Jump to content

The bones of Willam Dustin


Brad Stark

Recommended Posts

Willem Darry  is well known and well attested as a member of the Targaryen court (Master at Arms IIRC).

Right.  And I expect that when Dany finally sees a Darry or Targaryen tapestry with Willem Darry's image portrayed on it, she will realize at that point that Willem Darry is not the same "Ser Willem" she remembers; just as the big house with the Red Door was not really in Braavos, where Ser Willem Darry actually was at this time.  Her memories are of a different person, in a different place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You think she's genuinely angry about the bones?

That is the premise of this thread, and there is at least some support for it in the books, since she seems to complain about the failure to return his bones.  If you deny it, or demand that it be proven 100% beyond any possible doubt, then I cannot help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the premise of this thread, and there is at least some support for it in the books, since she seems to complain about the failure to return his bones.  If you deny it, or demand that it be proven 100% beyond any possible doubt, then I cannot help you.

I'm neither denying it nor demanding it be proven, just alluding to the fact that it might be (as in could quite reasonably be, a real option, not just a not-actually-impossible type option) a total facade. That too needs to be taken into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

My questions regarding the ToJ incident remain the same, after reading through this thread, albeit with one additional question:

Why is math important here?

We simply have no confirmed final head-count of those involved or present during the incident, with much less importance to be placed upon the number of cairns, especially with any respect to Ned's intent upon departure.

The granularity of the time line for the event itself is abstract, and impossible to fully resolve of yet. The only anchor points we have are prior and subsequent events that span much larger scopes of time, with further concerns of practicality not withstanding.

Simply: there is nothing valuable to quantify mathematically from the data we are presented with, much less it's quality (sources).

The questions I have (which may have already been answered):

Where's the evidence that Ned departed WITH Howland?

Where's the evidence that Ned didn't depart with a LIVE Lyanna (at the time)?

Where's the evidence Ned departed the ToJ with an infant?

With regard to Lady Dustin, why are we accepting what she says at all as fact, in an intimate (edit: and highly subjective) dialogue with a broken and desperate Theon (who has already disgraced the Starks/himself/others)?

Hopefully my response won't be received as snatching the wheel off-topic, but this simply isn't about bones and body counts. There are symbols afoot.

One more question set (out of countless more):

Could Lyanna have simply requested to be buried at home (along with her father and brother), to be with her living brother(s) and child? So that her child could at least see her "face?" To eventually discover who he really is?

Character artifacts seem important (Dawn, the horse)... why not a big damned statue/tomb within a crypt (or its contents)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/02/2016 at 10:05 AM, XAeon said:

 

My questions regarding the ToJ incident remain the same, after reading through this thread, albeit with one additional question:

Why is math important here?

We simply have no confirmed final head-count of those involved or present during the incident, with much less importance to be placed upon the number of cairns, especially with any respect to Ned's intent upon departure.

The granularity of the time line for the event itself is abstract, and impossible to fully resolve of yet. The only anchor points we have are prior and subsequent events that span much larger scopes of time, with further concerns of practicality not withstanding.

Simply: there is nothing valuable to quantify mathematically from the data we are presented with, much less it's quality (sources).

Indeed. But this is literary analysis, not math calculation. There is value to be had even from imprecise analysis that does not reach mathematical proof.

On 21/02/2016 at 10:05 AM, XAeon said:

The questions I have (which may have already been answered):

Where's the evidence that Ned departed WITH Howland?

They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed.

There is an implication there that they rode away together, as they came together, fought together and are not mentioned to separate before they ride away.
Also HR is present at Lyanna's death scene (see below for placing this at ToJ). So they are still together then. And helped with the cairns IIRC.
Its possible they left separately, but there is no evidence supporting that idea and the evidence we have implies they did not.

On 21/02/2016 at 10:05 AM, XAeon said:

Where's the evidence that Ned didn't depart with a LIVE Lyanna (at the time)?

Ned categorises the ToJ dream (old dream, not just fever dream) as about Lyanna in her bed of blood. For the ToJ dream to be about her in her bed of blood, that bed of blood must be in the tower. No other possibility works to categorise the dream that way.
We see in his memory earlier Lyanna dying in his arms in a room that smells of blood and roses - unexplained motifs from the dream (blood streak sky, storm of rose petals). She's also dying with a fever. A huge cause of female death in our world with similar level of medical knowledge (and still happens today though much more rarely), including IIRC two of Henry VIIIs wives and his mother, was puerperal fever, a common infection after childbirth. Which would fit her death in her bed of blood with a fever draining her strength and could be up to 10 or more days after the birth.
Therefore the evidence suggests she died in the tower and the timing of her death is directly related to the ToJ scene, not days or weeks or more later after having traveled elsewhere then come back.

On 21/02/2016 at 10:05 AM, XAeon said:

Where's the evidence Ned departed the ToJ with an infant?

Starfall (his next known location after ToJ) believes Wylla is Jon's mother (but we know she is not). Therefore Wylla cannot have been at Starfall already or they would know that she was not Jon's mother. Therefore she arrived with Jon. Either independently of Ned (how does that work, and the timing?), or with Ned. If with Ned, when did he pick her and Jon up?
Remember that we know there were more people than the 10 warriors and Lyanna at ToJ, because "they" found Ned afterward with Lyanna dead in his arms, but only HR remained alive of the fighters.

On 21/02/2016 at 10:05 AM, XAeon said:

With regard to Lady Dustin, why are we accepting what she says at all as fact, in an intimate (edit: and highly subjective) dialogue with a broken and desperate Theon (who has already disgraced the Starks/himself/others)?

Not all of us are. ;)

On 21/02/2016 at 10:05 AM, XAeon said:

Hopefully my response won't be received as snatching the wheel off-topic, but this simply isn't about bones and body counts. There are symbols afoot.

One more question set (out of countless more):

Could Lyanna have simply requested to be buried at home (along with her father and brother), to be with her living brother(s) and child? So that her child could at least see her "face?" To eventually discover who he really is?

She certainly could have, but that alone wouldn't cover the multiple promises he made her and the price he paid to keep them.

On 21/02/2016 at 10:05 AM, XAeon said:

Character artifacts seem important (Dawn, the horse)... why not a big damned statue/tomb within a crypt (or its contents)?

Are they important? Dawn certainly, to the Daynes at least. Its a literally unique, House-defining artifact over 10,000 years old, associated directly with their founding story and included in their heraldry.
I'm not sure any other artifact, even named ancestral Valyrian swords, comes remotely close to this, far less a horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, XAeon said:

 

The subjective term "they" and oblique context renders nothing specific.

It renders one thing and one thing only specific. The number of people who found him was more than one. Otherwise the wording would be 'he', 'she', or a specific name/title/descriptor found him. to find him.

That is the data we have. If you find that 'inconvenient' then you are chosing your theory(s) ahead of the data, rather than basing them on the data.

22 hours ago, XAeon said:

I don't lean on convenience.

You asked for evidence, not proof. I showed you evidence. There is nothing convenient or inconvenient here, just data.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...