A question on a possible error in aGoT

[ThePromiseThatWasAPrince]

When Bran takes Maester Luwin down into the crypts after telling him of the dream about his father, Bran tells Osha about the Kings and Lords of Winterfell. When they get to Rickard's, he says that he was beheaded by King Aerys, rather than burned alive. Is this an error, or is the World Book wrong?

[Gibzit]

When Bran takes Maester Luwin down into the crypts after telling him of the dream about his father, Bran tells Osha about the Kings and Lords of Winterfell. When they get to Rickard's, he says that he was beheaded by King Aerys, rather than burned alive. Is this an error, or is the World Book wrong?

Ned and Luwin might have spared Bran from the exact details of his granfather's death.

[Lady Sharya]

Not a mistake...

In Ned's first chapter he remembers the event falsely as well. He believes Brandon was strangled while his father watched. It isn't until Jamie(?) recounts the scene in the throne room that we learn Brandon Strangled himself trying to reach a sword to save Richard from burning to death inside his armor.

Some truths are better not told...

[ThePromiseThatWasAPrince]

Yeah, I remember Ned's recollection, which got the strangling right. It just hit me as odd that Bran would say that after Maester Luwin told him to recite the history.

[Perfidious Algernon]

One nice thing about having unreliable narrators is that they're virtually indistinguishable from unreliable authors...

[evita mgfs]

Perhaps. Yet Bran attends a beheading in Bran I of the same novel. What is more fearful for a child? Hearing of Rickard's fate, or watching a head severed and the snow drink the blood?

[Bluetiger]

Ned also didn't tell it to Cat...

[Lord Lannister]

"Oh yeah Bran. Your grandfather slowly died as the wildfire consumed him. His flesh melted off his bones while he was a alive. It was so horrible your uncle strangled himself to death. Did you know eyeballs pop when they get hot enough? What's wrong?"

Yeah... beheading is nicer.

[The Twinslayer]

It is a retcon. There are several others. In AGOT, Ned implies that Rickard fought in the Rebellion. ("He sat with a quiet dignity, stone fingers holding tight to the sword across his lap, but in life all swords had failed him.") In ASOS, we're told that Rickard died before the Rebellion began.

In AGOT, Ned says that Aerys left a treasury "flowing with gold." That gets changed in the World Book.

In AGOT, Ned says they rose up against Aerys "to put an end to the murder of children." In later books, that has nothing to do with the start of the Rebellion.

Etc.

[Jak Scaletongue]

Perhaps. Yet Bran attends a beheading in Bran I of the same novel. What is more fearful for a child? Hearing of Rickard's fate, or watching a head severed and the snow drink the blood?

Considering how queasy Jon (and others) gets when Rattleshirt is being burned by Mel - I'd say learning that your grandfather was burned alive and watched his son strangle himself would be more traumatic than watching "justice" being served.

Someone getting beheaded is considered a just act when that someone has committed a capital crime. And even among those who would have (probably) happily seen "Mance"/Rattleshirt beheaded were sickened by Mel's idea of "execution" - so, personally, I just assumed that Ned felt that learning that Rickard was beheaded, rather than roasted alive in his armour, was more appropriate for his children's history lessons.

[evita mgfs]

"Oh yeah Bran. Your grandfather slowly died as the wildfire consumed him. His flesh melted off his bones while he was a alive. It was so horrible your uncle strangled himself to death. Did you know eyeballs pop when they get hot enough? What's wrong?"

Yeah... beheading is nicer.

Well, he could have been matter of fact and more euphemistic: Lord Rickard died bravely and with honor at the caprice of the Mad King who used fire to suffocate him. Some day, if I live, I may share more."

Bran: "Oh dad - don't worry! I'm gonna be a greenseer and know everything anyway!"

[evita mgfs]

Considering how queasy Jon (and others) gets when Rattleshirt is being burned by Mel - I'd say learning that your grandfather was burned alive and watched his son strangle himself would be more traumatic than watching "justice" being served.

Someone getting beheaded is considered a just act when that someone has committed a capital crime. And even among those who would have (probably) happily seen "Mance"/Rattleshirt beheaded were sickened by Mel's idea of "execution" - so, personally, I just assumed that Ned felt that learning that Rickard was beheaded, rather than roasted alive in his armour, was more appropriate for his children's history lessons.

I get queasy too! Burning flesh? Nah!

See how I revised the scene above^. [tee-hee]

[evita mgfs]

Anyway, I imagine Bran does know All in his weirwood throne - and out of it! :devil:

[ThePromiseThatWasAPrince]

It is a retcon. There are several others. In AGOT, Ned implies that Rickard fought in the Rebellion. ("He sat with a quiet dignity, stone fingers holding tight to the sword across his lap, but in life all swords had failed him.") In ASOS, we're told that Rickard died before the Rebellion began.

In AGOT, Ned says that Aerys left a treasury "flowing with gold." That gets changed in the World Book.

In AGOT, Ned says they rose up against Aerys "to put an end to the murder of children." In later books, that has nothing to do with the start of the Rebellion.

Etc.

That is what I was trying to figure out. I have noticed how even in the books, some stories told in it get changed depending on who is telling the story. this might be GRRM's way of saying 'nothing is true unless it is seen first-hand'.

[ThePromiseThatWasAPrince]

double post

[Lady Sharya]

Yeah, I remember Ned's recollection, which got the strangling right. It just hit me as odd that Bran would say that after Maester Luwin told him to recite the history.

Ned DIDN'T get the story right though. That was my point. Someone spared him the truth of what actually happened, and in turn, he spared his children by diluting the story even more.

I don't think there were any errors in editing because the shock factor was multiplied when we heard/read the first-hand account from Jaime.

Maybe the reporter to Ned didn't actually see it happen & relayed what was told to him. Any way you look at it, the truth of how Brandon and Richard died would be too horrible for loved ones, and shows just how mad Aerys was.

[evita mgfs]

snip

mispost

[Jak Scaletongue]

That is what I was trying to figure out. I have noticed how even in the books, some stories told in it get changed depending on who is telling the story. this might be GRRM's way of saying 'nothing is true unless it is seen first-hand'.

Quite normal, quite realistic, actually. Most stories are changed depending on who's telling it. Ask two buddies who just went fishing with each other! They'll tell you different stories about who caught the big one, who lucked out, who laughingly failed!

Everyone wants to 1) make themselves look better and/or 2) want to add something of their "own" to a story they're telling.

For example, pay attention to yourself telling a story about your kid to the kid's grandparent! You'll alter the story slightly - whether it's to make it just that little bit funnier/cuter, or to make yourself not seem like the "big bad parent", or to make them seem just slightly angrier/crankier than they really were.

Or how about a story about yourself scoring the winning goal in (insert sport here)? You'll make yourself look better (you might even make your teammates look better - "And Joe passed that puck straight to my stick, it was a perfect pass" when Joe just got freaking lucky that his half-assed swing at the puck made it to your stick!).

And then of course, there's the fact the Ned would have had second-hand, if not third-hand, information about his father and brother. Remember "telephone"? The more times a story gets told, the higher the chances of alteration.

There's a reason video evidence is damn near essential nowadays - if you didn't see it for yourself, you can't be sure that you're getting the entire story.

[Ser Leftwich]

It is a retcon. There are several others. In AGOT, Ned implies that Rickard fought in the Rebellion. ("He sat with a quiet dignity, stone fingers holding tight to the sword across his lap, but in life all swords had failed him.") In ASOS, we're told that Rickard died before the Rebellion began.

In AGOT, Ned says that Aerys left a treasury "flowing with gold." That gets changed in the World Book.

In AGOT, Ned says they rose up against Aerys "to put an end to the murder of children." In later books, that has nothing to do with the start of the Rebellion.

Etc.

None of these are retcons.

The swords failing Rickard does not have to have anything to do with the Robellion. That a fight against Aerys was what Rickard planned failed him, because he had to fight fire.

That could have been Ned's idea of flowing/the accounting books.

That could be a metaphor that Ned is using, like general atrocities and executions without direct guilt, like all of the Darklyn family and almost all of the Hollards.

Also, Ned's thought about the deaths are completely true, just not exacting in detail.

Brandon had been twenty when he died, strangled by order of the Mad King Aerys Targaryen only a few short days before he was to wed Catelyn Tully of Riverrun. His father had been forced to watch him die. He was the true heir, the eldest, born to rule. - AGoT p. 43

Brandon was strangled, via an order of Aerys to attach Brandon to the device. And Rickard very well could have seen Brandon at the time.

Ned softened the blow of the execution description to Bran. For that matter, Aerys might have had Rickard's head chopped off after he was removed from the fire, so Ned may not have technically lied.

[evita mgfs]

Ned DIDN'T get the story right though. That was my point. Someone spared him the truth of what actually happened, and in turn, he spared his children by diluting the story even more.

I don't think there were any errors in editing because the shock factor was multiplied when we heard/read the first-hand account from Jaime.

Maybe the reporter to Ned didn't actually see it happen & relayed what was told to him. Any way you look at it, the truth of how Brandon and Richard died would be too horrible for loved ones, and shows just how mad Aerys was.

This is what I believe - Ned was spared by whomever told him. This is why Winterfell forgets - its people have euphemistic reporters.