• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About SFDanny

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Francisco

Recent Profile Visitors

7,566 profile views
  1. Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

    I agree the Barristan quote does not contradict The World of Ice & Fire. These are the quotes that I see as important: next Ser Barristan's thoughts followed by the world book and, If I'm missing some of import for this discussion let me know. What then does the above tell us about Elia's location during this time period. Princess Elia and her companions arrive in King's Landing sometime from about the time of the announcement of the betrothal in 279 AC to her wedding in the early months of 280. From betrothal to wedding could be up to a year's time at court in King's Landing. If Ashara is part of Elia's companions during this time is unknown. Sometime after the wedding in early 280 the Prince and Princess of Dragonstone remove themselves from King's Landing and take up residence on Dragonstone. If Ashara is part of this is unknown. Sometime after Rhaenys is born, the Prince, and perhaps Princess, bring their daughter to King's Landing to present her to the King and Queen. How long they are there is unknown, as is if Ashara is there with them. By the time of the tourney at Harrenhal we know that Ashara is a companion of Elia and is, along with her, at the tourney. Somehow Ashara is dishonored at the tourney, perhaps by a Stark. The dishonor seems likely to do with a stillborn daughter Ashara has after this. By New Year's 282 AC we know Elia is on Dragonstone with the newborn Aegon, but Rhaegar is traveling the Riverlands (and other places?) with close companions. Does either party include Ashara is unknown. By the end of the rebellion in 283 we know Elia and her children are in King's Landing. Where Ashara is in unknown until we hear of her death in Starfall after Ned's trip there to return Ser Arthur's sword Dawn to the Daynes. So, my question is where is the contradiction that you think makes the SSM outdated? I think Ser Barristan's quote confirms the relationship of Ashara as one of Elia's companions. The locations confirmed in the the world book have times in which Elia is at King's Landing , "in the first few years after Elia married Rhaegar." Note that the SSM does not say Elia or Ashara are in King's Landing "all" of the time making up the years following the wedding. My friend, there is no contradiction here.
  2. Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

    I agree, and thank you for the laugh.
  3. Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

    Let me start here, my friend. I think this is a fundamental mistake. Because there are things within Martin's wide ranging response in 1999 that you think may have been changed, or modified, does not at all mean that everything within Martin's remarks are changed, or modified, or no longer valid. Whether or not Lady Ashara and Elia are in King's Landing during certain periods of time of the days leading up to the rebellion has nothing to with Martin's remarks about the time between Jon and Dany's namedays. These two very different subjects are talked about in the same interview, but other than that, there is no dependency of one set of facts to the other. You are trying to discredit the one by raising questions about the other, but all you are doing is, if you are right which I don't think you are, is to show why you think Martin might have changed his mind about Ashara' and Elia's locations and wrongly apply this as evidence of change to something that it is not tied to in the least. What we are agreed upon is that Martin has made it clear, that his past remarks should not be held against him if chooses to make changes. He reserves the right to change his mind about anything and everything up until it is published. And even then he can still change things as he sees fit, but you and I are much more likely to get an explanation of why a change was made. All of his remarks outside of the published material should be used with this understanding. So, yes, a published interview from 1999 or from 2017 may include information that will change when further books are published. Of course, that doesn't mean all of George's remarks will change or that they are meaningless. I'd argue they tell us a great deal. But it also means we have to use this type of information carefully. In particular, we have to look for how either published information or subsequent remarks may reflect changes our author has decided to make. But your questions about Ashara and Elia's locations have nothing to do with Martin's information on the time difference between Jon and Dany's namedays other than the fact they appear in the same interview. Give me something that questions George's remarks on the time difference here, either in subsequent interviews, or in material published at a later date, and we have then a reason to question if the 1999 interview is still valid on this point, but up until then I don't see we have a real debate. That doesn't mean your claimed contradictions about Ashara and Elia's locations are not interesting concerning that topic, but I think if we look at them we find rather than the contradictions you claim, we have an exercise in tilting against windmills. They might be giants tearing apart our understanding of Martin's story, but upon a closer look they show themselves to be windmills signifying no contradictory change. Let me go back then, and deal with them outside of claims about Jon and Dany's namedays. Is there a conflict between Cat's thoughts and Kevan's? I don't think so. Let's look again. The key word here is "supported" as opposed to your "fought." The "bitter end" is Aerys's death, and the "well beyond" is the continuance of the siege after word had surely reached them of the sack and the outcome of the battle at the Trident. There may have been schemes later on as well that Kevan knows of that we do not. But we have no confirmation of contradictory information about battles fought by Mace Tyrell. Regarding Ned's thoughts concerning "battles in the south" lets look again at that quote. What this says is the purpose of Ned's mission after his fight with Robert. It says nothing about whether those battles were in fact fought. He rides out with his host to lift the siege at Storm's End, but is able to get the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne to surrender without bloodshed. He may well have thought he would also have to fight against Dorne, but that eventuality never occurs. The "why" of his riding out is not the same as saying these battles happened. With regard to the reason Ned marries Catelyn, custom and the need for military support are not contradictory. In fact, what we find out is there are a confluence of reasons for the marriages of Ned and Jon to Catelyn and Lysa. Ned is bound by custom, but Jon is not. Jon needs a young fertile wife after the death of his heir and Lysa is proven to be so. Hoster needs some respectable marriage of his youngest daughter after she is no longer a virgin because of her affair with Littlefinger. And all the rebels need Hoster's military support. There is no contradiction here. Changing what will be published in the upcoming A Storm of Swords to part of the material (Meera's tale, Ned Dayne's story) being in that book, and the information about Ashara being Elia's "companion" to appear in A Dance with Dragons makes this into a contradiction how? It doesn't. It just means that parts of the planned material were switched to be revealed in a later volume. That is all. The world book does not say what you say it does regarding Rhaegar and Elia (and Ashara) residing on Dragonstone. We don't know how long after the wedding this decision was made, nor do we know how long Elia and Ashara are present in King's Landing before the wedding. We just know they chose to go to Dragonstone some time after the wedding, and Elia and Ashara are together at Harrenhal. We also know that Elia and her children end up in King's Landing and are present there during the sack. So, yes, both can be true. It just means we are talking about different periods of time from the arrival of Elia and Ashara at court in preparation for the wedding to the time of the sack. What we are getting is the gradual filling in of detail, but nothing that indicates there was any real change from 1999 until now. There is a delay of certain details to later books. Nothing other than that to indicate anything else in the 1999 SSM is changed. Sorry, have to go. More later.
  4. Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

    Then you would be wrong in doing so. This is from A Clash of Kings which is published before Martin's remarks. Clearly he has Ned leading his army south to relieve the siege of Storm's End and also has Ned doing so without fighting a battle and spilling blood. Also, I know you keep writing about this, but you do know, don't you, that Ashara does live in King's Landing? Ser Barristan make it clear that it was not something Martin thought to do but changed his mind. He has Ashara living at court during the time of the Harrenhal tourney as a companion to Elia. When Ashara leaves and whether she comes back is a open question, but she is there just as Martin says in the SSM that gives the relative time of Jon and Dany's births.
  5. Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

    I think your assumption is spot on. Martin has had this to say, as far back as July of 1999, about some of the "missing events" of the rebellion. SSM bold emphasis added
  6. Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

    I did say a "slight" correction. We agree in the approximate times, but I'm trying to nail down, as best we can the landmarks we know in all of this mess. While I'm at it, let me say the two week travel time of Ned from the Trident comes from the time given for Ned and company to travel along with the King's carriage the same distance fifteen years later. My guess is that given that he is described as "racing" to King's Landing with the rebel army's van, I'd suggest that is likely a few days slow. But that is my guess. In Bran's vision of Benjen and Lyanna playing at swords before the Winterfell weirwood he thinks that the age difference is like that of himself and Arya, or about two years. Not that you couldn't be right, but it is ... unlikely. Good provocation though! Got me to thinking if it could be true. As to your sig about George and numbers, I agree when it comes to Martin and real world travel times. One just has to accept they work or you will have a stroke trying to figure it all out. That doesn't mean Martin is sloppy about detail, especially in the ordering of events. He spent years trying to figure out how he could get his Meereenese knot untangled, by which he meant the order of events necessary to bring characters to together and the right events in certain storylines to happen in the right order for the story to make sense. When it comes to this type of question, I think we can assume George has given it quite a bit of thought. So, I don't think his estimate of the difference between Jon and Dany's name days is just off the cuff. It is likely he knows this quite well.
  7. Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

    A slight correction here, if I may. The important quote is from Daenerys. The start of the nine month period is given from the time of Rhaella and Viserys flight from King's Landing, not from when Ned leaves the battleground of the Trident to go to King's Landing. Rhaella and Viserys leave after the news of the Trident reaches the city and after Aerys burns his Hand and then rapes Rhaella. We don't know the exact timing of this, but we know Ned is likely already well on his way to King's Landing when the ship to Dragonstone leaves. The departure from King's Landing is likely very close to when Tywin arrives and the sack begins. Ned's arrival is the same day, and Robert's coronation, and the fight with Ned sometime not long after. A better guess, in my opinion, is less than a week from Flight to Ned's departure, and about four weeks to Storm's End, and another two to three weeks between Storm's End and the Tower of Joy. If Jon is born around eight months before Dany's birth this puts him born a week or two before Ned arrives. But, please, note that Martin's quote isn't "eight or nine months" difference. It is eight or nine months or there abouts. This is an approximation - not a definitive and precise limit of time between the two births.
  8. Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

    The problem with Brandon in this little scenario is that he is dead. Both Brandon and Rickard are murdered before the war starts and it makes it very unlikely, unless Martin brings in Hermione's Time Turner, that either one could be Jon's father when he is conceived some three to four months into the rebellion. Not that we can rule out incest before Rhaegar kidnaps Lyanna, but if it happened it did not result in Jon Snow. There is also the fact nothing points to it ever happening.
  9. Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

    That's my experience as well. I've both the first print and the digital version, but I have never had a correction for the digital, nor have I seen a new edition that has the correction.
  10. Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

    Thanks, RT, for the link and the response, but that wasn't my question. I was wondering if the error had been corrected in any further publication of TWoI&F. I have an annoying habit of going to bookstores and looking at the editions on the shelves. I've never seen a correction of this error, have you? Have you seen a new edition with any of the corrections all of us noted in the thread you linked to? As you might be able to tell, I'm not impressed with the publisher and its dedication to correcting errors. Perhaps it is only my experience. Thanks again RT.
  11. Heresy Project X+Y=S+L=J

    May I ask why? R+L=J isn't dependent on Jon being born when Ned arrives at the tower of joy. Jon could be something like a month or even two months old when Ned finds him there. It would change what was the likely cause of death for Lyanna if the time of Jon's birth is this early, but it doesn't change the core of the theory. Now, Ned's travel time from King's Landing to Storm's End and onto the Tower of Joy is an interesting topic, but it doesn't change R+L=J if he arrives as Jon is being born or after his birth. I would, of course caution, that Martin has shown over and over again that if he wants to have his characters travel distances in times that defy real world realities that they can do so, but even so a six week or so travel time for Ned to the tower of joy is not out of the question. Most people who have put forward their ideas of the timing of Jon's birth do so using Martin's comments about the relative timing of Jon's and Daenerys's namedays and combine it with a complication of childbirth to get at a likely cause of death, but even here we can have women dying up to a month or so after childbirth from causes from the birth. Perhaps if you describe what you mean by "really, really quickly" I could better understand your point. There is a period of up to six months or so between the Battle of the Bells and the Battle of the Trident for which we know very little about what happened, but Martin has made it clear he hasn't describe all of the battles and time of the rebellion. The time between Ashford and Stony Sept is likely much, much shorter than what happens between Stony Sept and the Trident. Robert's not in Stony Sept for that long. Someone made a hell of an error in the 282 date for the Battle of the Trident, but I'd like to see a coherent theory that makes a 282 death of Rhaegar work in any timeline. I tried after TWoI&F came out and I don't think it is possible. I remember writing that it was like a scholar of English history had placed the Battle of Hastings in 1065. Remembering the sack and Aerys's death is pegged to 283 and Dany's birth to 284, it is impossible to work out. Ran's explanation of a typo makes much more sense. Although, I haven't seen that typo corrected in any new printing of the book? @Ran or @Rhaenys_Targaryen am I wrong in this?
  12. Why Daenerys Dayne may not be a ridiculous idea.

    Thanks, Voice. I don't have much time to post this morning, but I'm very glad to see your essay linked. Get back to it later. And if I haven't already said it - Happy New Year, my friend!
  13. Why Daenerys Dayne may not be a ridiculous idea.

    @monsterface first, welcome to the boards. I think you will like westeros. Have fun here. I'm kind of flattered that you took the occasion of your first post to criticize something I wrote. At least it provoked a response. Let me say, I started out when reading the essay in question with the same conclusion you have about the specific opening "mistake" on the part of the author. After having analyzed the entire post I had to reluctantly change my opinion based on the pattern set throughout the essay. Facts are consistently distorted and what I can only describe as a lying technique used on the part of the author. One cannot be so consistently making "errors" about the truth without knowing they are errors. So I reached the conclusion that author wasn't interested in a honest discussion, but rather he is interested in trying to fool his readers. After slogging your way through the essay, and the rebuttals, If you think I'm wrong, let me know. If the discussion has gone on you can either send me a personal message, or resurrect the thread. If the @ symbol is used and immediately followed by my username it will be highlighted in red and I will be notified of your response. It won't be the first time I've made a mistake, but in this instance I don't think I am mistaken. Welcome. SFDanny
  14. Why Daenerys Dayne may not be a ridiculous idea.

    As they say, great minds think alike, right? Except mine is getting less great as the years add up. My ideas were formed in response to posters bringing the Preston Jacobs videos here some time ago. One thing your going to find, my friend, is I will continue to harp on the need to use spoiler tags or take the discussion of spoiler chapters to the appropriate forum. I hate people making the decision about spoilers for me, and I try to not make those decisions for others. It one of the reasons I come here because of the clear lines about such things.
  15. Why Daenerys Dayne may not be a ridiculous idea.

    Yet you promote it in these threads, why? No offense meant, Voice. But if you are only looking for people to go to the other forum and not comment on essays posted there in these forums, you might want to state so upfront. If that's the case, I'd hope you change your mind. I'd like to see a discussion of your own essay on Jaime as Rhaegar's catspaw. It's been a while since I've read it, but I think you would find people here who would like to comment on it. If you have already done so, please post a link to the thread here. In my opinion, it's a much better piece, even if I have my disagreements. "My thread," as you call it, was started when another poster did just as you did in posting a link to the article. I also see you have done the same thing in a thread on the same topic in the ADwD threads. I'm not sure how one gets to call those who respond to your call to read the essay and they then post their disagreements either strange or rude. If you link it to these forums, then people have the right to say what they think about it. Or at least that is my view. The OP is free to come here and participate if he wants to read what the people of these forums think. It's pretty clear there are many and varied opinions on the subject here.