[TV/Books] Game of Thrones ***SPOILER Discussion***

[Celista]

Tyrion not actually being Tywin's son would be a bad revelation as it would make Tywin seem less cruel. A part of what makes Tyrion and Tywin's relationship interesting is the evil contempt that Tywin has for his own son.

Good point. It also reflects the reality that some people treat their flesh and blood like the way Tywin treated Tyrion (or worse).

Tywin already gets a lot of excuses for his behavior. We also already have the excuse that Tywin treated Tyrion that way because Tyrion is a dwarf (obviously a terrible one) and that Tywin treated Tyrion badly because his birth lead to Joanna's death.

Sometimes people are shitty parents and there is no logical reason. It's not because the kid is weird or likes to read books or was born different from other children. People are shit parents because they are shitty human beings, period.

Too bad the show isn't comfortable with this idea.

[Sooba]

Good point. It also reflects the reality that some people treat their flesh and blood like the way Tywin treated Tyrion (or worse).

Tywin already gets a lot of excuses for his behavior. We also already have the excuse that Tywin treated Tyrion that way because Tyrion is a dwarf (obviously a terrible one) and that Tywin treated Tyrion badly because his birth lead to Joanna's death.

Sometimes people are shitty parents and there is no logical reason. It's not because the kid is weird or likes to read books or was born different from other children. People are shit parents because they are shitty human beings, period.

Too bad the show isn't comfortable with this idea.

Who cares what the excuses are? And are you actually claiming that Tyrion not being his own biological son is any sort of excuse for abuse? I have an adopted brother who would like to know your location.

[Celista]

Who cares what the excuses are? And are you actually claiming that Tyrion not being his own biological son is any sort of excuse for abuse? I have an adopted brother who would like to know your location.

No...wtf? You just replied to the person whose posts I replied to, maybe read it again.

[Sooba]

No...wtf? You just replied to the person whose posts I replied to, maybe read it again.

You agree that his point was a good point. I am saying that it is, in fact, not a good point...

[Celista]

You agree that his point was a good point. I am saying that it is, in fact, not a good point...

It is a good point because people try to justify abuse/harm with stupid excuses, as I said in my reply post.

[Sooba]

Nice try bud but your response wasn't written yet.

As far as world of ice and fire goes, a lot of people have issues with the timelines that book introduced.

Feel free to elaborate on these timelines that a "lot of people" have trouble with.

- - - Updated - - -

It is a good point because people try to justify abuse/harm with stupid excuses, as I said in my reply post.

Then you actually disagree with him, because his whole point was that it it makes Tywin seem less cruel if he wasn't actually Tyrion's biological father. And he was saying this in reference to the A+J=T theory. And you thus agree with my rebuttal that that's a piss poor excuse. Thus making it not a good point on his part.

[ohiostate124]

Feel free to elaborate on these timelines that a "lot of people" have trouble with.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you actually disagree with him, because his whole point was that it it makes Tywin seem less cruel if he wasn't actually Tyrion's biological father. And he was saying this in reference to the A+J=T theory.

Feel free to apologize for that lie about the editing.

[Celista]

Feel free to elaborate on these timelines that a "lot of people" have trouble with.

- - - Updated - - -



Then you actually disagree with him, because his whole point was that it it makes Tywin seem less cruel if he wasn't actually Tyrion's biological father. And he was saying this in reference to the A+J=T theory. And you thus agree with my rebuttal that that's a piss poor excuse. Thus making it not a good point on his part.

I interpreted his post as that it would seem less cruel TO OTHERS because the show seems to have the POV that if parents are shitty, there's something wrong with the child. At least that's the route the books/show took with Tyrion, but also with Sam.

[Sooba]

I interpreted his post as that it would seem less cruel TO OTHERS because the show seems to have the POV that if parents are shitty, there's something wrong with the child. At least that's the route the books/show took with Tyrion, but also with Sam.

I've never gotten that sense from either source. o.O I've gotten the sense that those parents were shitty and came up with excuses for their behaviour. It never appeared to me that any author tried to present those excuses as anything but weak self-justification. Like... well, real people. But at least now we know why we were diagreeing about that post. It's a common denial I see a lot when A+J=T comes up, and it's based in the rather odd assumption that an adoptive father is less important to the emotional growth of his son than a biological one would have been. An assumption that I take some issue with on a personal level due to my family background. /shrug

- - - Updated - - -

Feel free to apologize for that lie about the editing.

/rolleyes. I'll edit that part out of my post if it makes you feel better. Needless to say it wasn't there when I was typing my reply. Hence why it's not in my quote of your post and it looked rather convenient. Still would like some examples of these "lot of people" taking issue with the timelines in the book. And I mean on an actual "this can't be right" sort of level and not just "this disproves my pet theory" level.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Old Post Dealing with a lot of this stuff
Since it has come up again, I'm going to repost the large post I made a few hundred pages back. My rebuttal to a lot of these arguments is later in the post. Apologies for length, but I assure you it's worth the read.

- - - Updated - - -

A) Quid Pro Quo
B) Intro
C) Background
D) Direct Textual Evidence
E) Narrative
F) Meta Analysis
G) FAQ



A) Quid Pro Quo – Or read to the end and I promise it will be worth your while
“Who is Jon Snow's mother?” – GRRM to D&D

A few things to keep in mind: Firstly, there is no incontrovertible proof. That doesn't mean there isn't a balance of probability. While I can't (and won't) claim that this theory is 100% correct, I can claim that my thought process went along all the steps from dismissing it, to considering it, to eventually finding the balance of probability greatly in its favor. More explicitly, I will try and show that Tyrion being the bastard son of Aerys and Joanna actually makes more narrative sense than the null hypothesis that he is Tywin's trueborn son.

Secondly, it is the cumulative total that matters. Each individual piece can only provide so much and can potentially be explained away. (Some more easily than others.) But taken as a whole they provide a pattern. A rather obvious, strong, and incredibly richly detailed one, when you get down to it.

Lastly as evidenced by my quote, GRRM not only hid much in plain sight but also vetted the show producers on their capacity to see it. Why does that matter? Simply to head off those who try to say “I'm tired of everyone having a potentially hidden agenda or identity.” I might posit, friend, that you're reading the wrong series if that's the case. Well ok, you're right, not everyone does. However, GRRM very clearly and explicitly gave every character detailed motivations and provided them wonderfully ambiguous and internecine conflicts in which to struggle. That isn't to say you have to accept every theory as true. The key is to accept or reject them on the basis of their evidence; and not on a knee-jerk disapproval of script flipping. So, about the evidence –

B) Intro – Or on the nature of textual evidence.
“The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange protein; it rejects it” – Peter B. Medawar

Evidence within the books can come in different forms. I'm not going to follow standard rules here and divvy it up into “foreshadowing” and “description” etc. Rather, I'm considering the story like protein structure. Each nature of evidence has an “order”, or a layer. Direct textual evidence will be the 1st order, as the words are laid down. Narrative and having the story make logical sense is the 2nd, as the story begins to fold on itself. Meta-analysis is the 3rd, as distant parts of the story come into close contact.



C) “0th Order” (Background) – Or on the real History of Aerys and Joanna.
“...Wanted is a better word, but...it was only kitchen gossip, the whispers of washerwomen and stableboys...” – Barristan Selmy to Daenerys about Aerys wanting Joanna

In “A World of Ice and Fire” GRRM describes the previous relationship between Tywin, Aerys, and Joanna. As children, Tywin and Aerys were actually close friends, along with a third companion, Steffon Baratheon. Aerys and Joanna had some level of a flirtatious relationship, although the full extent is not known.

Tywin and Aerys' relationship went sour rapidly due to two intertwined stories. – A Woods Witch proclaimed that the Prince that was Promised was to be born of Aerys and Rhaella's line. In response Jehaerys, Aerys' father, forced Aerys and Rhaella to marry despite there being no affection between the two of them. Aerys had always intended on proposing to Joanna. Instead, Tywin married Joanna (a Lannister cousin). And unlike Aerys and Rhaella's marriage, Tywin and Joanna's relationship was close and affectionate – Aerys also made Tywin the Hand of the King due to their previous relationship and because Aerys was impressed at Tywin's diligence and ruthlessness with dealing a rebellion in the Westerlands. The problem was, Tywin was too good. These contributed strongly to a deterioration of Tywin and Aerys' friendship eventually to the point of open enmity, rape, betrayal, and infanticide.

Everyone knows the story of Aerys “taking liberties” with Joanna at the bedding. What most folks don't realize is that a far darker and more shrouded event happened a decade later. Previous to a 10-year celebration tourny in King's Landing, Joanna had spent most, if not all, of her time in Casterly Rock, largely out of Aerys' reach. (More on the importance of this in the FAQ section.) The day of her arrival, Aerys openly made a sexual comment to her. Humiliating Joanna and angering Tywin was not the last thing to happen however. Later in that same time frame Joanna was suddenly packed off to Casterly Rock in suspiciously swift circumstances...

Tyrion was born 8-9 months later.

D) Direct Textual Evidence – Or descriptions, prophecies, and foreshadowing


1) Appearance and Dragon dreams

“Tyrion Lannister, the youngest of Lord Tywin's brood, and by far the ugliest. All that the gods havd given to Jaime and Cersei, they had denied Tyrion. He was a dwarf, half his brother's height, struggling to keep pace on stunted legs. His head was too large for his body, with a brute's squashed-in face beneath a swollen shelf of brow. One green eye and one black one peered out from under a lank fall of hair so blond it seemed white.” – Jon Snow on Tyrion Lannister

“Oh, yes. Even a stunted, twisted, ugly little boy can look down over the world when he's seated on a dragon's back. I used to start fires in the bowels of Casterly Rock and stare at the flames for hours, pretending they were dragonfire. Sometimes I'd imagine my father burning. At other times, my sister. Don't look at me that way, bastard. I know your secret. You've dreamt the same kind of dreams.” – Tyrion Lannister to Jon Snow

Believe it or not this is (in my humble opinion) the weakest evidence for Tyrion's true ancestry. However, it is not to be ignored. The implications are rather simple. The portion of Tyrion's hair that is blond, is white/platinum blond, not golden blond. A Targaryen trait. He also has heterochromia, a trait that only appears in one other person in the entirety of the AsoIaF mythos: Shiera Seastar, a Targaryen bastard. It is telling that Tyrion looks more like a Targaryen bastard than he does a Lannister. Especially given that his mother would have been a Lannister in either case.

His dragon dreams seem almost irrelevent and childlike. Probably because he seemed to only have them as a child... Except starting in ADWD, they return and with a vengeance. Dragon dreams are a unique trait of Targaryens. Intrusive dreams that dominate at odd times.


2) Viserion and the White Lion

“When Dany passed his eyes came open, two pools of molten gold. His horns were gold as well, as were the scales that ran down his long serpentine neck, back, and great tail.” – As seen by Dany, AFFC

“Viserion launched himself from the ceiling, pale leather wings unfolding, spreading wide. The broken chain dangling from his neck swung wildly. His flame lit the pit, pale gold shot through with red and orange...The dragon came down between the Dornishmen and the door with a roar that would have sent a hundred lions running...the quarrel caromed off Viserion’s neck to vanish in the gloom. A line of fire gleamed in its wake—dragon’s blood, glowing gold and red.” – As seen by Quentyn, ADWD

“A white lion ran through grass taller than a man.” – Vision in the House of the Undying

One of the mysteries of the series is precisely what the dragons represent, and who will ride them, if anyone at all. In the case of Dany it is eminently clear. She will ride Drogon as she already has, the largest of the dragons and the one she has already bonded to. He also represents her heraldry. Black and red, and with flame of black and red.

Viserion's imagery is actually even more clear than Dany's. He is a white/pale dragon with golden accents. His eyes are “molten gold”, his flame “pale gold with red and orange” and his blood “glowing gold and red”. You couldn't have a clearer connection to Lannister heraldry and description if you tried. But it gets better. The lion comparison is made explicitly in his roar.

This roar also has a curious quality. It isn't just necessarily lion-like. Rather it would've “sent a hundred lions running.” This calls to mind another scene in the books. At one point Viserion reacts to the white lion hakkhar (cloak/pelt) that Dany is wearing (a gift from the late Drogo). He sinks his claws into it for seemingly no reason. Almost as if he either dislikes it or is possessive of it. What's clear isn't just that Viserion is related to Lannister lion heraldry. He also has a fraught relationship with it. Just like Tyrion.

Furthermore, Tyrion is the pale Lion. He is not a golden-haired Lannister. He is the pale-haired bastard of a dragon and a lion. Likewise Viserion is the pale dragon with lion heraldry. This connection finally partially explains one of Dany's most cryptic visions in the house of the undying. All of her visions have occurred within the last generation or are prophetic. What then are we to make of a pale lion being dwarfed by some grass? This could be made all the more explicit (and beautiful) if Tyrion wears her hakkhar while in the Dothraki Sea, but it's unecessary. He's already a “pale lion” lion-killing dwarf who is the only clear fit for a “pale lion” lion-hating dragon.


3) Moqorro's Prophecy

“Dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark. And you. A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of it all.” – Moqorro to Tyrion

This one description is incredible. The amount of information to be gleaned is quite heavy. In fact it was this quote that stopped me in my tracks when reading ADWD and made me go “WHAT?!” It was this quote that spawned my reread of GoT and my search for all of the evidence you see here.

You see, in this quote Tyrion isn't just among dragons, he is one. He's “snarling in the midst” of them. The imagery is quite clear in that he is being equated to the other dragons listed. In fact this imagery is going a step further. Moqorro is listing the “dragons” (Targaryens) that Tyrion has met, or will meet. Listed respectively: Aemon and Jon (old and young), Dany and Aegon (true and false), and Varys and Illyrio (bright and dark) (I will provide more details about these predictions in a later post, since I don't have enough time to delve into it here. I understand that this one set could spawn a lot of questions.)

Tyrion is then equated to them with a very clear meaning “You are a dragon (Targaryen).” It is pertinent to note that lions don't make an appearance in this paragraph. Moqorro doesn't mention them. So it is extremely unlikely that the snarling involved is meant to depict Tyrion as one. This is further backed up by the reoccurring large shadow theme. A lion, while large, doesn't cast anywhere near the shadow a grown dragon would. And Tyrion is repeatedly described as having a massive shadow throughout the series. I mention this only because that's the only possible dismissal I can think of. And it's a weak dismissal indeed.

This one phrase in my view is GRRM's last big clue before delivering the knock-out blow and having Tyrion explicitly interact with Viserion.


E) Narrative Strength – Or the crafting of an incredible story


At this point I feel like I've actually already provided some pretty convincing direct evidence for Tyrion's true parentage. The opportunity was there. The physical attributes are there. The visions and prophecies line up. But what about the sense it makes of the story? Are there any narratives or patterns that emerge if Tyrion is a Targaryen? Absolutely, and some pretty neat ones too.

1) The ending embedded in the beginning.

“Remember this, boy. All dwarfs may be bastards, yet not all bastards need be dwarfs." And with that he turned and sauntered back into the feast, whistling a tune. When he opened the door, the light from within threw his shadow clear across the yard, and for just a moment Tyrion Lannister stood tall as a king.” – AGoT

Reading this quote just now makes me wonder just how oblivious I was, reading this series. Probably because I hadn't experienced GRRM's writing before. There's that giant shadow reference again. There's one Targaryen talking to another. There's the foreshadowing of royal blood. There's that beautiful juxtaposition: The (perhaps legitimate, perhaps bastard) son of Rhaegar viewed by all as Snow being spoken to by the actual Targaryen bastard viewed by all as a true-born Lannister. The irony is rich. And it's right there when Jon first goes to the wall.

But there's more. Remember that special seat Tyrion designed? He shows it to Jon upon the two of them getting a raven with news of Bran's crippling fall. He designed it for himself so he could sit atop a dragon—erm I mean horse. Again, right at the beginning Tyrion had solved a problem that we didn't even know he would eventually have.

This quote and a few others actually take on more meaning if Tyrion is a Targaryen. And in the cases where they had double meaning, all the more potent.

2) Symmetry

“I think it passing odd that I am loved by one for a kindness I never did, and reviled by so many for my finest act.” – Jaime Lannister to Catelyn Stark, referring to Tyrion and Aerys

The story of Tyrion and Jaime's relationship takes on even more harmonic overtones when Tyrion's Targaryen heritage is revealed. It's a beautiful tragedy. Outside of Joanna, Tyrion and Jaime are arguably the only two family members who truly loved each other. They are at their best when they interact directly with each other. And yet they were doomed. Tyrion trusted Jaime and Jaime betrayed that trust when he lied to Tyrion about Tysha's intentions. Jaime trusted Tyrion when he released Tyrion from prison. So then what are the extra overtones?

They each killed the other's dad.

They each betrayed the other unaware. That's not to say that each in turn wasn't justified. Jaime saved a city of half a million people from fiery immolation. Tyrion avenged a false accusation, a gang rape, and a death sentence by passing his own. And yet, they continue to wound the only other man that they have likely ever loved.

Curiously this also means that they have each evaded the dreaded kinslaying curse (for the time being), if in fact it exists.

3) Parallels

“Khaleesi... here sits Balerion, come again.” – Aggo about Drogon to Dany, ADWD

“Whoever Jon's mother had been, Ned must have loved her fiercely, for nothing Catelyn said would persuade him to send the boy away” – thoughts of Catelyn, AGoT

This was the second or third piece of the puzzle that fell into place for me and the one that convinced me originally of Tyrion's bloodline. If we assume R+L=J and A+J=T to be true, some incredible parallels open up.

Firstly, and less convincingly, it introduces a gender-reversed parallel of the first invasion by Aegon the conqueror. Aegon and his two sister-wives are replaced by Dany and her half brother and nephew. And just like Aegon, Dany the solo of her gender will ride the second coming of Balerion, the Black Dread.

More beautifully and convincingly a parallel opens up in the lives of the three proposed protagonists, (Dany, Jon, and Tyrion). All three killed their mother in childbirth, (Rhaella, Lyanna, and Joanna). All three were raised by a man not their father, (Illyrio, Ned, and Tywin.) All three were outcasts within their own home, eventually striking out on their own. All three have suffered physical deformity. All three have lost a large proportion of their family.

And it is going to be the discovery of their true biological family that will bring them together in a discovery of who they truly are.

F) Meta Analysis -- Or coming around the back

(Under construction)



G) FAQ – Or dealing with the denials

1) Wouldn't Jaime and Cersei be a better fit for Aerys' children, not Tyrion? After all, they would've been born first.

This particular idea comes from two main sources, one of which is misunderstood and the other of which is not convincing enough.

The first, misunderstood source is the quote about Aerys' taking liberties at Joanna's bedding. To be clear, that doesn't mean he raped her. A bedding is a public affair. A ribald ceremony where each opposite gender strips the bride and groom to their skivvies and throws them into bed together, then leaves. Aerys would not have been able to rape Joanna in front of everyone. “Take liberties” yes, intercourse, no. And even if he had, Jaime and Cersei weren't born until 3 years after the marriage/bedding.

Additionally, Joanna was dismissed from Rhaella's service 1 year after the marriage and she moved back to Casterly Rock. Thus, short of outright subterfuge and a months-long-absence from King's Landing it would not have been possible for Aerys to get her pregnant prior to their birth. Tyrion by contrast has a perfect time frame for conception by Aerys.

The second source of this confusion is a quote from Barristan Selmy to Daenaerys about the gods flipping a coin each time a new Targaryen is born. I will grant that this is a little better than the first misunderstanding. In fact I think Cersei's final moments will wind up much like Aerys'. It still suffers from the logistical problem posed in my first paragraph, though. And there are a few other mitigating factors that mean it isn't as strong as first blush.
Firstly, the Targaryen madness is presumably derived from pureblood intermarriage. Given that Joanna does not have Targaryen blood, her children likely don't suffer from that particular type. Even more telling is that Cersei's form of “madness” is rather entirely different from Aerys' or Aerion. By the end, Aerys refused to have his hair or nails cut. Aerion drank wildfyre in the honest belief he'd turn into a dragon. That's a bit different than run-of-the-mill sociopathy, paranoia, and jealousy.

Secondly, Cersei's madness has a rather explicit source; Maggy the Frog. Being told that you will bury all your beloved children and then die at the hands of your younger brother tends to do things to you. Even worse when in your fear you wind up fulfilling your own best-friend's prophecy by murdering her in cold blood. (Or cold water, as it were)

As for the incest. No arguments there. I just don't think it holds up against the mountain of evidence I've just revealed for Tyrion. While it holds for different “symmetries” it breaks the “parallels”. And there's evidence that even this was a bit different from the Targaryen expression. Cersei never really loved Jaime. She wanted to be Jaime.


2) Why would Tywin not simply have had Tyrion killed? After all, he's all about family honour.

Two easy ways to answer this. 1) Exactly. He's all about honour, and to have Tyrion killed would be an admission to the world of his cuckolding, thus he can't do it. Or 2) He actually did try to have Tyrion killed. Twice, (that we know of). Once by putting him in the front lines of a pitched battle with untested hill tribe troops, and Tyrion was no warrior. Twice by sentencing him to death, and only mentioning the prospect of the possibility of being sent to the wall when faced with an imminent cross-bow bolt.

Thing is, neither of these two answers get to the meat of the problem. That problem is the assumption that Tywin would kill Tyrion outright. At the base of this problem is a misunderstanding of Tywin's nature. Yes he's ruthless. Yes he's all about family honour above all. But those feed into a different issue: A complete incapacity to admit terrible truths.

Tywin's oldest two children were in a lifelong incestuous relationship. His own wife had to separate them when they were caught by a servant having sex before the age of ten! The evidence was right in front of him and the rumours were everywhere and what did he do? Nothing. He couldn't even admit it was true. In the show, Cersei even tells him directly and he denies it.

And so it went with Tyrion. He is trapped. He doesn't want to believe that it's true. So he clings to the lie, as it's easier than the truth. Even then he tries to leave Tyrion to die in passive ways, as mentioned previously. Because if Tyrion were to die in battle, no admission is necessary.

This also explains Tywin's constant efforts to get Jaime to leave the Kingsguard, and his savagery with Aerys' trueborn offspring. In siring Tyrion and removing Jaime from the succession, Aerys cuckolds Tywin completely. Because Tywin can't kill Tyrion, he sends his most heinous lackey (Gregor Clegane) to rape and kill Elia and her children. He expresses his rage by proxy. And in doing so he tries to exact upon Aerys the revenge he desired for the anguish he was caused. Sending Gregor was no accident. Tywin knew what Gregor was, and chose him accordingly.

3) Why would Joanna not simply have had Tyrion killed? After all, she was raped.

Once again this can be answered from both directions. Maybe she did try. That might be why Tyrion is born not only a dwarf but also disfigured. Moon tea may not be a perfect solution. Much like abortions today can fail.

But that's even assuming she attempted it. This is a far more complex issue than that. Many women the world over continue to carry a child that was the product of rape. Some of those women even have access to abortion. I don't want to pretend that this is easy, or that I'm an expert, but given the real world examples I think it's feasible that Joanna chose to believe that killing the baby would not make her feel any better.

To take it even a step further, we have no proof that it was rape. Oh it most likely was. I'm not going to pretend that the opposite is likely. But it is possible. Joanna and Aerys once had feelings for each other. That much is clear. Joanna felt humiliated by Aerys' previous public comment about her breasts. She was also in a loving relationship with Tywin. Given these facts and her big-hearted nature I think Joanna would have felt torn, but would have chosen to keep and love the child.

4) Genna (Lannister) Frey says – “Jaime,” she said, tugging on his ear, “sweetling, I have known you since you were a babe at Joanna’s breast. You smile like Gerion and fight like Tyg, and there’s some of Kevan in you, else you would not wear that cloak... but Tyrion is Tywin’s son, not you. I said so once to your father’s face, and he would not speak to me for half a year. Men are such thundering great fools. Even the sort who come along once in a thousand years.”

She's absolutely right. Tyrion is more like Tywin than Jaime could ever hope to be. But Genna's statements were a comment on Tyrion's personality and behaviour. Not some anachronistic comment on genetics.

Tyrion most sought to emulate his father in an effort to please him. He grew up in a similar situation where he felt he (or in Tywin's case his family) was not taken seriously. Tyrion was most like his father because he best absorbed the lessons that Tywin sought to teach, not because he somehow better resembled Tywin as a fetus. And certainly no person would have accused Tyrion of looking more like Tywin. It is this similarity of mental acuity and ruthlessness that Genna is commenting on.

To boot this is all ignoring that Joanna was also a Lannister prior to marrying Tywin. As such its perfectly possible for Tyrion to have many Lannister traits. And even in the comment itself it says that Jaime is more like... his own uncles, who also would be Lannisters. So Genna is in no way saying that Tyrion is more “Lannister-ish” than Jaime.


5) This theory ruins Tyrion's relationship with his father!

Forgive me, but of all the denials this one actually irritates me. To begin it's not even a question. There's no actual textual issue with it. It's also incredibly misplaced. Its multi-part issue and I'll have to deconstruct each individual rebuttal in order to get at the root of the problem.

5a) It's just not the same if Tywin isn't Tyrion's biological father. It cheapens it.

Do you have anyone adopted in your family? I do. A brother. We had long talks when we were younger about how it felt in each of our respective positions. The older we got, the more we realized that his biological father didn't “matter” in that respect. At least for my brother's emotional state. Oh sure it mattered for some traits, talents, and health records. But my brother being adopted didn't change the fact that my father was his father. It was to my (biological and emotional) dad that he turned for support and strength.

It doesn't cheapen Tyrion's relationship with his father at all. Tywin is still the man that Tyrion so desparately craved acceptance from, and nothing will change it. Tyrion was still Tywin writ small, because as I stated earlier, Tyrion best sought to emulate and learn from his father. And if it makes you feel any better, my brother rolled his eyes when folks said that “it's just not the same”. A dad is a dad. And it's not sperm that makes the dad, but who took the time to raise and love you.

Forgive the visceral response, but if someone is honestly going to try and claim that my brother's relationship with my dad is cheaper than mine...

5b) So now Tyrion just gets off easy?

Are you kidding me? Sorry, but this makes me want to smack someone. Do you honestly think that when he learns he's the biological son of a cruel, pyromaniacal, paranoid rapist instead of a hurting, embittered, ruthless man it'll be getting off easy? Or maybe the “getting off easy” part is where he learns that his dad had good reason to distrust him, because Tyrion represented not only the death of his wife but her rape as well? Give me a break. If anything this will make it harder for Tyrion, because even though Tywin isn't his biological father, he will now understand why he acted the way he did. And that empathy is going to hurt.

No, if anything, Tyrion's true ancestry adds a layer of irony and empathy to the whole tortured relationship


6) Tyrion is often depicted as a lion, including in Quaithe's prophecy to Dany in ADWD.

Absolutely. As I've already mentioned, Tyrion still is a lion. His mother was a Lannister. He is the pale lion. The dragon-lion. And according to some internet theorists the stone dragon and even the “gargoyle”.

Quaithe couldn't very well have told Dany to “beware the real dragon”. That would've made no sense at all to Dany. Instead by being aware of “the lion” she knows immediately who Quaithe will have been referring to the moment he shows up. And when it's revealed he is in fact a dragon. Well, things will get interesting indeed.


7) There are too many Targaryens!

I've got news for you, there are a bunch more. This particular protest tends to occur when someone doesn't take the time to think about what would actually happen with a long time ruling family, in particular the Targaryens who loved to sleep around. They had all sorts of minor progeny all over the place. The view that somehow Robert's Rebellion annihilated the entirety of the Targaryen line is myopic at best. Again, as listed by Moqorro there are at least 7 dragons that we know of; Red or Black.

I find that this also happens when someone wants Jon to be particularly special and thinks that more Targaryens cheapens his reveal. Or when they feel it cheapens the overall experience through dilution. Well have no fear, most of those Targs are rather minor scions of the house and won't be playing a major role. Others will actually likely end up opposed to the prophesied “three heads” in another replay of the Blackfyre rebellion. In the end there will likely be only 3 Targaryens that are directly related to Aerys or Rhaegar.

This is also where it's important to look at the evidence, as I mentioned at the very beginning. Some folks might believe that other characters are a Targaryen, but which ones actually have good evidence? At the moment, only 3.



Thanks for taking the time to read. I hope this long post answered your questions. As things crop up I will be editing to include new info.

[Celista]

I've never gotten that sense from either source. o.O I've gotten the sense that those parents were shitty and came up with excuses for their behaviour. It never appeared to me that any author tried to present those excuses as anything but weak self-justification. Like... well, real people. But at least now we know why we were diagreeing about that post. It's a common denial I see a lot when A+J=T comes up, and it's based in the rather odd assumption that an adoptive father is less important to the emotional growth of his son than a biological one would have been. An assumption that I take some issue with on a personal level due to my family background. /shrug

It's something I take issue with because I had shitty parents and I have abused kids sitting in my office who all think they are bad and something is wrong with them because their parents are being shitty to them. It's even worse with foster kids. It pisses me off and made me realize that other people lowkey perpetuate this point of view, assuming the kid's behavior or some other factor contributes to a parent's shitty behavior. Kids can be challenging but a parent's behavior is their own fault and children should be unconditionally loved, if you parent properly then your kid is less likely to act out in ways that is upsetting to a parent.

[Sooba]

It's something I take issue with because I had shitty parents and I have abused kids sitting in my office who all think they are bad and something is wrong with them because their parents are being shitty to them. It's even worse with foster kids. It pisses me off and made me realize that other people lowkey perpetuate this point of view, assuming the kid's behavior or some other factor contributes to a parent's shitty behavior. Kids can be challenging but a parent's behavior is their own fault and children should be unconditionally loved, if you parent properly then your kid is less likely to act out in ways that is upsetting to a parent.

Almost entirely agreed. I don't think that was the thrust of his post, though.

[enigma77]

The point of my post was to say that if Tyrion were in fact Aerys Targaryen's bastard, Tywin would have an additional excuse to hate and mistreat his 'son'. The character is portrayed better, he is more vile if he hates Tyrion simply for being a dwarf and his wife dying to give birth to him. In my mind I could understand disliking a child that was the reuslt of my wife being unfaithful or being raped, especially if I was forced to raise that child, to save face, as Tywin perhaps might have had to, if the theory is to be believed.

In other words, what's more cruel? Hating a child that is the result of your wife being raped or unfaithful or hating a child that is yours but simply deformed? In either case it's unfair to the child, but one is somewhat more understandable than the other in my opinion.
@Sooba @Celista

[Isilrien]

Just because you "thought" it was better doesn't make it true. And in this case the circumstantial evidence makes it impossible for Jaime/Cersei to be Aerys' children. Joanna was in CR for >2 years before their conception, and Aerys didn't go anywhere near CR in that time. Ergo, he cannot be their father. Joanna was in KL for the 10yr coronation tourny ~8 1/2 months prior to Tyrions birth. Ergo he can be Tyrion's father.

Not conclusive evidence for Tyrion of course (there's lots more for that in this thread that I went over), but it eliminates Jaime/Cersei entirely.

- - - Updated - - -



His point is that anyone who has ridden a dragon has been a Targaryen (with one exception with extensive extenuating circumstances that you've actually not even talked about, but I digress.) ie. being Targ is a necessary requirement to ride a dragon and therefore to ride one proves Targ blood. Your two attempts at disproof have been:

1) Sheepstealer not being tamed - Irrelevant. He didn't claim that all dragons would be tamed by Targaryens. He said that being Targ was a requirement for riding. Two very different things.

2) Not all Targs ride dragons - Again irrelevant, as his claim was that it was necessary to be a Targ in order to ride, not that being a Targ was a guarantee to ride. Again two very different things.

To put it in more abstract terms. He claimed "p" is necessary for "q". You got that confused with p is sufficient for q. A common logical error, and something he never claimed. You thus have made two logically irrelevant arguments that have been true, but trivially true and have not actually addressed his claim. You have successfully argued that "not all dragons are ridden", and that "not all Targaryens are riders." You have not successfully argued that "not all riders are Targaryen."

One, I did not say anything about taming. Someone else read that into what I said. There is no definitive proof that Nettles had Targaryen blood. Yet, she rode Sheepstealer. My point is that the claim that one must be of or have Targaryen blood to ride a dragon is based on an assumption that has not been definitively proven. If you can provide me some text or a comment from Martin that shows otherwise, great, and thanks.

Two, and again: it is not proven as far as I've seen that you musthave Targaryen blood to ride a dragon.
You have not correctly represented what I said. Whether or not I've successfully argued that not all riders had Targaryen blood is a matter of opinion. Just so I am clear--we are not told explicitly that Nettles had Targaryen ancestry. While this may be probable, to make a claim on probability is questionable in my opinion. You may disagree. Fine. But nothing I've said is irrelevant or illogical. Please stop misrepresenting what I've said. Thanks.

[Sooba]

The point of my post was to say that if Tyrion were in fact Aerys Targaryen's bastard, Tywin would have an additional excuse to hate and mistreat his 'son'. The character is portrayed better, he is more vile if he hates Tyrion simply for being a dwarf and his wife dying to give birth to him. In my mind I could understand disliking a child that was the reuslt of my wife being unfaithful or being raped, especially if I was forced to raise that child, to save face, as Tywin perhaps might have had to, if the theory is to be believed.

In other words, what's more cruel? Hating a child that is the result of your wife being raped or unfaithful or hating a child that is yours but simply deformed? In either case it's unfair to the child, but one is somewhat more understandable than the other in my opinion.

If anything I think it just adds another layer of pathos, tragedy, and irony to the relationship. And why is it bad if it makes Tywin more "understandable"? Understanding someone's monstrous actions doesn't mean they're excusable. Why equate the two? What he did to Tyrion was cruel, no matter Tyrion's biological father.

[enigma77]

If anything I think it just adds another layer of pathos, tragedy, and irony to the relationship. And why is it bad if it makes Tywin more "understandable"? Understanding someone's monstrous actions doesn't mean they're excusable. Why equate the two? What he did to Tyrion was cruel, no matter Tyrion's biological father.

Because the thing I like about Tywin is that he's a cold, cruel monster that I can't relate to.

[Celista]

Because the thing I like about Tywin is that he's a cold, cruel monster that I can't relate to.

I think that if the writers wanted to go with the "cold cruel monster that no one can relate to" they would have been better off making Jamie the one that Tywin hated. No bullshit excuses for his behavior.

I think that might be why the writers haven't had any buildup in the series about Tyrion's possible Targ links, they wanted to focus on the fact that Tywin hated him for being a dwarf.

[Sooba]

Because the thing I like about Tywin is that he's a cold, cruel monster that I can't relate to.

"Walter White is a bigger monster than anyone in Westeros."
- GRRM.

While I don't necessarily agree with George (I'm looking at you Ramsay), I bring up this quote just to say that GRRM has made a point to humanize as many of his characters as possible. A character having personal justification for monstrous actions make it more uncomfortable, yes. But it also make it very real, and it's precisely what he would try to do. It's easy to dehumanize monsters to convince ourselves that we could never do what they did. He's made a point to circumvent that impulse.

[Celista]

"Walter White is a bigger monster than anyone in Westeros."
- GRRM.

While I don't necessarily agree with George (I'm looking at you Ramsay), I bring up this quote just to say that GRRM has made a point to humanize as many of his characters as possible. A character having personal justification for monstrous actions make it more uncomfortable, yes. But it also make it very real, and it's precisely what he would try to do.

I actually feel like it makes it MORE comfortable rather than less for the audience. Lack of comfort happens for people when they can't understand another person's motivations.

As an author however GRRM probably wanted to err towards humanizing his characters because not doing so would create 2D characters, villains of the type that you tend to see in children's cartoons and is associated with poor writing. The thing that some authors fail to realize is that people like that really exist, even if the Ted Bundy-esque characters of the world are, thankfully, a minority.

Also: As previously discussed, I don't view being cruel to a child due to questionable parentage as "humanizing" a character, I think GRRM does though.

[Sooba]

Not all Targaryens were able to ride dragons, however. Just because you were Targaryen didn't mean that riding a dragon was automatic. Martin's latest book discusses this.

I'm going to preface this by saying I agree with you on the whole. Not all DR's were strictly known to be Targaryen. It's a generality, and one that is especially limited to the last few hundred years. (There were lots of non-Targ Valyrian DR's before the Doom).

However, this is a direct quote of one of your posts that I was answering. This is my point #2. It doesn't address what he was saying. I did not misrepresent this argument of yours (and certainly not purposefully). You just were not arguing what you thought you were.

That all being said, I think Jon riding a dragon is decent circumstantial evidence as to his ancestry. Something that would be convincing combined with other factors.

- - - Updated - - -

I actually feel like it makes it MORE comfortable rather than less for the audience. Lack of comfort happens for people when they can't understand another person's motivations.

As an author however GRRM probably wanted to err towards humanizing his characters because not doing so would create 2D characters, villains of the type that you tend to see in children's cartoons and is associated with poor writing. The thing that some authors fail to realize is that people like that really exist, even if the Ted Bundy-esque characters of the world are, thankfully, a minority.

Really? You think it's more comfortable to look in the face of a monstrous human being and see yourself than it is to be able to write them off as just a monster? I think enigma's frank response disagrees with that.

There's pictures out there somewhere that shows Hitler interacting in a gentle manner with a little girl (Helga Goebbels). Many folks express extreme discomfort with them, because it shows him to be human. Combined with his known actions, they're jarring. It's easier just to write Hitler off as a monster and pretend that we're incapable of what he did. But the fact is that we are. We all are. It is only through recognizing this fact and vigilantly guarding against it that we will be sure to avoid it happening again.

[Celista]

I'm going to preface this by saying I agree with you on the whole. Not all DR's were strictly known to be Targaryen. It's a generality, and one that is especially limited to the last few hundred years. (There were lots of non-Targ Valyrian DR's before the Doom).

However, this is a direct quote of one of your posts that I was answering. This is my point #2. It doesn't address what he was saying. I did not misrepresent this argument of yours (and certainly not purposefully). You just were not arguing what you thought you were.

That all being said, I think Jon riding a dragon is decent circumstantial evidence as to his ancestry. Something that would be convincing combined with other factors.

- - - Updated - - -



Really? You think it's more comfortable to look in the face of a monstrous human being and see yourself than it is to be able to write them off as just a monster? I think enigma's frank response disagrees with that.

There's pictures out there somewhere that shows Hitler interacting in a gentle manner with a little girl (Helga Goebbels). Many folks express extreme discomfort with them, because it shows him to be human. Combined with his known actions, they're jarring. It's easier just to write Hitler off as a monster and pretend that we're incapable of what he did. But the fact is that we are. We all are. It is only through recognizing this fact and vigilantly guarding against it that we will be sure to avoid it happening again.

Yeah I have basically the exact opposite reaction, I think it's a good thing that Hitler was a vegetarian and loved dogs and was kind to children. It shows that he wasn't a completely shit human being.

The total shit human beings like Ramsay Bolton are true minorities in the world, psychopaths whose behavior is almost entirely due to genetics/neurobiology are very few.