Heresy 166

[Black Crow]

(BTW, this A+L=J idea is what brought me out of lurking, 100+ heresies later).

Welcome, if you've been around this long its time you started joining in properly.

I'm still not satisfied in my mind either way who Jon's father is, but [a] I dislike the "all settled, nothing to see, move along now or I'll have you arrested for trolling" attitude in some quarters and the stress laid on the identity of Jon's mother may be significant in itself and not simply as a stepping stone to the supposed greater glory of identifying his father

[Shagwell Snow]

Hello there,not sure if this has been brought up before but this seems like the place to bring it up,here goes

On a recent 're-read I got to thinking what if Bran, as in the little boy who's with the three eyed crow, is actually the bran the builder given that has begun to time travel and actually been able to reach out to people through time.all through legend he's given credit for major constructions that would take decades yet even remains a boy whilst building them eg storms end.could it be brans purpose to go north and fulfill his true destiny as bran the builder?A role which has even more significance then we even thought?

[Black Crow]

Welcome to heresy. Its not a theory I subscribe to myself but its certainly one that has surfaced before and been discussed here from time to time.

There is a feeling in these here parts that there's more going on in terms of links between the Starks and the old powers than most appear to realise. Whether or not our Bran is one and the same with his predecessors there's no reason in theory why if we are to have an Azor Ahai come again we shouldn't have a Bran the Builder come again, not improbably to trip him up.

[Remdawg]

Don't Robert and Ned specifically talk about Rhaegar more than once prior to the brothel scene. Ned is obviously irked or able to process and think through and have an opinion on Roberts wrath. Clearly the shades and depths of those opinions would have to be formed by thinking about Rhaegar.

To me the later quote just seems like a mind burp from GRRM not an indictment on Rhaegar as Jon's sire.

BTW, I'm on team A+L = J. Just trying to look at all sides.

[Black Crow]

Welcome to Heresy.

I think that the short answer to this one as I said earlier is that there's a difference between discussing Rhaegar in the abstract, in relation to say Trouserless Bob's reactions, and actually thinking about him as a person as Ned does on the occasion referred to.

[superunknown5]

Don't Robert and Ned specifically talk about Rhaegar more than once prior to the brothel scene. Ned is obviously irked or able to process and think through and have an opinion on Roberts wrath. Clearly the shades and depths of those opinions would have to be formed by thinking about Rhaegar.

To me the later quote just seems like a mind burp from GRRM not an indictment on Rhaegar as Jon's sire.

BTW, I'm on team A+L = J. Just trying to look at all sides.

We have much in common remdawg. Nice avatar BTW.

[Mother of Dragons]

I don't watch the series, I'm talking about in interviews & such...

& I don't think that R+L=J is remotely close to being GRRM's Trump Card...

I don't think R+L=J is his trump card. That was my whole point. If it was the answer, he wouldn't dangle it in front of our heads like that.

[Black Crow]

Rather more to the point I think is the question of what difference it might make. Ultimately it may mean nothing at all beyond the Arya business in the synopsis, but lets assume that Jon's parentage is going to mean something in terms of the resolution and the final battle with the fate of mankind at stake.

At that stage, according to the synopsis Danaerys the dragonlord and her pets are already in Westeros, so why do we need another Targaryen? If Jon's parentage is going to make a difference surely it is going to be as the son of Lyanna Stark; a son of Winterfell when Winter comes. In other words the mystery is and always has been the identity of his mother; what is important is L>J rather than R+L=J far less R>J

[Voice]

I don't think R+L=J is his trump card. That was my whole point. If it was the answer, he wouldn't dangle it in front of our heads like that.

Yup. In a certain other place they often suggest it is only "obvious now" because of the years spent "analyzing and perfecting" (lol) the R+L (not even a) theory (anymore). I disagree.

Bran's weirwood vision in particular makes it hard to accept Ned as Jon's father. And this goes for any careful first-time reader. The ample comparisons between Arya and Lyanna, Jon and Arya, and the "Stark" look, added to the "bloody bed" of Ned's fever dream combine to make it exceedingly difficult to accept anyone but Lyanna as Jon's mother. Rhaegar being named as the man who named the infamous "tower of joy" (lowercase, which is important! lol), plus the crown of winter roses, plus the abduction, plus the rumors of love and rape, make RLJ incredibly obvious. And, George doesn't do obvious, right?

Or does he?

As Matthew has often postulated, I think we underestimate Martin's flair for cliche. While his good guys are grey, with some shadows here and there, his dragons look like dragons, his 'bad guys' act like bad guys, and, he has strewn hero-lore all over the place. I tend to think there will be a hero, and that it will be Jon.

As BC has often reminded us, Jon=Hero need not require RLJ. And I prefer this scenario, despite my frequent reminders on the interwebs that Rhaegar remains the only man ever said to have bedded Lyanna. D&D offered a woman's name as Jon Snow's mother that produced a grin on GRRM's face. And Rhaegar died with a woman's name on his lips.

Then we have Parris, GRRM's wife, who discussed ASOIAF at an event in London (can't remember which or when). Most importantly to the current discussion, she discussed R+L=J SPECIFICALLY. She said RLJ is extremely obvious. And that George doesn't do obvious.

This statement was thence denied, discredited, then admitted, credited, accepted, and swept under the rug. In other words, while simultaneously supporting this site (that supports RLJ), and "sp(e)aking" of the veracity of D&D's acceptable answer, the powers that be have tried to cover up Parris' statement. That is telling, and reminds me of the coverup attempted after the Oathkeeper episode. Unintended glimpses have far more to offer us than any intended "non-answers."

Or, as Tyrion said, "There's much to be said for taking people unawares. You never know what you might learn."

[Black Crow]

Posts by Werthead:

http://asoiaf.wester...n-thread/page-3

Posted 05 May 2006 - 07:01 PM

So during the BwB London meet-up earlier this evening, GRRM's Significant Other, Parris, turned up (possibly one of the nicest people you will ever meet). During discussions about the series, she reiterated a point that she has made before, that R+L=J is an extremely obvious thing to do in the series, and George doesn't do obvious, leaving the likelihood of that theory being correct much reduced.

and;

Posted 07 May 2006 - 06:20 AM

Riiiiight. I see that that that point sparked some interesting discussion, so here's what I remember (whilst recalling a large amount of alcohol was consumed in the interim).

Parris doesn't get to see the finished book much before anyone else. She is George's first reader, so sees the finished product before even the editors and makes comments on it, but that is it. That said, they do discuss the storyline and some directions the story is taking ahead of time, but as for reading the written product...not before George has finished it. Apparently the sole exception to this was The Armageddon Rag, where George needed her advice on what songs to put in the book, as she was a bit more familiar with the 1960s rock 'n' roll scene.

According to Parris, she did come up with a few alternative suggestions for Jon's parentage that George wouldn't comment on, but apparently one suggestion did provoke one of George's 'evil smiles' (apparently deployed whenever he has come up with an extremely cunning plot twist). However, absolutely no amount of persuasion or bribery would get her to reveal what that theory was.

[Melifeather]

Posts by Werthead:

http://asoiaf.wester...n-thread/page-3

Posted 05 May 2006 - 07:01 PM

So during the BwB London meet-up earlier this evening, GRRM's Significant Other, Parris, turned up (possibly one of the nicest people you will ever meet). During discussions about the series, she reiterated a point that she has made before, that R+L=J is an extremely obvious thing to do in the series, and George doesn't do obvious, leaving the likelihood of that theory being correct much reduced.

and;

Posted 07 May 2006 - 06:20 AM

Riiiiight. I see that that that point sparked some interesting discussion, so here's what I remember (whilst recalling a large amount of alcohol was consumed in the interim).

Parris doesn't get to see the finished book much before anyone else. She is George's first reader, so sees the finished product before even the editors and makes comments on it, but that is it. That said, they do discuss the storyline and some directions the story is taking ahead of time, but as for reading the written product...not before George has finished it. Apparently the sole exception to this was The Armageddon Rag, where George needed her advice on what songs to put in the book, as she was a bit more familiar with the 1960s rock 'n' roll scene.

According to Parris, she did come up with a few alternative suggestions for Jon's parentage that George wouldn't comment on, but apparently one suggestion did provoke one of George's 'evil smiles' (apparently deployed whenever he has come up with an extremely cunning plot twist). However, absolutely no amount of persuasion or bribery would get her to reveal what that theory was.

Hi all.

Just replying to this topic so I can save it in order to find it easier.

Voice, what was" the coverup attempted after the Oathkeeper"?

[Black Crow]

I believe he's referring to the redaction of a certain figure in black being referred to in cast lists for the mummers' version as the Nights KIng.

Someone on the R+L=J did ask Ran for an opinion on Parris' remarks and it was opined that she was probably trolling. Perhaps significantly however reference was made to her making the remark on a much earlier chat-show c.2000, not the more detailed account by Werthead quoted above.

[Voice]

Voice, what was" the coverup attempted after the Oathkeeper"?

I believe he's referring to the redaction of a certain figure in black being referred to in cast lists for the mummers' version as the Nights KIng.

Someone on the R+L=J did ask Ran for an opinion on Parris' remarks and it was opined that she was probably trolling. Perhaps significantly however reference was made to her making the remark on a much earlier chat-show c.2000, not the more detailed account by Werthead quoted above.

Yes, thanks for clarifying that for me BC. Sorry if I wasn't very clear Feather. The coverup was an unintended release of information, as was Parris' statement.

And :cheers: BC for digging that up!

Coverups smack of truth.

[wolfmaid7]

Depends a bit on timing. As I said I'd prefer to get the present series of the mummers version out of the way, so Heresy 170 or more likely Heresy 175 would probably be a good number.

Ok cool

Hello there,not sure if this has been brought up before but this seems like the place to bring it up,here goes

On a recent 're-read I got to thinking what if Bran, as in the little boy who's with the three eyed crow, is actually the bran the builder given that has begun to time travel and actually been able to reach out to people through time.all through legend he's given credit for major constructions that would take decades yet even remains a boy whilst building them eg storms end.could it be brans purpose to go north and fulfill his true destiny as bran the builder?A role which has even more significance then we even thought?

Wecome to Heresy.I think with regards to Bran and Winterfell this is correct,that's why i think he was never meant to go North.

Welcome to Heresy.

I think that the short answer to this one as I said earlier is that there's a difference between discussing Rhaegar in the abstract, in relation to say Trouserless Bob's reactions, and actually thinking about him as a person as Ned does on the occasion referred to.

:agree:

Yup. In a certain other place they often suggest it is only "obvious now" because of the years spent "analyzing and perfecting" (lol) the R+L (not even a) theory (anymore). I disagree.

Bran's weirwood vision in particular makes it hard to accept Ned as Jon's father. And this goes for any careful first-time reader. The ample comparisons between Arya and Lyanna, Jon and Arya, and the "Stark" look, added to the "bloody bed" of Ned's fever dream combine to make it exceedingly difficult to accept anyone but Lyanna as Jon's mother. Rhaegar being named as the man who named the infamous "tower of joy" (lowercase, which is important! lol), plus the crown of winter roses, plus the abduction, plus the rumors of love and rape, make RLJ incredibly obvious. And, George doesn't do obvious, right?

Or does he?

As Matthew has often postulated, I think we underestimate Martin's flair for cliche. While his good guys are grey, with some shadows here and there, his dragons look like dragons, his 'bad guys' act like bad guys, and, he has strewn hero-lore all over the place. I tend to think there will be a hero, and that it will be Jon.

As BC has often reminded us, Jon=Hero need not require RLJ. And I prefer this scenario, despite my frequent reminders on the interwebs that Rhaegar remains the only man ever said to have bedded Lyanna. D&D offered a woman's name as Jon Snow's mother that produced a grin on GRRM's face. And Rhaegar died with a woman's name on his lips.

Then we have Parris, GRRM's wife, who discussed ASOIAF at an event in London (can't remember which or when). Most importantly to the current discussion, she discussed R+L=J SPECIFICALLY. She said RLJ is extremely obvious. And that George doesn't do obvious.

This statement was thence denied, discredited, then admitted, credited, accepted, and swept under the rug. In other words, while simultaneously supporting this site (that supports RLJ), and "sp(e)aking" of the veracity of D&D's acceptable answer, the powers that be have tried to cover up Parris' statement. That is telling, and reminds me of the coverup attempted after the Oathkeeper episode. Unintended glimpses have far more to offer us than any intended "non-answers."

Or, as Tyrion said, "There's much to be said for taking people unawares. You never know what you might learn."

I subscribe to the Martin doesn't do obvious and i think this is true even if nobody else doesn't.Unless you skip pages in the first two books for instance one cannot help but come away with R+L=J.And for non book readers it is so obvious when the particulars are said out loud .I watch the review for GOT's called "What the Flick." One of the hosts Cenk the moment the whole scenario was just laid out,meaning...

Rhaegar Targaryan after choosing Lyanna Stark at the Tourney was said to have kidnapped her and raped her.Ned went to get her back from Dorne found her dying under these circumstances and returned with a baby boy he said was his bastard,but he wouldn't speak of the mother :cool4:

Instantly," Oh i get it i get so Jon Snow is Ned Stark's sister by Rhaegar ,he's a freaking Targ."

I'm sorry this s**t is not subtle trust me after last week there probably isn't anyone in the world that isn't thinking R+L=J.No care or subtefuge was taken in laying clues for this conclusion because its steering everyone in the face.

Clearly some people bit this bait,i did and one time because as i've said before Jon's path doesn't end with sitting on any throne of man so who his father and mother is doesn't matter.

Which leads me to why George has employed two seldomly used concepts ,but you see it in the books.There is two lines of inheritance the Patriarchial that deals with the physical and the Matriarchial that deals with the magical.So lets say that Rhaegar is Jon's father, magically it doesn't matter because both of them have a matriarchial mother lineage that is connected. That's why Dany is expressing the traits she is as well.

The only way Rhaegar being Jon's father matters is if it will have some dramatic emotional change in Jon.I mean Ned raised him so will he give a crap that he had a "Royal sire" This is how Rhaegar used to refer to his father " My royal sire" so that goes to show what a biological father can mean or not mean.

Politically if it is made common knowledge...(.can't see realistically and logically how) Some players of the game might want to use him and try and rule through him.Can't see this happening.

[wolfmaid7]

Depends a bit on timing. As I said I'd prefer to get the present series of the mummers version out of the way, so Heresy 170 or more likely Heresy 175 would probably be a good number.

Ok cool

Hello there,not sure if this has been brought up before but this seems like the place to bring it up,here goes

On a recent 're-read I got to thinking what if Bran, as in the little boy who's with the three eyed crow, is actually the bran the builder given that has begun to time travel and actually been able to reach out to people through time.all through legend he's given credit for major constructions that would take decades yet even remains a boy whilst building them eg storms end.could it be brans purpose to go north and fulfill his true destiny as bran the builder?A role which has even more significance then we even thought?

Wecome to Heresy.I think with regards to Bran and Winterfell this is correct,that's why i think he was never meant to go North.

Welcome to Heresy.

I think that the short answer to this one as I said earlier is that there's a difference between discussing Rhaegar in the abstract, in relation to say Trouserless Bob's reactions, and actually thinking about him as a person as Ned does on the occasion referred to.

:agree:

Yup. In a certain other place they often suggest it is only "obvious now" because of the years spent "analyzing and perfecting" (lol) the R+L (not even a) theory (anymore). I disagree.

Bran's weirwood vision in particular makes it hard to accept Ned as Jon's father. And this goes for any careful first-time reader. The ample comparisons between Arya and Lyanna, Jon and Arya, and the "Stark" look, added to the "bloody bed" of Ned's fever dream combine to make it exceedingly difficult to accept anyone but Lyanna as Jon's mother. Rhaegar being named as the man who named the infamous "tower of joy" (lowercase, which is important! lol), plus the crown of winter roses, plus the abduction, plus the rumors of love and rape, make RLJ incredibly obvious. And, George doesn't do obvious, right?

Or does he?

As Matthew has often postulated, I think we underestimate Martin's flair for cliche. While his good guys are grey, with some shadows here and there, his dragons look like dragons, his 'bad guys' act like bad guys, and, he has strewn hero-lore all over the place. I tend to think there will be a hero, and that it will be Jon.

As BC has often reminded us, Jon=Hero need not require RLJ. And I prefer this scenario, despite my frequent reminders on the interwebs that Rhaegar remains the only man ever said to have bedded Lyanna. D&D offered a woman's name as Jon Snow's mother that produced a grin on GRRM's face. And Rhaegar died with a woman's name on his lips.

Then we have Parris, GRRM's wife, who discussed ASOIAF at an event in London (can't remember which or when). Most importantly to the current discussion, she discussed R+L=J SPECIFICALLY. She said RLJ is extremely obvious. And that George doesn't do obvious.

This statement was thence denied, discredited, then admitted, credited, accepted, and swept under the rug. In other words, while simultaneously supporting this site (that supports RLJ), and "sp(e)aking" of the veracity of D&D's acceptable answer, the powers that be have tried to cover up Parris' statement. That is telling, and reminds me of the coverup attempted after the Oathkeeper episode. Unintended glimpses have far more to offer us than any intended "non-answers."

Or, as Tyrion said, "There's much to be said for taking people unawares. You never know what you might learn."

I subscribe to the Martin doesn't do obvious and i think this is true even if nobody else doesn't.Unless you skip pages in the first two books for instance one cannot help but come away with R+L=J.And for non book readers it is so obvious when the particulars are said out loud .I watch the review for GOT's called "What the Flick." One of the hosts Cenk the moment the whole scenario was just laid out,meaning...

Rhaegar Targaryan after choosing Lyanna Stark at the Tourney was said to have kidnapped her and raped her.Ned went to get her back from Dorne found her dying under these circumstances and returned with a baby boy he said was his bastard,but he wouldn't speak of the mother :cool4:

Instantly," Oh i get it i get so Jon Snow is Ned Stark's sister by Rhaegar ,he's a freaking Targ."

I'm sorry this s**t is not subtle trust me after last week there probably isn't anyone in the world that isn't thinking R+L=J.No care or subtefuge was taken in laying clues for this conclusion because its steering everyone in the face.

Clearly some people bit this bait,i did and one time because as i've said before Jon's path doesn't end with sitting on any throne of man so who his father and mother is doesn't matter.

Which leads me to why George has employed two seldomly used concepts ,but you see it in the books.There is two lines of inheritance the Patriarchial that deals with the physical and the Matriarchial that deals with the magical.So lets say that Rhaegar is Jon's father, magically it doesn't matter because both of them have a matriarchial mother lineage that is connected. That's why Dany is expressing the traits she is as well.

The only way Rhaegar being Jon's father matters is if it will have some dramatic emotional change in Jon.I mean Ned raised him so will he give a crap that he had a "Royal sire" This is how Rhaegar used to refer to his father " My royal sire" so that goes to show what a biological father can mean or not mean.

Politically if it is made common knowledge...(.can't see realistically and logically how) Some players of the game might want to use him and try and rule through him.Can't see this happening.

[Matthew.]

As Matthew has often postulated, I think we underestimate Martin's flair for cliche. While his good guys are grey, with some shadows here and there, his dragons look like dragons, his 'bad guys' act like bad guys, and, he has strewn hero-lore all over the place. I tend to think there will be a hero, and that it will be Jon.

I think it's also worth remembering that, though Martin likes to surprise his readers, it's not as though his work is just some grand criticism of the genre, where every trope, cliche, and convention must be destroyed or undermined--he's a huge fan of the genre, and the work itself has subtle and unsubtle homages to many works and authors whose works are a bit cliche and cheesy (IMHO). And, of course, he's a fan of all of the mythology that inspired modern fantasy.

So, my question would be, is Martin working a grand subversion with Jon, or is GRRM doing his own version of the Hero's Journey? Forget the RLJ stuff for the moment, because we don't even need that mystery to say that Jon is the character that most resembles a generic fantasy hero; he's the one facing the "real threats" and reluctantly taking up the burden of command while the rest of the realm plays the game of thrones, he's a natural fighter, a natural leader, and in a world full of grey characters, Jon's morality remains mostly untarnished, his transgressions being of a variety that the reader isn't likely to hold against him (eg, Ygritte).

The argument would be that all of that is to set up the standard expectations of the trope, only to have it subverted, but if that's Martin's intent, then the whole "story growing in the telling thing" really fucked up the execution. At this point, we have over 4,000 pages worth of story where one of our primary POVS appears to be a generic fantasy hero, which is effectively the same thing as just writing a generic fantasy hero in the first place. :dunno:

[Matthew.]

At that stage, according to the synopsis Danaerys the dragonlord and her pets are already in Westeros, so why do we need another Targaryen?

This seems a bit like saying "We already have Bran, so why do we need more Starks? We already have Tyrion, so why do we need other Lannisters?" Given the 1993 synopsis' implication that everything will converge in a large battle, the jacket blurb implying something similar, and even more recent interviews where GRRM talks about the plot "contracting," I think it's fair to speculate that Martin intends for all of the plot threads and character arcs to draw together as we approach the end game.

There are, as of yet, a lot of unresolved mysteries related to "fire," and I think Dany can't be the answer to all of them. What is the origin of the 'fire' in the Reed's oaths? What's the root of this myth that the Last Hero wielded dragonsteel? What is Mel's endgame? Where do Bloodraven's interests truly lie?

[superunknown5]

Yes, thanks for clarifying that for me BC. Sorry if I wasn't very clear Feather. The coverup was an unintended release of information, as was Parris' statement.

And :cheers: BC for digging that up!

Coverups smack of truth.

"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." - Tyrion, ACoK

[Black Crow]

I think it's also worth remembering that, though Martin likes to surprise his readers, it's not as though his work is just some grand criticism of the genre, where every trope, cliche, and convention must be destroyed or undermined--he's a huge fan of the genre, and the work itself has subtle and unsubtle homages to many works and authors whose works are a bit cliche and cheesy (IMHO). And, of course, he's a fan of all of the mythology that inspired modern fantasy.

So, my question would be, is Martin working a grand subversion with Jon, or is GRRM doing his own version of the Hero's Journey? Forget the RLJ stuff for the moment, because we don't even need that mystery to say that Jon is the character that most resembles a generic fantasy hero; he's the one facing the "real threats" and reluctantly taking up the burden of command while the rest of the realm plays the game of thrones, he's a natural fighter, a natural leader, and in a world full of grey characters, Jon's morality remains mostly untarnished, his transgressions being of a variety that the reader isn't likely to hold against him (eg, Ygritte).

The argument would be that all of that is to set up the standard expectations of the trope, only to have it subverted, but if that's Martin's intent, then the whole "story growing in the telling thing" really fucked up the execution. At this point, we have over 4,000 pages worth of story where one of our primary POVS appears to be a generic fantasy hero, which is effectively the same thing as just writing a generic fantasy hero in the first place. :dunno:

I rather suspect that depends where you're coming from and whether the trope is there to be undermined and subverted in the first place. Its worth emphasising that in the initial synopsis GRRM stated very clearly that the story is to centre around five characters who will all make it through to the end. At no point was it suggested by him that it revolved around one character. The real question is not whether GRRM is subverting or honouring a hero trope, but whether that trope exists or at the very least whether it will assume the importance assigned to it by those who have chosen to move on from identifying Jon's mother to identifying his most likely father and building it not into R+L=J but R+L=Hero

[Black Crow]

This seems a bit like saying "We already have Bran, so why do we need more Starks? We already have Tyrion, so why do we need other Lannisters?" Given the 1993 synopsis' implication that everything will converge in a large battle, the jacket blurb implying something similar, and even more recent interviews where GRRM talks about the plot "contracting," I think it's fair to speculate that Martin intends for all of the plot threads and character arcs to draw together as we approach the end game.

There are, as of yet, a lot of unresolved mysteries related to "fire," and I think Dany can't be the answer to all of them. What is the origin of the 'fire' in the Reed's oaths? What's the root of this myth that the Last Hero wielded dragonsteel? What is Mel's endgame? Where do Bloodraven's interests truly lie?

There are indeed all manner of mysteries as to how Ice and Fire interact individually and collectively, which is precisely why I so doubt that its all going to be resolved through the identification of the hidden hero trope at all, let alone tying ourselves in knots as to whether it will be followed through or subverted. There are far deeper mysteries in this story.