R+L=J v.90

[stateofdissipation]

:bang:

FEVER + BLOOD

Just beause you can't find textual evidence that a bloody bed CAN (does) mean the days AFTER childbirth does NOT mean that it MIGHT mean that.

FEVER + BLOOD

"I know every secret of the bloody bed, silver lady, nor have I ever lost a babe." Mirri Maz Duur replied.--aGoT page 650 paperback.

"That was the way of this cold world, where men fished the sea and dug in the ground and died, whilst women brought forth short-lived children from beds of blood and pain."

- AFfC p. 21

Just beause you (BQ) can't find textual evidence that a bloody bed CAN (does) mean the days AFTER childbirth does NOT mean that it MIGHT (does not) mean that.

FEVER + BLOOD

Agreed... it could mean anything... it could mean Dayne stabbed her.. It could have been suicide.... It could have been the ebola virus....

Without further evidence or reason... bed of blood means childbirth.

[honeyed chicken]

News flash:

Jon has just been eliminated from the elimination game, "Who will sit the IT at the end of ASOIAF."* Therefore he can not possibly be Rhaegar's son!

*in fact not only was Jon Snow by himself eliminated, Jon & Dany as a couple were eliminated as well. . .

[sj4iy]

I'm seeing a lot of people use the puerperal fever argument as a timeline for how old Jon could possibly be when Ned arrives. Is it not possible, that like so many things in Westeros, this disease has some variations from its real-world counterpart?

If George decided that it suddenly takes a month for childbed fever to kill someone in Westeros with a skilled maester at hand, it would. Just like with travel times, his timeline is whatever it has to be to make the story work.

Just because a disease seems likely, does not mean we can use it as a factual representation of its effects in Westeros.

People are forgetting that a woman giving birth can contract any infection if they labor for too long. It's why doctors won't allow a woman to go labor longer than 24 hours after her water has broken...the risk of infection increases dramatically. She could have easily contracted the fever while in labor and died from a combination of that and blood loss right after giving birth to Jon.

[mambru]

Sorry, that particular part may have been a bit harsh and overstated. What I mean is that you have managed to convince yourself that certain situations such as Barristan, Bob, and the boar, or Duskendale present legitimate problems for R+L=Legit J. I do not believe that this is the case. That you have convinced yourself of this, and other things, is not noteworthy to me. I don't think you've sufficiently demonstrated these principles.

So when I offer up a theory, and cite evidence from the novels AND from the author to back up my reasoning, you say my "connections are loose and tenuous." You offer up your own theory, which is based on rules ("The KingsGuard are sworn to Obey as well as Protect, but they are ALLOWED to Disobey in order to Protect"; "The King cannot be without a KG, and if he is, the KG must Disobey Orders to run to Protect the King") that are contradicted by the evidence I cited. Those rules of yours are NOT cited anywhere in the book, and you assume their existence based SOLELY on your deductions - which may turn out to be wrong.

But you assume my theory plus book and author-based evidence is outweighed by your theory without it.

Thing is, you can have a chain of deductions whose every link is reasonable and logical - and still turn out to be wrong. Citing evidence independent of your chain of reasoning is still important. So the fact that you can't cite any textual quotes to back up those two rules that your theory rests on MAY have a bearing on whether your theory is true or not.

And IMO, the fact that you keep telling me (twice, already) that nobody agrees with me as proof that your theory is correct kind of indicates your attitude toward this discussion. Because as I said before, the fact that your belief is in the majority on THIS thread does nothing to prove it is correct. It is not logic, it's the Bandwagon Fallacy ("Fifty million Chinamen can't be wrong!")

Do you really want an actual debate about your theory on this thread? Or do you want a cozy little exclusive club where any idea you think is wrong should be voted off the thread? ("We all disagree with you...therefore you must be wrong. Go away.") If you really want a debate, I think you should accept that it's possible that people CAN actually think differently than you and still be reasonable.

[Aeron_Damphair]

This is what I have been trying to say.

I believe in R+L=J for the most part, but (and some are already sick of reading these words from me) there is way too much certitude expressed here. I have raised a number of questions as you have and they can't be answered satisfactorily.

You raise the writers perspective as a question and I think GRRM's aim is to give us enough information to create this great mystery, but not enough to solve it conclusively. Given how thorough everybody is here, he may feel he gave us too much to go on.

But wrt the question of what Jon as a Targ does for the story??

My god! You've put a member of the dragon clan (fire) across the path of the Others (ice) - hence the title. This is the epic battle everything is building toward and Jon is at the crux. I really want Dany to join him, but she's got so far to go . . .

Mel's presence is interesting. Thoros and Beric have already established the precedent that a priest/servant of the red god can raise the dead back to life. My thought has been all along that Mel will do this for Jon and in so doing will either see his Targaryen roots or he will.

It could be great.

I don't know. To my eye, the enthusiasm from the majority for R+L=legit J is more justified than the enthusiasm from the minority for R+L=bastard J. The former case is more elegant, accounting for more details and leaving far fewer questions unanswered.

As far as R+L=J (barebones), the level of certitude is entirely justified IMHO. I've gone so far as to say that it should (practically?) be considered canon at this point because there is no other hypothesis that begins to compete. The enthusiasm for threads like "N+A=J" or "R+A=J" or I even saw "R+L=D and B+A=J" is what looks out of place to me.

As others have mentioned, and I agree, there is more receptiveness to alternative theories on the secondary threads. I believe that is because we have fresher faces in those threads- posters who have not necessarily run R+L=J through the mill as thoroughly as the contributors to this thread typically have. Just my opinion, but my experience seems to bear that out.

If you want to hold out that token modicum of doubt, that's certainly respectable, but I think there is ample reason to believe R+L=legit J until proven otherwise. It just fits the story the best.

[stateofdissipation]

The bed will remain *bloody until it is cleaned up. The blood comes during-and after childbirth. The text doesn't tell us if it is fresh or not!

Promise me, she had cried in that room that smelled of blood and roses. aGoT page 40

sight and smell... fresh blood...

CHILDBIRTH

500mls or less, others 600 mls or less, a few suggest that 1000mls (bed of blood or bloody bed)--- 1000ml is 2.8 cans of coke.

http://www.birth.com...al#.U8zYSfl_vT8

POSTPARTUM BLEEDING

60-80 ml or more. (spotted sheets)---- 80 ml is 1.3 eight hour energy shots

http://www.whattoexp...m-bleeding.aspx

http://www.patient.c...ods-menorrhagia

[mambru]

People are forgetting that a woman giving birth can contract any infection if they labor for too long. It's why doctors won't allow a woman to go labor longer than 24 hours after her water has broken...the risk of infection increases dramatically. She could have easily contracted the fever while in labor and died from a combination of that and blood loss right after giving birth to Jon.

Or, it might not be puerperal fever at all. It could be any infection that causes a fever...because pregnant women are more vulnerable to ALL types of infection than non-pregnant ones. So she could have contracted, say, a urinary tract infection that turned complicated, and this (possibly associated with eclampsia) could have started long BEFORE she went into labor. So to assume that the fact that she died with a fever means that we have an exact time of birth for Jon is fraught with possible error.

"She had a fever - it MUST be puerperal! And that kills 7-10 days AFTER birth! So Lyanna MUST'VE died of puerperal fever! And Jon must've been born 7-10 days before she died, because it was puerperal fever that killed her and that's how long it takes!"

[stateofdissipation]

People are forgetting that a woman giving birth can contract any infection if they labor for too long. It's why doctors won't allow a woman to go labor longer than 24 hours after her water has broken...the risk of infection increases dramatically. She could have easily contracted the fever while in labor and died from a combination of that and blood loss right after giving birth to Jon.

absolutely....

[BearQueen87]

This is what I have been trying to say.

I believe in R+L=J for the most part, but (and some are already sick of reading these words from me) there is way too much certitude expressed here. I have raised a number of questions as you have and they can't be answered satisfactorily.

I don't know about that. We try to answer to the best of our abilities but we're not GRRM. We can't give you an absolute. And if you don't find our answers satisfactory, that's not necessarily our fault. I can't give you a copy of WOW sadly. But I think R+L = (legit) J is basically rock solid. I'm just waiting for the confirmation. It's what fits this story and all the clues.

[Aeron_Damphair]

So when I offer up a theory, and cite evidence from the novels AND from the author to back up my reasoning, you say my "connections are loose and tenuous." You offer up your own theory, which is based on rules ("The KingsGuard are sworn to Obey as well as Protect, but they are ALLOWED to Disobey in order to Protect"; "The King cannot be without a KG, and if he is, the KG must Disobey Orders to (run to) Protect the King") that are contradicted by the evidence I cited. Those rules of yours are NOT cited anywhere in the book, and you assume their existence based SOLELY on your deductions - which may turn out to be wrong.

This is always going to be a sticking point between you and I I'm afraid. I do not agree with any of the above. I have explained why, but you don't seem to understand it. Lamentable, but I'll get over it. Edit: as an aside, I just want to point out that the bolded is an absurdity. I know you have explained that kings can make an absurd order so the absurdity need not be addressed. I get that (don't agree with it), but I think it still bears mention.

But you assume my theory plus book and author-based evidence is outweighed by your theory without it.

Again, an assertion I do not acknowledge as having a basis.

Thing is, you can have a chain of deductions whose every link is reasonable and logical - and still turn out to be wrong. Citing evidence independent of your chain of reasoning is still important. So the fact that you can't cite any textual quotes to back up those two rules that your theory rests on MAY have a bearing on whether your theory is true or not.

I agree with the first part of your statement, I just don't agree that I haven't provided a textual basis. Like I said, I'm going by the defaults, but default does not mean automatically correct.

And IMO, the fact that you keep telling me (twice, already) that nobody agrees with me as proof that your theory is correct kind of indicates your attitude toward this discussion. Because as I said before, the fact that your belief is in the majority on THIS thread does nothing to prove it is correct. It is not logic, it's the Bandwagon Fallacy ("Fifty million Chinamen can't be wrong!")

I have actually never said this. Once I told you that your opinion was just one person's opinion and that does not make it objectively valid, and also mentioned that many others have a different opinion. That is different from saying that: the fact that many more people believe my position than yours is evidence for the validity of mine. I acknowledged that you were not entirely unjustified in interpreting it this way. The second time, you mistook my "people generally consider" to mean forum posters when my intended meaning was in universe people. In neither case did I claim that because more people were on my side that I was more likely to be right. In both cases, I acknowledged that I did not make myself clear enough. Fair? I already explained this to you, yet you insist on repeating this for some reason.

Do you really want an actual debate about your theory on this thread? Or do you want a cozy little exclusive club where any idea you think is wrong should be voted off the thread? ("We all disagree with you...therefore you must be wrong. Go away.") If you really want a debate, I think you should accept that it's possible that people CAN actually think differently than you and still be reasonable.

We have had one, but you have a higher estimation of your arguments than I do, and a lower estimation of mine. This has prevented us from coming to any more common ground over the last 100 or so posts. I never told you to go away, I just thought it might be better that we agree to disagree.

But if you really want to continue to debate, we can start with you addressing my argument about the default position. Explain why it is not sound. But can you do so by some means other than quoting an SSM that I don't believe applies to this situation in as complete a manner as you do? I get that GRRM says the KG can't blow off an order that they don't like. I've introduced the objections to applying it in this situation in my previous posts. A. Aerys was still alive when Rhaegar died, do they not now have a more direct responsibility to him? B. Could they not follow Rhaegar's order to guard the tower and also protect Viserys by dividing their number among both locations? C. Are we certain that this always applies even in the most extraordinary of circumstances, of which I believe this qualifies? (I think there was more, but I don't have it in front of me at the moment.)

And remember that the above is but one component to an argument that is built of dozens and dozens more like components.

[stateofdissipation]

Or, it might not be puerperal fever at all. It could be any infection that causes a fever...because pregnant women are more vulnerable to ALL types of infection than non-pregnant ones. So she could have contracted, say, a urinary tract infection that turned complicated, and this (possibly associated with eclampsia) could have started long BEFORE she went into labor. So to assume that the fact that she died with a fever means that we have an exact time of birth for Jon is fraught with possible error.

"She had a fever - it MUST be puerperal! And that kills 7-10 days AFTER birth! So Lyanna MUST'VE died of puerperal fever! And Jon must've been born 7-10 days before she died, because it was puerperal fever that killed her and that's how long it takes!"

The pueperal fever as cause of death supports the KG at the ToJ must be protecting the king if

Ned travelled more than 50 miles a day

and

News travelled to the ToJ at no less than 7/6ths Ned's speed and no more than 7/5ths of Ned's speed.

"She had a fever - it MUST be puerperal! And that kills 7-10 days AFTER birth! So Lyanna MUST'VE died of puerperal fever! And Jon must've been born 7-10 days before she died, because it was puerperal fever that killed her and that's how long it takes!"

You forgot to add Lyanna died immediately after Ned arrived.

[Arlan of Pennytree]

I'm seeing a lot of people use the puerperal fever argument as a timeline for how old Jon could possibly be when Ned arrives. Is it not possible, that like so many things in Westeros, this disease has some variations from its real-world counterpart?

If George decided that it suddenly takes a month for childbed fever to kill someone in Westeros with a skilled maester at hand, it would. Just like with travel times, his timeline is whatever it has to be to make the story work.

Just because a disease seems likely, does not mean we can use it as a factual representation of its effects in Westeros

There's only one person using "bed of Blood" as an exact timestamp for a particular event. . .

[stateofdissipation]

There's only one person using "bed of Blood" as an exact timestamp for a particular event. . .

Is there a reason to deviate from

He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks. and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood.---aGoT page 409 paperback.

As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. .---aGoT page 410 paperback.

Promise me Ned, his sister had whispered from her bed of blood.--aGoT page 608 paperback."I know every secret of the bloody bed, silver lady, nor have I ever lost a babe." Mirri Maz Duur replied.--aGoT page 650 paperback.

and

"I know every secret of the bloody bed, silver lady, nor have I ever lost a babe." Mirri Maz Duur replied.--aGoT page 650 paperback.

"That was the way of this cold world, where men fished the sea and dug in the ground and died, whilst women brought forth short-lived children from beds of blood and pain."

- AFfC p. 21

If you are not trying to erase the timestamp given because it does not fit a hypothesis?

Does anyone attempt to assert that "flowering" is the menarche plus six weeks?

[Arlan of Pennytree]

Without further evidence or reason... bed of blood means childbirth.

Where is implied that the blood was fresh? Does a bed of blood magically cease to be bloody one to fourteen days after if no one is there to clean? Jon could have been up to 2 weeks old. We can't know exactly how long Jon had been born (if it was Jon) when Ned arrived by him observing "a bed of blood".

Lyanna's screams could have been from fear of the fight going on below the tower. Days could have past between the duel with Hightower, Dayne & Whent and Lyanna's death. We can't forget all o fthis information is from a fever-dream.

[sj4iy]

Where is implied that the blood was fresh? Does a bed of blood magically cease to be bloody one to fourteen days after if no one is there to clean? Jon could have been up to 2 weeks old. We can't know exactly how long Jon had been born (if it was Jon) when Ned arrived by him observing "a bed of blood".

Lyanna's screams could have been from fear of the fight going on below the tower. Days could have past between the duel with Hightower, Dayne & Whent and Lyanna's death. We can't forget all o fthis information is from a fever-dream.

Truthfully, a woman can bleed for longer than a month after childbirth. Basically, there's no way to pin down his true age at this time.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I don't know about that. We try to answer to the best of our abilities but we're not GRRM. We can't give you an absolute. And if you don't find our answers satisfactory, that's not necessarily our fault. I can't give you a copy of WOW sadly. But I think R+L = (legit) J is basically rock solid. I'm just waiting for the confirmation. It's what fits this story and all the clues.

That's all you can do. Some people flat-out will not be satisfied until GRRM bitch slaps them across the face with it. But that's their issue, not yours.

[honeyed chicken]

I don't know. To my eye, the enthusiasm from the majority for R+L=legit J is more justified than the enthusiasm from the minority for R+L=bastard J. The former case is more elegant, accounting for more details and leaving far fewer questions unanswered.

As far as R+L=J (barebones), the level of certitude is entirely justified IMHO. I've gone so far as to say that it should (practically?) be considered canon at this point because there is no other hypothesis that begins to compete. The enthusiasm for threads like "N+A=J" or "R+A=J" or I even saw "R+L=D and B+A=J" is what looks out of place to me.

As others have mentioned, and I agree, there is more receptiveness to alternative theories on the secondary threads. I believe that is because we have fresher faces in those threads- posters who have not necessarily run R+L=J through the mill as thoroughly as the contributors to this thread typically have. Just my opinion, but my experience seems to bear that out.

If you want to hold out that token modicum of doubt, that's certainly respectable, but I think there is ample reason to believe R+L=legit J until proven otherwise. It just fits the story the best.

I don't know about that. We try to answer to the best of our abilities but we're not GRRM. We can't give you an absolute. And if you don't find our answers satisfactory, that's not necessarily our fault. I can't give you a copy of WOW sadly. But I think R+L = (legit) J is basically rock solid. I'm just waiting for the confirmation. It's what fits this story and all the clues.

The way I would put it is, "given the text so far, this is our best explanation."

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Truthfully, a woman can bleed for longer than a month after childbirth. Basically, there's no way to pin down his true age at this time.

In the real world, the longest a woman can survive after childbirth with puerperal fever is ~10 days. However, GRRM has made time so vague and fuzzy (by design, no doubt) and plays by his own rules with stuff like that. So that time span is a decent rule of thumb but it's always possible that GRRM stretched it out in-story.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The way I would put it is, "given the text so far, this is our best explanation."

And you think five books in, with the full story pretty much mapped out in his head, the author is going to just completely drop it?

[stateofdissipation]

Where is implied that the blood was fresh? Does a bed of blood magically cease to be bloody one to fourteen days after if no one is there to clean? Jon could have been up to 2 weeks old. We can't know exactly how long Jon had been born (if it was Jon) when Ned arrived by him observing "a bed of blood".

Where is implied that the blood was fresh?

Promise me, she had cried in that room that smelled of blood and roses. aGoT page 40

Does a bed of blood magically cease to be bloody one to fourteen days after if no one is there to clean?

It ceases to be bloody when it clots... that is "gore"

It also ceases to be bloody when it rots.... that is called "putrid"

Blood, whenever it comes out of a blood vessel, will always clot irrespective of the volume. This usually takes 2-5 minutes

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_does_it_take_for_blood_to_clot

also check out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coagulation

"The scent is described in various texts as - spoiled chicken, putrid flesh, an open drain, roadkill, old blood ... you get the picture

Read more: What exactly does the scent of old blood smell like? What is it similar to? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/547165#ixzz38RFVc0Zf

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/547165

Jon could have been up to 2 weeks old.

and he could have had wings and a tail... but that is not in the text either.

We can't know exactly how long Jon had been born (if it was Jon)

Right

when Ned arrived by him observing "a bed of blood".

If it was not for the bed of blood meaning childbirth, Lyanna died of hemmorage and fever... causes unknown.