Matthew. Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Others have voiced such suspicions in the past. Was it Littlefinger wanting revenge against Benjen? Was it Tywin wanting to mess up Aerys' reign after he's been sent back? (in which case his revenge was close to be as total as against the Reynes) Were they both acting together, initiating the uneasy Baelish-Lannister alliance way before GOT? Just on a personal level, I really hope GRRM doesn't go the route of having Littlefinger - who was, what, like 14 at the time? - helping to mastermind some of the events of RR. If we're looking for culprits who were looking to stir the pot, and force the Stark-Arryn-Baratheon-Tully bloc to act irrationally, I think Varys or Tywin are more likely. Or, if one wants to be a bit more crackpot, we do have some evidence that there was another party in the midst of all of this, also causing trouble - Lady Dustin's "grey rats," the maesters, whom she suggests were influencing the alliance Rickard was forming. It may be the case that this ties into Marwyn's similar comment about "grey sheep," and the idea that some element of the Citadel might actually want to see the Targaryens marginalized and destroyed. Given their widespread presence in noble households, and the fact that they're a primary source of news, I think the maesters could pretty easily use information (or misinformation) to instigate hostilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 Just on a personal level, I really hope GRRM doesn't go the route of having Littlefinger - who was, what, like 14 at the time? - helping to mastermind some of the events of RR. If we're looking for culprits who were looking to stir the pot, and force the Stark-Arryn-Baratheon-Tully bloc to act irrationally, I think Varys or Tywin are more likely. I rather suspect that the ultimate irony in all of this will be that Littlefinger the player will turn out to be a piece after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew. Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Well of course in the first place the question asked was not about Jon's parents at all but about his mother. Rhaegar is a reasonable inference but not a given. The real problem is the expectations of the outcome. Why is that a "real problem?" Because it doesn't align with Heresy's preferences--that all things related to Targaryens, dragons, Fire, and South Westeros be as plot irrelevant as possible in the End Game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 Because it doesn't align with the synopsis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew. Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 It doesn't align with an extremely narrow, subjective interpretation of the synopsis--a synopsis that reveals nearly nothing of the final two arcs of the story. There's nothing in that synopsis that contradicts the idea of Jon Snow as AA, or tPtwP, or the Sword of the Morning, or any other potential consequences to the various proposed identities for his father. A criticism made more pointless still by the fact that the story as written does not align with the synopsis. In many cases, only the barest of fragments of those synopsis ideas still exist. Take Tyrion, who is unquestionably a core character, and whose trajectory has ended up radically different from GRRM's oldest outlines; absent in that outline is any mention of him being a dwarf, any mention of his relationship with Tywin (indeed, the extremely significant Tywin Lannister is absent from the synopsis); his originally intended arc of razing Winterfell, killing Joffrey, and finding himself embroiled in a love triangle/deadly rivalry at the Wall is radically different from the story we've gotten. I'm sorry, but I just don't see this as a good faith argument, as it's simply a reiteration of what had already been the Heresy point of view, years before that 1993 letter came out. It's not a "real problem" because there's anything in the text that makes certain RLJ interpretations - silly as some may be - impossible, it's a real problem because some people here find those interpretations undesirable, and specifically craft their theories around making Targaryens, dragons, and even the IT plot irrelevant in the end game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bran the Bringer Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Why is that a "real problem?" Because it doesn't align with Heresy's preferences--that all things related to Targaryens, dragons, Fire, and South Westeros be as plot irrelevant as possible in the End Game? No I think, perhaps, that it is more of a reaction to all the Targ nonsense ( e.g. hidden Targs behind every River, Stone and Flower), the constant Dragon cheerleading and a general and incorrect dismissal of what's really going on up North by many of the posters on other parts of the board. The plots relating to Dany seem well spelled out and we even have some direct prophecy to focus our attention there. In the Northern plotlines there certainly is a much greater mystery as to what is happenning and what it will mean. We know what Danny has to do, do we know what Bran has to do? There are many more mysteries to unravel in the Northern Plotlines, particularly because of the lack of textual information, than there are with Dany and the Targs. We have more text on Targs history, culture and personages specifically so it seems George would like us to focus there. I'd rather look for the "wizard behind the curtain". I don't know if I am making my point well enough but I think you get it. I hope the Southern storylines and the Targ storylines surprise me I really do, but I think the plotlines around the North must be the biggest surprise of all simply because of the void of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucu Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 No I think, perhaps, that it is more of a reaction to all the Targ nonsense ( e.g. hidden Targs behind every River, Stone and Flower), the constant Dragon cheerleading and a general and incorrect dismissal of what's really going on up North by many of the posters on other parts of the board. The plots relating to Dany seem well spelled out and we even have some direct prophecy to focus our attention there. In the Northern plotlines there certainly is a much greater mystery as to what is happenning and what it will mean. We know what Danny has to do, do we know what Bran has to do? There are many more mysteries to unravel in the Northern Plotlines, particularly because of the lack of textual information, than there are with Dany and the Targs. We have more text on Targs history, culture and personages specifically so it seems George would like us to focus there. I'd rather look for the "wizard behind the curtain". I don't know if I am making my point well enough but I think you get it. I hope the Southern storylines and the Targ storylines surprise me I really do, but I think the plotlines around the North must be the biggest surprise of all simply because of the void of information. One side of the Riverlands/Northern storyline is more fleshed out. We have a pretty good idea of what is manipulating people there: BR and the weirwoods. On the Targ side we have few clues on the nature of the glass candles, dragon dreams, visions on the flames or R'hllor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 It doesn't align with an extremely narrow, subjective interpretation of the synopsis--a synopsis that reveals nearly nothing of the final two arcs of the story. There's nothing in that synopsis that contradicts the idea of Jon Snow as AA, or tPtwP, or the Sword of the Morning, or any other potential consequences to the various proposed identities for his father... Like a good heretic I disagree. The story has indeed evolved since 1993, but the ending is clearly outlined. It is Danaerys Targaryen, having taken the Iron Thone [at last?] who must rally Westeros against the Others; as the neutral outsider bringing the warring factions together to save the realms of men. There simply isn't room in that ending for a single hero to arise etc etc... the post has already been filled and in that context the synopsis confirms a lot of what we've been arguing all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted to snow Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I Disagree, I think that the synopsis is all but useless at this point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucu Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 With so much talk about the synopses I went and re-read them. One part caught my attention: "of two desperate journeys beyond the known world in to the very hearts of ice and fire". Was Bran's the journey to the heart of ice? Or we can expect a Benjen or resurrected Jon POV to show us that journey?. Benjen should be there by now if he has been traveling for 3 years. On the journey to the heart of fire, no main POV seems to be heading to Asshai and beyond. Dany and his dragons should head to Westeros according to the synopsis. Not sure if Tyrion's journey can be described as desperate yet, but maybe Asshai is where his destiny is? It would fit with Moqorro's vision of a "Small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of all" (and other references to his big shadow). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew. Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 No I think, perhaps, that it is more of a reaction to all the Targ nonsense ( e.g. hidden Targs behind every River, Stone and Flower), the constant Dragon cheerleading and a general and incorrect dismissal of what's really going on up North by many of the posters on other parts of the board. It's more than a reaction, it's an overreaction, which leads to a philosophy that insists on contrasting itself against an RLJ strawman, rather than exploring all ideas and possibilities with an open-mind. It's a philosophy that often creates a false choice between Jon Snow, Lone Savior of Westeros and the One True King, and Jon Snow, Son of Winterfell (AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE) so that one seems reasonable in comparison to the other, allowing no room for nuance, or middle grounds. Like a good heretic I disagree. The story has indeed evolved since 1993, but the ending is clearly outlined. It is Danaerys Targaryen, having taken the Iron Thone [at last?] who must rally Westeros against the Others; as the neutral outsider bringing the warring factions together to save the realms of men. There simply isn't room in that ending for a single hero to arise etc etc... the post has already been filled and in that context the synopsis confirms a lot of what we've been arguing all along. The ending is not clearly outlined in the 1993 letter, other than to say that the third book will draw together the various plot threads in a climactic battle; the only evidence we have that Dany will be leading the charge (which, mind you, I do think is a likely scenario) is a questionable WoW blurb taken from Amazon India. And, given the fact that so many specifics that were originally outlined ended up taking a different form, why should the ending be any more immune to GRRM's whimsy, to his "gardener" style of storytelling? If GRRM comes upon ideas he likes better, he clearly acts on them - occasionally to the detriment of the story - and I would say he has left himself plenty of wiggle room for the ending, especially with at least two volumes of story left to tell. There's nothing, nothing at all in that synopsis that is at odds with the idea of Jon Snow being half-Targaryen, or half-Dayne, or that descent from such bloodlines can't be important in the final arc, or to Jon personally. As a generic example, if Jon were Arthur Dayne's son, Jon swinging around Dawn to slay Others (or on the behalf of the Others ?_?) does not automatically mean he's a "lone hero," or that his role in things is more or less important than Dany and her dragons, Bran's greenseeing, Arya's training, and whatever the heck Tyrion is going to be doing during the final arc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 With so much talk about the synopses I went and re-read them. One part caught my attention: "of two desperate journeys beyond the known world in to the very hearts of ice and fire". Was Bran's the journey to the heart of ice? Or we can expect a Benjen or resurrected Jon POV to show us that journey?. Benjen should be there by now if he has been traveling for 3 years. On the journey to the heart of fire, no main POV seems to be heading to Asshai and beyond. Dany and his dragons should head to Westeros according to the synopsis. Not sure if Tyrion's journey can be described as desperate yet, but maybe Asshai is where his destiny is? It would fit with Moqorro's vision of a "Small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of all" (and other references to his big shadow). This is something we've talked about earlier. On first reading of the synopsis there's an impression that the journeys are made after Danaerys has banged heads together and gotten the different factions to fight together as one. On the other hand bearing in mind the very clear parallels between Bran's journey beyond the Wall to find Bloodraven and Marlow's journey up the river to find Kurtz and the Heart of Darkness, I'm very much in favour of identifying Bran with the journey into the Ice. If that's so then I would also agree that Tyrion's is the other journey, especially as both are are also seeking themselves. Alternatively, although I'm not so keen on the idea as I once was, given the Heart of Darkness connection, there is that conversation between Jon and Tyrion on the Wall early in AGoT when Jon declares that if Uncle Benjen doesn't come back then he and Ghost will go looking for him. If so, then Tyrion is now conveniently sityated to go looking for his lost Uncle in the burning ruins of Valyria. The other problem with that mirrored scenario however is that as I recall GRRM has said we're not going to see Valyria except perhaps in flashback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 The ending is not clearly outlined in the 1993 letter, other than to say that the third book will draw together the various plot threads in a climactic battle; the only evidence we have that Dany will be leading the charge (which, mind you, I do think is a likely scenario) is a questionable WoW blurb taken from Amazon India. Just in the interests of accuracy the current text came from Germany not India and has been around for many years, clearly following on from the 1993 synopsis of the first two volumes as an outline of the proposed third one. As I've said often enough before I'm happy enough with the suggestion that R+L=J, but do not believe on the basis of the synopses and various other clues and roadblocks which GRRM has thrown out [eg: "fever dream" and Viserys being declared Aerys heir] that it is going to be anywhere near as significant as some people like to believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucu Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 This is something we've talked about earlier. On first reading of the synopsis there's an impression that the journeys are made after Danaerys has banged heads together and gotten the different factions to fight together as one. On the other hand bearing in mind the very clear parallels between Bran's journey beyond the Wall to find Bloodraven and Marlow's journey up the river to find Kurtz and the Heart of Darkness, I'm very much in favour of identifying Bran with the journey into the Ice. If that's so then I would also agree that Tyrion's is the other journey, especially as both are are also seeking themselves. Alternatively, although I'm not so keen on the idea as I once was, given the Heart of Darkness connection, there is that conversation between Jon and Tyrion on the Wall early in AGoT when Jon declares that if Uncle Benjen doesn't come back then he and Ghost will go looking for him. If so, then Tyrion is now conveniently sityated to go looking for his lost Uncle in the burning ruins of Valyria. The other problem with that mirrored scenario however is that as I recall GRRM has said we're not going to see Valyria except perhaps in flashback. I think that GRRM delayed Dany's return to Westeros, so the two journeys might have started before her arrival. I would prefer Tyrion to continue his journey instead of an anticlimatic return to Westeros as Dany's hand or dragonrider. Tyrion is better suited for a trickster role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted to snow Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 GRRM mentioned somewhere that Heart of Winter will be featured in 2 of the coming books - Probably 4 or 5 books yet to come... The Winds of Winter - I think that Jon, inside of Ghost will visit the Heart of Winter & he will not receive a warm reception (no pun intended)... He will find Benjin, learn of the Other-Stark Association, and be cast out... Thus starting the Moral Downfall of Jon Snow. A Dream of Spring (or whatever the 7th book is titled) - I think that whoever is reborn into Jon's Human Body will also make the journey to the Heart of Winter, where he will be welcomed & he will team up with the Others. Note: This will be someone else in Jon Snow's body, not Jon Snow himself. This '2nd' trip to the Heart of Winter & the warm welcome is based upon John Snow's dream of standing atop the Wall holding a flaming sword & armored in Black Ice (Other Armor). When Sam kills the Other, there is no Sword, Armor, or Otherly Effects left behind. Therefore in order to obtain Other Armor, the character who is reborn into Jon Snow's body must make a deal with the Others... He must be on the same side as the Others... Jon Snow will oppose the character that is reborn into his body... Jon Snow will command a huge hive-minded army who at first will defend the wall, but later as Jon Snow's moral downfall continues, this army will journey south as Jon Snow moves to play the game of thrones... From Wikipedia: Black ice, sometimes called clear ice, refers to a thin coating of glazed ice on a surface. While not truly black, it is virtually transparent, allowing black asphalt/macadam roadways or the surface below to be seen through it—hence the term "black ice". The typically low levels of noticeable ice pellets, snow, or sleet surrounding black ice means that areas of the ice are often practically invisible to drivers or persons stepping on it. There is, thus, a risk of skidding and subsequent accident due to the loss of traction. A similar problem is encountered with diesel fuel spills on roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 GRRM mentioned somewhere that Heart of Winter will be featured in 2 of the coming books... What he actually said was that in the next two books we will see much more of the Land of always Winter. The Heart of Winter was not itself referenced. Arguably separating the two might be semantics but not if the Heart of Winter is analagous to the Heart of Darkness and not restricted to a particular geographical location. And with that, to bed. Good night all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 I think that GRRM delayed Dany's return to Westeros, so the two journeys might have started before her arrival. I would prefer Tyrion to continue his journey instead of an anticlimatic return to Westeros as Dany's hand or dragonrider. Tyrion is better suited for a trickster role. :agree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew. Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Just in the interests of accuracy the current text came from Germany not India and has been around for many years, clearly following on from the 1993 synopsis of the first two volumes as an outline of the proposed third one. Amazon Germany, Amazon India, either way the synopsis itself is dubious, both in authorship and how applicable it is to what the story has morphed into. Certainly dubious enough that to use it as an argument against the ideas of others is questionable. As to what Jon's overall significance will be, or what the significance of his parentage will be, I still don't understand why some segment of the community having a difference of opinion in that regard is a "real problem." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewolfStark Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 You know, put like that, it sounds an awful lot like Dune plagiarized in a med-fan setting... Except it developed beyond that. And even Dune wasn't original with how it went about it--the concept of "two houses, both alike in dignity, with bitter emnity... etc." is even older. Heck go back to Homer--what is the Trojan War if not a war between two houses? It doesn't matter if a concept is as old as dirt or not, what matters is if the author brings something new to this retelling, whether it be a new element added, a fresh perspective, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmaid7 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 My take on the 93 letter is not to dismiss it as "useless" on one basis and one basis only.If one can find elements,clues,themes of its context 'still' present in the series then those things are still in play. Long before the 93 letter came out there were certain things deduced from the series illuminated/highlighted/revealed whatever your label by Heretics (good thing we have a guide) and what the letter has done is validate those thoughts.To reiterate what the letter has done is validate that certain aspects remain in the series else we wouldn't have been able to point them out.Its grown in the telling yes,other elements have gotten added of course. Something i've said quite frequently here and that is there's more than one throne to sit in this story and thus "the game of thrones" doesn't only center around a patriarchy nor is it specific to the iron throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.