473 replies to this topic

[Sofia Aillard]

WHY, WHYYY?

Quote

TREBLA COMMENT OF R&L THEORY TO PARRIS: Trebla proceeded to talk about the R&L theory and how he believes it, hoping for a tidbit.
HER REPLY (paraphrasing): Do you really think George would do something so basic as Jon being the son of R&L? *Trebla's jaw dropping open*

http://www.westeros....9_September_24/

[Sofia Aillard]

Alia of the knife, on 03 May 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

I'm here because I need answers and resolution in an almost unhealthy way,   and sometimes wished I'd not gotten into this series until it was done and finished.

"Most unhealthy way"... You and me both! Sometimes I feel smeagolish (haha) about them books and their mysteries. I'm currently on bed rest and just found out that the more I read about it, the more I want to read. That's not healthy... Not healthy at all!!!

So I found the infamous Parris quote. Next is to look for the Dan and David's thing Apple said... Getting afraid to look further though...

[Dragonfish]

@Sofia--

Notice that she phrases her response in the form of a question. She never outright states "George would never do anything that obvious." She asks if they think George would ever do something so obvious, thereby planting the idea that she said he wouldn't do something like that without actually lying. It's a classic misdirection tactic. My mother does the same thing all the time (e.g.- One time while our family was watching a movie, my brother asked her if a certain character who appeared to die in a car bomb was actually dead, and her exact response was, "The car blew up, didn't it?" The second she said that, my brother knew this character was alive.)

[Sofia Aillard]

Dragonfish, on 03 May 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

@Sofia--

Notice that she phrases her response in the form of a question. She never outright states "George would never do anything that obvious." She asks if they think George would ever do something so obvious, thereby planting the idea that she said he wouldn't do something like that without actually lying. It's a classic misdirection tactic. My mother does the same thing all the time (e.g.- One time while our family was watching a movie, my brother asked her if a certain character who appeared to die in a car bomb was actually dead, and her exact response was, "The car blew up, didn't it?" The second she said that, my brother knew this character was alive.)

You are probably right and clearly, you understand better English than I do, but I felt like your mom's "trap" (sorry, don't know a better word) was different... To me, Parris said in other words: "George wouldn't write something so basic"... Even if what she wanted was to just plant the doubt, she could have said (like your mom) "do you think GRRM would let you get to his parentage that quickly?".

[Alia of the knife]

Sofia, on 03 May 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

"Most unhealthy way"... You and me both! Sometimes I feel smeagolish (haha) about them books and their mysteries. I'm currently on bed rest and just found out that the more I read about it, the more I want to read. That's not healthy... Not healthy at all!!!
So I found the infamous Parris quote. Next is to look for the Dan and David's thing Apple said... Getting afraid to look further though...

I think it's like Apple and Dragonfish said, and I hope you feel better soon.

[Apple Martini]

Sofia, on 03 May 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

WHY, WHYYY?



http://www.westeros....9_September_24/

Keyword: paraphrasing. As in, it's not a direct quote and shouldn't be treated as one.

[Eira Seren]

feel better soon, Sofia!

reminds me of when someone asked GRRM a question about whether Baelish had been truthful with another character, and GRRM replied "would littlefinger lie?"

that and the way GRRM gets 'squirrely' himself when asked about jon's parents.  he's not giving away anything that is important.  it will keep us reading (and buying).  a good storyteller doesn't give away the ending!  he probably knows how much fun we're having.

but even if his father isn't Rhaegar, you only need 1 birth mother. . .so something's up.

[Apple Martini]

^ The Littlefinger lying thing is a good example. We know — we can guess, pretty concretely — that the Tyrells killed Joffrey with Littlefinger's assistance. Yet all GRRM has to do is plant a tiny seed of doubt, and people decide they don't believe it anymore, even though it's obviously how it happened.

[Eira Seren]

Apple Martini, on 04 May 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

^ The Littlefinger lying thing is a good example. We know — we can guess, pretty concretely — that the Tyrells killed Joffrey with Littlefinger's assistance. Yet all GRRM has to do is plant a tiny seed of doubt, and people decide they don't believe it anymore, even though it's obviously how it happened.

and anyway, think how annoyed you'd be after a while if people kept asking you to give away such a big detail, and kept talking to you about it, fishing for answers, trying to see if you'd eventually let something slip. . .  oh, the price of writing a good mystery

a man kidnaps (or runs away with) a woman.  they spend some time together.  i suppose it is a pretty simple possible outcome.  but arriving at that conclusion?  gathering the clues?  GRRM didn't give that to us simply.  the explanation for why and how and how it will effect the outcome of the story isn't going to be uncomplicated.  even if the basis of this plot is 'basic' (aren't good stories based on a fairly simple skeleton?), suspecting that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents doesn't immediately solve all of the mystery, at least not for me.  there's still a lot of interesting questions surrounding it. it doesn't necessarily make jon the rightful, or best king, or the victor, either.  and what if he's really dead?  how will that impact the outcome of the series?  nice to have a mystery that isn't so tidy.

[Sofia Aillard]

Apple Martini, on 03 May 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

Keyword: paraphrasing. As in, it's not a direct quote and shouldn't be treated as one.

THANKS! And here I was thinking the exact opposite!

Eira Seren, on 04 May 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

and anyway, think how annoyed you'd be after a while if people kept asking you to give away such a big detail, and kept talking to you about it, fishing for answers, trying to see if you'd eventually let something slip. . .  oh, the price of writing a good mystery

a man kidnaps (or runs away with) a woman.  they spend some time together.  i suppose it is a pretty simple possible outcome.  but arriving at that conclusion?  gathering the clues?  GRRM didn't give that to us simply.  the explanation for why and how and how it will effect the outcome of the story isn't going to be uncomplicated.  even if the basis of this plot is 'basic' (aren't good stories based on a fairly simple skeleton?), suspecting that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents doesn't immediately solve all of the mystery, at least not for me.  there's still a lot of interesting questions surrounding it. it doesn't necessarily make jon the rightful, or best king, or the victor, either.  and what if he's really dead?  how will that impact the outcome of the series?  nice to have a mystery that isn't so tidy.

Like the song says... Wasn't him...

All kidding aside, (thanks for the "feel better" ) totally agree with you! Don't think R+L=J is that "basic", or obvious (clearly, since I couldn't think of it myself and was clueless til I got here) at all. I actually think it is the best theory. I've been reading a lot about it and can't see any other theory that fits better.

Still think that Parris' (OH GOD, how do I put the 's after a name that ends with s???) phrase is different, though. She could have went with "Do ya think GRRM would let you get ahead in the game that fast?" or maybe a "trust GRRM to keep you guessing till the end" or whatever! She was more incisive then that, clearly stating he wouldn't write so "basic" as that. The Littlefinger question is not "stating" anything, like when you guys say: "Is the Pope Catholic"? (hope I'm using the correct saying!). I didn't get the "misdirection tactic" Dragonfish explained from what she said... Actually, if R+L=J turns out to be in fact true, saying "GRRM wouldn't

do something so basic as Jon being the son of R&L" would be a flat out lie!

So really, IMHO, if it were a quote, I would be worried! But I'm going with Apple's way of thinking that it is not a quote, that the person who she said it to didn't understand and paraphrased what he/she thought Parris meant.

Edited by Sofia, 04 May 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[sagaz]

Eira Seren, on 04 May 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

and anyway, think how annoyed you'd be after a while if people kept asking you to give away such a big detail, and kept talking to you about it, fishing for answers, trying to see if you'd eventually let something slip. . .  oh, the price of writing a good mystery

a man kidnaps (or runs away with) a woman.  they spend some time together.  i suppose it is a pretty simple possible outcome.  but arriving at that conclusion?  gathering the clues?  GRRM didn't give that to us simply.  the explanation for why and how and how it will effect the outcome of the story isn't going to be uncomplicated.  even if the basis of this plot is 'basic' (aren't good stories based on a fairly simple skeleton?), suspecting that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents doesn't immediately solve all of the mystery, at least not for me.  there's still a lot of interesting questions surrounding it. it doesn't necessarily make jon the rightful, or best king, or the victor, either.  and what if he's really dead?  how will that impact the outcome of the series?  nice to have a mystery that isn't so tidy.

I agree. The thing that starts this theory is wtf is the KG doing in the ToJ?? trying to explain that we arrived here, and seems pretty possible.
I don't think is going to be a happy realization for Jon if suddenly he knows he's an heir, AA and whatever... and not Ned's son, (mostly the thing that defines his identity)

[Serie]

sagaz, on 04 May 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

I don't think is going to be a happy realization for Jon if suddenly he knows he's an heir, AA and whatever... and not Ned's son, (mostly the thing that defines his identity)

I couldn't agree more!!!!

"Whaaaaaat???? Am I supposed to give up the black and take up the harp????"

[Alia of the knife]

Serie, on 04 May 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

I couldn't agree more!!!!

"Whaaaaaat???? Am I supposed to give up the black and take up the harp????"

Of all the lessons Jon got from Ned- that was not one of them, (knowing Lyanna, she probably slammed it in the door when she having morning sickness).

[Lady Octarina]

sagaz, on 04 May 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

I don't think is going to be a happy realization for Jon if suddenly he knows he's an heir, AA and whatever... and not Ned's son, (mostly the thing that defines his identity)

Which is one of the main reasons why this must be true. GRRM wouldn't be nice enough to let Jon be the son of the most honorable man in Westeros, now, would he?

[Harlaw's Book]

Jon finding out he isn't Ned's son is going to be devastating.  Being Ned's son is the only aspect of his identity Jon has never doubted.  He has doubted his place at Winterfell, he has doubted whether he truely a sibling to the Stark kids, but he has never doubted being Ned's son.

[Lyeder]

I am one of the "did not find out by myself". And I am not sure if I agree to the theory.

However, a few ideas: Lyanna was a Stark and as such, like Ned, bound to honour much more than most Westeros families. Even if she had fallen in love with Rhaegar, she was betrothed to Robert and I doubt that a Stark would break an engagement, moreover if it was for a married man. Regardless of the fact if Rhaegar loved his wife or if her expected life-span was feeble, he was by all laws of Westeros, married. So, the idea of Lyanna running away with Rhaegar because she loved him does not convince me at all. He must have taken her away by force, If then ,he raped her or she consented willingly - in the eyes of Westeros man, it makes little to no difference.

Then, Ned lying about Jon's parentage (given that R+L=J) becomes not only a way of protection Jon (who would be the only living Targaryen in Westeros, except Aemon), but also of protection Lyanna's honour and reputation. Look at Lollys to see how even a raped woman was considered in Westeros - if she was not from the Iron Islands or from Dorne. Thus, Lyanna's memory remained pure. So, she kept on haunting Robert as some idealised image of a woman, destroying his marriage to Cersei from the very beginning. Also, by not telling Catelyn, Ned plants the seed for several of her later actions with the disasterous consequences we all know (and enjoy to read).

In the end, this honour bound conception leads to all the contrary which it is trying to reach and protect.

[Ygrain]

Lyeder, on 05 May 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

I am one of the "did not find out by myself". And I am not sure if I agree to the theory.

However, a few ideas: Lyanna was a Stark and as such, like Ned, bound to honour much more than most Westeros families. Even if she had fallen in love with Rhaegar, she was betrothed to Robert and I doubt that a Stark would break an engagement, moreover if it was for a married man. Regardless of the fact if Rhaegar loved his wife or if her expected life-span was feeble, he was by all laws of Westeros, married. So, the idea of Lyanna running away with Rhaegar because she loved him does not convince me at all. He must have taken her away by force, If then ,he raped her or she consented willingly - in the eyes of Westeros man, it makes little to no difference.

The thing is, we do not know much about the other Starks to assess if the strict codes of honour were engrained in all of them as deeply as in Ned. We do know, though, that the wild wolf Brandon deflowered a noble-born maiden, which, IMHO, is rather dishonourable conduct. We do know that Ned's own children abandon the codes for the sake of survival, and Ned himself places his daughter's life above his honour, so, all in all, it seems it has actually never been "honour above all". Also, there is the matter of Lyanna's wild blood that led her to an early grave, whch suggests she was somehow complicit in her fate. History is full of young girls from highly principled families who fell for totally wrong guys and acted against all the priciples, and we know too little of Lyanna to assess for sure if she would meekly undergo a marriage she didn't find appealing, or rather rebel and elope with Prince Charming.

Then, there is the matter of Rhaegar. By all but Robert's accounts, he was a paragon of virtue and loved Lyanna; abduction and rape somehow don't fit in the picture. However, even if all these PoVs could be dismissed as biased, there are are other hints. For instance, I remember that when I was reading AGOT the first time and came across the favourable comparison of Rhaegar and Robert (when Ned wonders whether Rhaegar also frequented brothels and thinks that the asnwer is probably "no"), it seemed to me a very weird thought about someone who supposedly kidnapped and raped his sister; this virtually set me on the track. Then, the dried blue roses which Lyanna was holding on her deathbed: where did she get them, and why was she holding them in her last moments, if they were from her rapist? If it wasn't just some part of Ned's dream and the roses were really there, it is possible that the dried roses were her crown from the Harrenhall tourney, in which case she can't have been abducted, since victims of abductions are hardly ever allowed to take their possessions with them (and especially such fragile ones)

Finally, the question of Rhaegar's marriage. Even if we don't take into account RL, where younger girls have affairs with married men on quite a regular basis, there is still the matter of Targaryen polygamy and Rhaegar's potential second marriage with Lyanna, which would then make Jon legitimate - qutoing myself from earlier in the thread:

Actually, Jon's legitimacy is the basis for the explanation while the three KG stay at the Tower of Joy instead of rushing to Viserys, yet at the same time claiming that they are keeping their vows. If Viserys is king, then at least one of them is bound to be at his side, no matter what Rhaegar's previous orders might have been. Not doing so would be dereliction of duty and definitely would fall under breaking their vows - so, if they stay AND keep their vows, Viserys is not king, and the person who is king is at ToJ. With Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon dead, the only explanation that makes sense is another legitimate son of Rhaegar - and with the Targaryen history of polygamy, aptly combined with the Northern tradition of marrying in front of trees, bigamy would be perfectly legitimate :-)

[MyLifeIsNotSoPrecious]

Lyeder, on 05 May 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

I am one of the "did not find out by myself". And I am not sure if I agree to the theory.

However, a few ideas: Lyanna was a Stark and as such, like Ned, bound to honour much more than most Westeros families. Even if she had fallen in love with Rhaegar, she was betrothed to Robert and I doubt that a Stark would break an engagement, moreover if it was for a married man. Regardless of the fact if Rhaegar loved his wife or if her expected life-span was feeble, he was by all laws of Westeros, married. So, the idea of Lyanna running away with Rhaegar because she loved him does not convince me at all. He must have taken her away by force, If then ,he raped her or she consented willingly - in the eyes of Westeros man, it makes little to no difference.

Then, Ned lying about Jon's parentage (given that R+L=J) becomes not only a way of protection Jon (who would be the only living Targaryen in Westeros, except Aemon), but also of protection Lyanna's honour and reputation. Look at Lollys to see how even a raped woman was considered in Westeros - if she was not from the Iron Islands or from Dorne. Thus, Lyanna's memory remained pure. So, she kept on haunting Robert as some idealised image of a woman, destroying his marriage to Cersei from the very beginning. Also, by not telling Catelyn, Ned plants the seed for several of her later actions with the disasterous consequences we all know (and enjoy to read).

In the end, this honour bound conception leads to all the contrary which it is trying to reach and protect.

Actually a Stark breaking an engagement is a pretty big plot line in the story and has huge implications.  Have you read Storm of Swords yet?

[Sofia Aillard]

Lyeder, on 05 May 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

I am one of the "did not find out by myself". And I am not sure if I agree to the theory.

However, a few ideas: Lyanna was a Stark and as such, like Ned, bound to honour much more than most Westeros families. Even if she had fallen in love with Rhaegar, she was betrothed to Robert and I doubt that a Stark would break an engagement, moreover if it was for a married man. Regardless of the fact if Rhaegar loved his wife or if her expected life-span was feeble, he was by all laws of Westeros, married. So, the idea of Lyanna running away with Rhaegar because she loved him does not convince me at all. He must have taken her away by force, If then ,he raped her or she consented willingly - in the eyes of Westeros man, it makes little to no difference.

Then, Ned lying about Jon's parentage (given that R+L=J) becomes not only a way of protection Jon (who would be the only living Targaryen in Westeros, except Aemon), but also of protection Lyanna's honour and reputation. Look at Lollys to see how even a raped woman was considered in Westeros - if she was not from the Iron Islands or from Dorne. Thus, Lyanna's memory remained pure. So, she kept on haunting Robert as some idealised image of a woman, destroying his marriage to Cersei from the very beginning. Also, by not telling Catelyn, Ned plants the seed for several of her later actions with the disasterous consequences we all know (and enjoy to read).

In the end, this honour bound conception leads to all the contrary which it is trying to reach and protect.

Maybe I'm waayyy off here, but couldn't Ned be the honorable guy he was because of Lyanna's running away?

[Lyeder]

MyLifeIsNotSoPrecious, on 05 May 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

Actually a Stark breaking an engagement is a pretty big plot line in the story and has huge implications.  Have you read Storm of Swords yet?

Yes, I have. (I have read all books once and am currently rereading all of them - have just reached AFfC). I admit I did not think of Robb's broken engagement - maybe because the rules applying for men and for women are so different in Westeros, but then also, because for me in the end this broken engagement only is a proof how honourbound those Starks are - if not, Robb could simply have walked out on Jeyne and marry the next Frey girl. But he did not - he tried to act as honorable as possible once the fault made. This indicates strongly for me that the value of honour is considered high among all Starks.

When Ned mentally compares Rhaegar to Robert to come to the conclusion that Rhaegar would probably not have frequented brothels, it could as easily mean that Rhaegar just took what he wanted and was not content with low born whores. But I also thought of Rhaegar loving Lyanna - but if this love was returned? We have no indication for it and seeing how much place has mutual affection in the choice of your life partner in Westeros - I doubt any smart girl would let herself be considered as soiled ever after. But that's jsut an opinion, nothing in the book states it.