and if it's not my particular vision, I'm okay with that, and don't have an over arching need to be right.

Martins one responsibility is to be a good story teller, and even if his themes have been done before, (sometimes known as the cliché), as I've always said, I'd rather a well told cliché than a badly done attempt at "edgy," whatever that is.

Yes, I agree. I'll be happy with whatever he gives us, as long as it's done right. And I'm very confident that he will do it right!

[Alia of the knife]

Seriously, almost every theme has been done before at some point. I don't even understand the "it's cliché" argument. By the same token, Classical Greek Tragedy is cliché. So are Shakespeare and Goethe. Goethe himself acknowledged that all art was imitation, there was nothing that had not been thought before; the important part was rethinking those older thoughts, putting a new spin on them. And Martin is doing that alright, with the story he tells being both very much a child of our time (the "edgy" part) while at the same time being timeless in the themes he actually touches in the story.

And even then, "jaded" medieval fantasy has uite some history. Anybody who doesn't believe me should read the Nibelungenlied or some Chrétien de Troyes. Yep, back in the 12th century AD, there were stories about treacherous knights, adulterous queens and people whose honor leads to their doom.

Exactly so.

There is a reason why we still read "The Illiad," and Shakespeare centuries later, while I have my doubts that anyone will be reading much of the stuff put out these days.

And as I stated earlier, every writer begins with what influences them, whether it be from a real life experience, or just merely what they read as a child. The common denominator in art is the Human Experience.

I suppose from a personal standpoint I do get incensed at the notion that Martin is somehow breaking a "rule" if he even remotely has a happy ending. If he writes about life and the human experience then he will write about both the "song" and the tragedy. Having known a little of tragedy myself, and not to put myself too much out there, I know something about balance.

My mother committed suicide when I was twelve. On it's face, it was a "tragedy," but in reality while it was an event that "refined" me, it didn't "define" me as my dad was great, my moms sister stepped in and I had wonderful friends, and I have enjoyed many a "song" in my life. So this march of misery that Martin should never deviate from, annoys me, because that's not realistic either, and is becoming it's own cliché.

As far as the Medieval period goes, I do think because of it's brutality, the people of that time recognized the joys in life far better than do we modern people.

So, this notion that he can't write a "happy ending," or isn't allowed to is ridiculous, though that isn't necessarily his theme or his style. His theme is the balance, and "the human heart in conflict with itself," so his ending will be that bittersweet blend of both IMHO.

[WhiteOwl18]

Exactly so.

There is a reason why we still read "The Illiad," and Shakespeare centuries later, while I have my doubts that anyone will be reading much of the stuff put out these days.

And as I stated earlier, every writer begins with what influences them, whether it be from a real life experience, or just merely what they read as a child. The common denominator in art is the Human Experience.

I suppose from a personal standpoint I do get incensed at the notion that Martin is somehow breaking a "rule" if he even remotely has a happy ending. If he writes about life and the human experience then he will write about both the "song" and the tragedy. Having known a little of tragedy myself, and not to put myself too much out there, I know something about balance.

My mother committed suicide when I was twelve. On it's face, it was a "tragedy," but in reality while it was an event that "refined" me, it didn't "define" me as my dad was great, my moms sister stepped in and I had wonderful friends, and I have enjoyed many a "song" in my life. So this march of misery that Martin should never deviate from, annoys me, because that's not realistic either, and is becoming it's own cliché.

As far as the Medieval period goes, I do think because of it's brutality, the people of that time recognized the joys in life far better than do we modern people.

So, this notion that he can't write a "happy ending," or isn't allowed to is ridiculous, though that isn't necessarily his theme or his style. His theme is the balance, and "the human heart in conflict with itself," so his ending will be that bittersweet blend of both IMHO.

Very well said, Alia. I agree with all of it. I've had some tragic momemts myself, so I know what you mean. It's the bad stuff that makes us appreciate the good... :grouphug: :)

[FrozenFire3]

I step in from another of my crazy 'songs', this time in the beautiful Netherlands. Forgive my Mediterranean passionality but I have to say it or I'll burst: Alia and Valeguy... I love you. *back to sing my song of ice and fire*

[Rhaegar's Love]

Agreed as well.

I think what I am most surprised by is the hostility that sometimes accompanies these strongly held opinions.

I have favorite characters too, and a vision of what I think might happen, but at the end of the day, it's Martin who makes the decisions and if it's not my particular vision, I'm okay with that, and don't have an over arching need to be right.

Martins one responsibility is to be a good story teller, and even if his themes have been done before, (sometimes known as the cliché), as I've always said, I'd rather a well told cliché than a badly done attempt at "edgy," whatever that is.

:agree: Ultimately it's GRRM's story to tell. I for one have had it up to here with people's attitude that they can dictate what the storyteller does. I don't know where it stems from but I really wish it would stop.

Seriously, almost every theme has been done before at some point. I don't even understand the "it's cliché" argument. By the same token, Classical Greek Tragedy is cliché. So are Shakespeare and Goethe. Goethe himself acknowledged that all art was imitation, there was nothing that had not been thought before; the important part was rethinking those older thoughts, putting a new spin on them. And Martin is doing that alright, with the story he tells being both very much a child of our time (the "edgy" part) while at the same time being timeless in the themes he actually touches in the story.

And even then, "jaded" medieval fantasy has uite some history. Anybody who doesn't believe me should read the Nibelungenlied or some Chrétien de Troyes. Yep, back in the 12th century AD, there were stories about treacherous knights, adulterous queens and people whose honor leads to their doom.

I think I will check these out. :) At this point, I'm starting to think the "it's cliché" argument has become a fallback, when people have nothing solid to support what they want/don't want to happen.

Exactly so.

There is a reason why we still read "The Illiad," and Shakespeare centuries later, while I have my doubts that anyone will be reading much of the stuff put out these days.

And as I stated earlier, every writer begins with what influences them, whether it be from a real life experience, or just merely what they read as a child. The common denominator in art is the Human Experience.

I suppose from a personal standpoint I do get incensed at the notion that Martin is somehow breaking a "rule" if he even remotely has a happy ending. If he writes about life and the human experience then he will write about both the "song" and the tragedy. Having known a little of tragedy myself, and not to put myself too much out there, I know something about balance.

My mother committed suicide when I was twelve. On it's face, it was a "tragedy," but in reality while it was an event that "refined" me, it didn't "define" me as my dad was great, my moms sister stepped in and I had wonderful friends, and I have enjoyed many a "song" in my life. So this march of misery that Martin should never deviate from, annoys me, because that's not realistic either, and is becoming it's own cliché.

As far as the Medieval period goes, I do think because of it's brutality, the people of that time recognized the joys in life far better than do we modern people.

So, this notion that he can't write a "happy ending," or isn't allowed to is ridiculous, though that isn't necessarily his theme or his style. His theme is the balance, and "the human heart in conflict with itself," so his ending will be that bittersweet blend of both IMHO.

I too have had my fair share of tragedy though I'm not nearly as brave as you to share it. I am in total agreement with everything you said. :grouphug:

If this story was to be all doom and gloom then why even have sweet moments, like Arya getting Needle back? (Sorry, I'm still hung up on that. When I read that, I was thisclose to putting the bookmark in place, getting up and dancing a jig around the living room), or highlighting Jaime and Brienne's growing feelings for each other, or Edmure and Rosalin finding love despite all the other shit? Why cripple Bran and then give him the potential to be more powerful than any living being with fully functioning limbs? Why have anyone stand up and say eff off if this story is only meant to bring tears?

Sorry for that rant. I guess I've been needing to get that off of my chest lol.

There is also a clarification I was hoping you all could help me with. From my own beliefs (which I won't elaborate on here), I think if there is a KitN/QitN the only contenders will be Arya and Jon. I truly don't see Arya wanting any sort of position like that, but has there been any instances of anyone publicly abdicating the throne? I know Maester Aemon passed it up several times but that was secretly. I know the public would largely chalk it up to his vows as a Maester but in the case of Arya a lot of questions would be raised to why she was "skipped over" so that's why I'm wondering about public instances. My Westerosi history is not the strongest so if there are instances of this that you could tell me about I'd really appreciate it!

[Alia of the knife]

Very well said, Alia. I agree with all of it. I've had some tragic momemts myself, so I know what you mean. It's the bad stuff that makes us appreciate the good... :grouphug: :)

That's right, it's not what tragedy does with us, but what we do with it.:)

[Alia of the knife]

I step in from another of my crazy 'songs', this time in the beautiful Netherlands. Forgive my Mediterranean passionality but I have to say it or I'll burst: Alia and Valeguy... I love you. *back to sing my song of ice and fire*

Love you too my friend :)

[Dio Forel]

"Prophesy is like a half-trained mule. It looks as though it might be useful, but the moment you trust in it, it kicks you in the head." - Tyrion, ADWD.

Not everyone who believes R+L=J believes it has to do with succession for the Iron Throne. Rhaegar was apparently obsessed with a prophesy that had to do with something much bigger than that. If he believed that his children - his three children, held the key to saving the realm from darkness or some prophesied enemy (the Others?), he may have felt he had to make it happen to fulfill the prophesy.

Since GRRM has verbally (and textually) confirmed that Azor Ahai Reborn is the same as the Prince That Was Promised; basically, two different versions of the same prophesy from different sources (Westeros and Essos), maybe the details of the two versions can be merged as well.

Rhaegar may have been wrong in his interpretation of the prophesy, or at least some detail of it. Apparently he first believed he was the PTWP, then he believed it was his son Aegon, but the dragon has three heads - hence, he needed to have three children which, apart from falling in love with Lyanna, probably led to his taking her as a second wife or paramour. It may be that Jon is the PTWP/AAR, instead of Aegon. It may be that Rhaegar was right in the first case - and was the PTWP/AAR, and Jon is Lightbringer. We won't know until the Creator (GRRM) reveals it all. So, there's the added twist to the love story of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

So, R+L=J has importance to the story in a much bigger way than just who sits on the IT, but there are details yet to be revealed about how the prophesy plays out. And personally, I think the IT is a big Macguffin in the grand scheme of things, and the real importance of Jon's unique parentage is still unfolding in the far North.

As I said above, I don't think the IT will have much importance in the end. That even assumes the "Seven Kingdoms" is still a single unit in the end after the coming apocalypse. What Aegon the Conqueror built may be in ash or buried under deep snow when the Spring comes again, and whoever survives will have to build something new from the ruin.

I would like to see Jon become King in the North, but I think his destiny is tied to defeating the forces of darkness. I hate the idea that he is doomed to live a miserable, loveless cold existence in the Nights Watch, but like the Iron Throne, I think the NW will be changed or ruined by the end of Winter anyway. Whatever Jon's fate (and I hope he isn't sacrificed after fighting to save the realm from darkness), I don't think he'll come anywhere near the IT, nor would he want it.

Like in the vision.... Snow will be on the iron throne. Couldve been a reference to winter but I say it meant Snow... Not snow will literally be on the IT. Plus Winterfell is in shambles so who wants to rule from there? If JS is king then many people are dead or gone. The IT is likely where hed sit.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Exactly so.

There is a reason why we still read "The Illiad," and Shakespeare centuries later, while I have my doubts that anyone will be reading much of the stuff put out these days.

And as I stated earlier, every writer begins with what influences them, whether it be from a real life experience, or just merely what they read as a child. The common denominator in art is the Human Experience.

I suppose from a personal standpoint I do get incensed at the notion that Martin is somehow breaking a "rule" if he even remotely has a happy ending. If he writes about life and the human experience then he will write about both the "song" and the tragedy. Having known a little of tragedy myself, and not to put myself too much out there, I know something about balance.

My mother committed suicide when I was twelve. On it's face, it was a "tragedy," but in reality while it was an event that "refined" me, it didn't "define" me as my dad was great, my moms sister stepped in and I had wonderful friends, and I have enjoyed many a "song" in my life. So this march of misery that Martin should never deviate from, annoys me, because that's not realistic either, and is becoming it's own cliché.

As far as the Medieval period goes, I do think because of it's brutality, the people of that time recognized the joys in life far better than do we modern people.

So, this notion that he can't write a "happy ending," or isn't allowed to is ridiculous, though that isn't necessarily his theme or his style. His theme is the balance, and "the human heart in conflict with itself," so his ending will be that bittersweet blend of both IMHO.

Sorry about your mom :crying:

However I do agree with you, it would be really disappointing for characters that have struggled their whole life to end the story with a sad ending.

I am sure GRRM will have more sweet then bitter at the end, as he said majority of the readers would be happy with his ending.

[J. Stargaryen]

Exactly so.

There is a reason why we still read "The Illiad," and Shakespeare centuries later, while I have my doubts that anyone will be reading much of the stuff put out these days.

And as I stated earlier, every writer begins with what influences them, whether it be from a real life experience, or just merely what they read as a child. The common denominator in art is the Human Experience.

I suppose from a personal standpoint I do get incensed at the notion that Martin is somehow breaking a "rule" if he even remotely has a happy ending. If he writes about life and the human experience then he will write about both the "song" and the tragedy. Having known a little of tragedy myself, and not to put myself too much out there, I know something about balance.

My mother committed suicide when I was twelve. On it's face, it was a "tragedy," but in reality while it was an event that "refined" me, it didn't "define" me as my dad was great, my moms sister stepped in and I had wonderful friends, and I have enjoyed many a "song" in my life. So this march of misery that Martin should never deviate from, annoys me, because that's not realistic either, and is becoming it's own cliché.

As far as the Medieval period goes, I do think because of it's brutality, the people of that time recognized the joys in life far better than do we modern people.

So, this notion that he can't write a "happy ending," or isn't allowed to is ridiculous, though that isn't necessarily his theme or his style. His theme is the balance, and "the human heart in conflict with itself," so his ending will be that bittersweet blend of both IMHO.

:grouphug:

[Alia of the knife]

:agree: Ultimately it's GRRM's story to tell. I for one have had it up to here with people's attitude that they can dictate what the storyteller does. I don't know where it stems from but I really wish it would stop.

I think I will check these out. :) At this point, I'm starting to think the "it's cliché" argument has become a fallback, when people have nothing solid to support what they want/don't want to happen.

I too have had my fair share of tragedy though I'm not nearly as brave as you to share it. I am in total agreement with everything you said. :grouphug:

If this story was to be all doom and gloom then why even have sweet moments, like Arya getting Needle back? (Sorry, I'm still hung up on that. When I read that, I was thisclose to putting the bookmark in place, getting up and dancing a jig around the living room), or highlighting Jaime and Brienne's growing feelings for each other, or Edmure and Rosalin finding love despite all the other shit? Why cripple Bran and then give him the potential to be more powerful than any living being with fully functioning limbs? Why have anyone stand up and say eff off if this story is only meant to bring tears?

Sorry for that rant. I guess I've been needing to get that off of my chest lol.

There is also a clarification I was hoping you all could help me with. From my own beliefs (which I won't elaborate on here), I think if there is a KitN/QitN the only contenders will be Arya and Jon. I truly don't see Arya wanting any sort of position like that, but has there been any instances of anyone publicly abdicating the throne? I know Maester Aemon passed it up several times but that was secretly. I know the public would largely chalk it up to his vows as a Maester but in the case of Arya a lot of questions would be raised to why she was "skipped over" so that's why I'm wondering about public instances. My Westerosi history is not the strongest so if there are instances of this that you could tell me about I'd really appreciate it!

I'm afraid to even speak it into being, or say what I'm thinking with Arya and Jon......... :ack:

Sorry about your mom :crying:

However I do agree with you, it would be really disappointing for characters that have struggled their whole life to end the story with a sad ending.

I am sure GRRM will have more sweet then bitter at the end, as he said majority of the readers would be happy with his ending.

I appreciate your kindness, but I promise I've had more blessings and "songs" than tears, and I what I took from that experience is to try and be there for others the way others were there for me.

It really is taking bad and finding the good. Humor also helps as something I learned from my dad.

But, as I said, that is why I feel so strongly about this notion that Martin must follow some "misery" template. And while I don't think Martin departs from the reality of the brutality, he finds the beauty also, as evidenced by the piece that Frozenfire3 pulled about the eunichs who though castrated, still wanted to be held. :bawl:

Unless your dealing with an utterly nilhilistic genre like "The Walking Dead," I suppose a balanced approach to the subject isn't necessary.

But, with something like this, a pseudo-historical genre mixed with "low fantasy", that fatalistic approach is unrealistic, because people will still have hope, and I think most people of this time period did manage to look ahead and not only live, but joyfully so despite the brutality. Martin as a student of the history that has so influenced him has to reflect that.

[Foothill]

Like in the vision.... Snow will be on the iron throne. Couldve been a reference to winter but I say it meant Snow...

If your talking of the HotU, I think the snow in the IT was only in the show. I could be wrong though.

Regardless, good catch. I never even thought of that while watching that scene.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If your talking of the HotU, I think the snow in the IT was only in the show. I could be wrong though.

Regardless, good catch. I never even thought of that while watching that scene.

It is only on the show. They do, however, know how it ends, and it's possible that they "distilled" their own version of the HotU scene based on that.

[finger]

:agree: Ultimately it's GRRM's story to tell. I for one have had it up to here with people's attitude that they can dictate what the storyteller does. I don't know where it stems from but I really wish it would stop.

I think I will check these out. :) At this point, I'm starting to think the "it's cliché" argument has become a fallback, when people have nothing solid to support what they want/don't want to happen.

I too have had my fair share of tragedy though I'm not nearly as brave as you to share it. I am in total agreement with everything you said. :grouphug:

If this story was to be all doom and gloom then why even have sweet moments, like Arya getting Needle back? (Sorry, I'm still hung up on that. When I read that, I was thisclose to putting the bookmark in place, getting up and dancing a jig around the living room), or highlighting Jaime and Brienne's growing feelings for each other, or Edmure and Rosalin finding love despite all the other shit? Why cripple Bran and then give him the potential to be more powerful than any living being with fully functioning limbs? Why have anyone stand up and say eff off if this story is only meant to bring tears?

Sorry for that rant. I guess I've been needing to get that off of my chest lol.

There is also a clarification I was hoping you all could help me with. From my own beliefs (which I won't elaborate on here), I think if there is a KitN/QitN the only contenders will be Arya and Jon. I truly don't see Arya wanting any sort of position like that, but has there been any instances of anyone publicly abdicating the throne? I know Maester Aemon passed it up several times but that was secretly. I know the public would largely chalk it up to his vows as a Maester but in the case of Arya a lot of questions would be raised to why she was "skipped over" so that's why I'm wondering about public instances. My Westerosi history is not the strongest so if there are instances of this that you could tell me about I'd really appreciate it!

That's very right. Only GRRM is responsible for the story.

I guess one of reasons of this series' success is having deftly mixed some characteristics of different genres. For instance, black novel. We find mysteries along the text, and we're given the clues to solve them. While the action goes on on, we come across explanations of what happened in the past, or clues about what comes next. It's anyone's choice to play the game.

As for the north, I think becoming a tree can be taken as a resignation. If so, the legal Lord Stark is Rickon, as Lord Manderly clearly states.

[finger]

If your talking of the HotU, I think the snow in the IT was only in the show. I could be wrong though.

Regardless, good catch. I never even thought of that while watching that scene.

Clues are often confusing or misgiving. It could be about the WW invading Westeros. The sixth book is called The Winds of Winter. :dunno:

[finger]

I'm afraid to even speak it into being, or say what I'm thinking with Arya and Jon......... :ack:

I appreciate your kindness, but I promise I've had more blessings and "songs" than tears, and I what I took from that experience is to try and be there for others the way others were there for me.

It really is taking bad and finding the good. Humor also helps as something I learned from my dad.

But, as I said, that is why I feel so strongly about this notion that Martin must follow some "misery" template. And while I don't think Martin departs from the reality of the brutality, he finds the beauty also, as evidenced by the piece that Frozenfire3 pulled about the eunichs who though castrated, still wanted to be held. :bawl:

Unless your dealing with an utterly nilhilistic genre like "The Walking Dead," I suppose a balanced approach to the subject isn't necessary.

But, with something like this, a pseudo-historical genre mixed with "low fantasy", that fatalistic approach is unrealistic, because people will still have hope, and I think most people of this time period did manage to look ahead and not only live, but joyfully so despite the brutality. Martin as a student of the history that has so influenced him has to reflect that.

And, what's a happy ending?

As long as the story goes, if they just stop killing each other, and succeed to reject the WW, it'd be good enough, no matter how many kingdoms survive or who sit the bloody throne (it cuts.)

I think the characters have shown their personality, and they must find their place in this world. Maybe the happy ending is that each one will follow theit bias, not acting as supposed.

Jon Snow is tied to the Wall, and the lands and people beyond. He won't care for the IT, whoever his father was. Val will care his balls don't freeze.

More so, when his bother Aegon at last comes back from Asshai :-)

His aunt Daenerys is tied to the east. She'll go west with her dragons just to dicover that she has nothing to do there, hers is fucking on the grass under the stars. She has to see Narth and the Vasilisk Isles, meet the Volanteen slaves who're waiting for their Mhysa, and ride the Dothraki sea by a new Khal Drogo reborn.

Uncle Tyrion will die as a giant, victim of his loose tongue. He'll ofer to thrust a dragon into the the Heart of the Winter.

Varys' lie will be discovered, and it'll be the end of the mummer's dragon.

LF will controll the Vale and the Riverlands. He'll do for the rest of the Freys. Big Walder will pledge and inherit the Twins.

Lannisters are doomed.

I don't know when or how Stannis will die, but I've never seen a future for him. He's lived too much.

Sansa is pure ambition. She'll manage to get rid of LF, take the Vale and the Riverlands, and marry Aegon. North is too cold and boresome.

Arya has taken the revenge's path. When there's none interesting to kill in Westeros, she'll probably run for the black and white temple's "pope."

Rickon was wild enough, but after being raised by Osha in Skagos, he must be utterly unbearable. Anyway, he'll probably have some good times with Lord Manderly, eating Boltons and Freys.

Dorne will join Aegon.

Margaery will be a victim of the High Septon.

The Hound will study in the Quite Isle. Then he'll run to be the next High Septon, challenging the incumbent to singular combat (remember his horse is called after the last of the Seven.)

Enough. Some day I'll go on with Sam, Tormund and the rest.

[MtnLion]

I would like to see Jon become King in the North, but I think his destiny is tied to defeating the forces of darkness. I hate the idea that he is doomed to live a miserable, loveless cold existence in the Nights Watch, but like the Iron Throne, I think the NW will be changed or ruined by the end of Winter anyway. Whatever Jon's fate (and I hope he isn't sacrificed after fighting to save the realm from darkness), I don't think he'll come anywhere near the IT, nor would he want it.

You are entitled to your own beliefs, but I want to point out a little inconsistency in your logic. Azor Ahai or the Prince that was Promised is likely to defeat the others, but GRRM is not certain. He has said that it may end with Tyrion looking at a world of graves, or similar. For Jon to be tPtwP, R+L=J must be true, and Jon trueborn, to make him a prince. For this prophecy to pan out, it seems that the Prince will end the books ruling. Why else would Rhaegar have been so obsessed?

I personally don't like the idea of the hero ending by being king, it has happened so many times in so many stories, but that seems to be the direction that GRRM is taking us. He is orchestrating it in new and unique ways.

I don't like the idea of Daenerys taking the throne, for more reasons than just if there are any male heirs, and Stannis is one and Jon is another. The Seven Kingdoms need to be united under one king to win the battle, and all the more reason that Jon should be on the throne at the end of the story. Jon would not have any ambition towards becoming king, but as I see things unfolding be forced to take the throne to unite the Seven Kingdoms and (hopefully) win the Battle for the Dawn II.

[VaramyrSixchins]

If Rhaegar's reading of the prophecy is true, Jon was "supposed" to be a girl. My bold prediction: Jon is reborn amidst smoke (the hazy air in front of the stage at the Oldtown Painted Catamite Revue) and salt (the sea air brought in by sailors clandestinely attending said Revue) into The Prince (complete w purple velvet suit, silk scarves & just the right notes hit when covering "Doves Cry" and "Pussy Control") that was Promised. Upon being stabbed, he himself was the Bleeding Star, you see, and now, w prophecy fulfilled, naysayers won't be able to deny his parentage after hearing his harp work--so much like his father's--during "Kiss". W Satin at his side, being the managerial power behind the throne, all will hail "Get-This-in-Ya-Visenya" Snow!

Apologies if "Pussy Control" is now in your head...

[LadyMary]

You are entitled to your own beliefs, but I want to point out a little inconsistency in your logic. Azor Ahai or the Prince that was Promised is likely to defeat the others, but GRRM is not certain. He has said that it may end with Tyrion looking at a world of graves, or similar. For Jon to be tPtwP, R+L=J must be true, and Jon trueborn, to make him a prince. For this prophecy to pan out, it seems that the Prince will end the books ruling. Why else would Rhaegar have been so obsessed?

I personally don't like the idea of the hero ending by being king, it has happened so many times in so many stories, but that seems to be the direction that GRRM is taking us. He is orchestrating it in new and unique ways.

I don't like the idea of Daenerys taking the throne, for more reasons than just if there are any male heirs, and Stannis is one and Jon is another. The Seven Kingdoms need to be united under one king to win the battle, and all the more reason that Jon should be on the throne at the end of the story. Jon would not have any ambition towards becoming king, but as I see things unfolding be forced to take the throne to unite the Seven Kingdoms and (hopefully) win the Battle for the Dawn II.

How can GRRM not be sure how the prophesies that he wrote come to conclusion? And why does GRRM write so many witty (Tyrion), wise and knowledgeable (Marwyn) characters that warn about the danger in believing prophesies because they don't always end well?

I think it's clear from the text that Rhaegar didn't know for certain who the PTWP was. First, he believed it was himself, but then thought it was his son Aegon. All that drove him to take the actions he did in his life, probably including "abducting" Lyanna Stark, and now Rhaegar, Lyanna and Rhaenys (one of the presumed three heads of the dragon) are dead, and Aegon was also believed dead and may be as well - assuming Aegon is fake. So much for that.

So Jon maybe the PTWP, but if you want to be technical about it, assuming Jon is legitimate - he'd be King, not Prince, right? So, if the man calling himself Aegon is Rhaegar's trueborn son and not an imposter, then Jon is a Prince. But is Aegon is fake, the only "prince" left is a Princess, who happens to have three dragons... But maybe "Prince" is meant in blood-sense, not a legality sense. Jon has Rhaegar's blood combined with the blood of ancient Kings in the North which makes him a Princely by blood whether or not he's also King by succession.

We don't know because prophesies are tricky and subject to multiple interpretations all of which could be wrong in the end.

We, know that there are several theories about who Azor Ahai Reborn is, but the characters are not certain. Melisandre's interpretation is clearly wrong, but she doesn't know about Daenerys and her dragons - which is who the Red Priest of Volantis think is AAR; and she has no reason to believe that Ned Stark's alleged bastard is really the son of Prince Rhaegar Targaryen. And maybe Rhaegar was AAR all along and Jon is his Lightbringer.

Confusing? Absolutement.

As far as being united under one King to defeat the Others, a great commander could do that. Look how well common-born Mance Rayder got the wildlings to follow his command when common survival was at stake - and he was a "King" in title but not by blood. I think Jon will be the Commander that unites the forces to fight the Others, but I don't think it will have anything to do with whether or not he is the legitimate King of the Seven Kingdoms. It will because he has something that makes him uniquely suited to the task and not just an accident of birth.