R+L=J v.156

[Ser Creighton]

They're not. If anything, the fan names are evidence in support of my position. Because it means that fans have identified both of those characters as imposters. fArya is definite, while fAegon is merely suspected of being one at this point. Assuming he is, that gives us a fake Stark and a fake Targaryen in the story, and that makes for a parallel. Do you think it is a coincidence that imposters are being passed off as heirs to the two main houses in the story? If so, what about the fact that these stories take place during the same book? 

The uncertainty on the Targaryen side of this fArya/fAegon comparison mimics the hidden/secret identities parallel, since in that case there is 100% certainty on the Stark side, but something less than that on the Targaryen side. We know for a fact that the Stark kids are in hiding and using different identities in at least two cases, because it happens during the course of the books. Otoh, we don't know for a fact that Jon Snow, or anyone else, is hidden/secret Targaryen. His identity is presented as a mystery, and RLJ is still technically a theory, regardless of our certainty.

No, no, not saying Aegon is legit, was just speaking of the parallel. Of course they are both fake, but so are several names in the series. Which I named. Jon is a fake Stark as well, well sort of.

It's true there is a parallel of sorts there. They are not the only ones being passed off however. Sansa is not LF's daughter, Aegon is not the son of Jon Con. Arya is not Mercy, Tyrion is not Hugor, and Jon of course is not who he thinks he is, much like Aegon. Again it comes down to the theme of identity in book 5. FArya is also not a mystery like Jon and Aegon, the author put that out there day one, everyone new it was not her. You know we don't know if Aegon is a legit Targ either, if we did nobody would call him FAegon.

I think it is safe to assume Aegon is fake however, and I understand the comparison to the two major houses. Though their stories seem very different, and they seem in very different situations at least so far. However they are connected in a sense. I mean LF is also connected to FArya, that was his idea, he was the one who had her. Puppets, or mummers tools. Jeyne is tied to Stannis and Aegon to Storms end. Though I find Martins use of Silver Wings with Sansa and the Gold Company with Aegon equally as interesting. After all Gold and Silver are Dragons and Moons and it's no coincidence she is in the Vale.

Though he does layer this stuff so he would appear to be dropping something, some sort of idea. I know identity was big in the last book, and it probably will be in the next. Another person to look at would probably be Alys Karstark. The Weddings, and of course she was assumed to be Arya as well. And there you have a sun coming to Jon much the way a sun came to Dany. You also had Rhaegar and two friends with a Wylla, though she was a green Wylla who is actually a blonde. It's tough there is so much overlapping at times.

There is just so much going on in Dance, while not the crowd favorite it is probably the most dense book in the series if people are willing to look.

Anyway the teaser is out, and I think the show has gone to far, you can shoot Jon full of arrows, and you can stab Jon a dozen times with really long daggers, and you can have a White Walker beat the snot out of him, but they have gone to far this time, clearly someone has poked Jon in the eye. That's just mean, and he may need an eye patch or something. I would of posted this there but there is no reply option on the new stupid alternate reality forum.

 

[corbon]

corbon--

I am getting a little worn out by this analysis, but I think it is clear that one point I made still is not being made clearly enough, so I will try again. The point I have tried to make, but which I think perhaps keeps getting expressed unclearly is what I meant in terms of Robert believing that Ned -- at a minimum -- confirmed to Robert (in Robert's mind) that Wylla is the mother.

Oh, no, you've been clear enough, just not provided any arguments for your position, or arguments against mine.

Here is what I think you are saying -- and if I am getting this wrong, then please correct me as my sense of the source of our disagreement is based on my understanding of what I believe to be your point her. I believe you are suggesting that that a reasonable interpretation of Robert's words in GoT is that Robert believes that Wylla is the mother but that he does not necessarily believe that Ned has ever confirmed that Wylla is the mother and if Ned denied Wylla being the mother, Robert would know that Robert came to believe this information completely independent from Ned and, more important, that Ned has in no way confirmed the identity of Wylla as the mother.

Yes.

Assuming this is an accurate description of your position, then I completely disagree with it and do not agree that you have already "proven" Robert might be thinking this way -- certainly you have not proven it in a way that I find convincing or even plausible (as opposed to your points about Wylla and the "cover story" which I still am not entirely convinced by your reasoning, but I follow it and see it as being reasonable, even if I still think my alternative is plausible, whereas I really cannot follow your logic on this very minor sub-point of Robert's position on the identity of Jon's mother).

Basically, what I am trying to say is that when Robert says -- you know the one I mean, your bastard's mother -- I don't agree with you that there is any plausible reading of these words other than that Robert believes that Ned has acknowledged -- perhaps by failure to contradict Robert years ago or in some other manner -- that the woman Robert is referencing is Jon's mother. Robert is not only expressing his own belief about the identity of the mother -- Robert is expressing something Robert considers to be a fact -- that the name Robert is trying to remember is the name of Jon's mother -- and expressing this fact to someone who would know for certain the accuracy of the information. Based on that circumstance, Robert cannot believe that some other woman might be Jon's mother. And if Robert believes that this woman is Jon's mother -- and that he had discussed this woman with Ned in the past in the context of the woman being Jon's mother -- and asks the question in a factual way -- you know the one I mean, Jon's mother (not the wetnurse you never admitted was the mother, but I knew you were just being coy and not the woman I know is the mother but you refuse to acknowledge is the mother) -- Robert is stating that he and Ned both believe that this woman is the mother -- and that means that Robert believes that in some form or other, whether explicitly or tacitly or merely be allowing Robert to believe the information all these years -- Ned has confirmed the identity of the mother.

Lets go back then, because you avoided it the first time (by twisting it), and the second (skipping all arguments to restate your already clear position), and the third (again, not making any argument, just restating a very clear position). Its a very simple question.

Are these two conversations internally consistent?
Conversation 1
Friend 1 (a bit of a hound dog): I hear you have a bastard, you sly old dog you.
Friend 2 (a bit uptight about honour, including extramarital sex) : Yes, I am taking him home.
F1: With a wetnurse I hear... I bet she's hot.
F2: <internally rolls eyes>
F1: Its her isn't it. She's the mother you dirty dog!
F2: <another internal eye roll> No, she's just a wetnurse.
F1: It is her! Ha! Whats her name then?
F2: <internal sigh/shrug/eye roll> Her name is Enaj Eod. I'd rather not talk about it.
....
Conversation 2:
F1:(paraphrased = you are so uptight!). And yet there was that one time … what was her name, that common girl of yours?
F1: (rambles on about his own girls). No. You told me once. (ramble), you know the one I mean, your bastard's mother, weird name she had....
F2: <internally resigned, here we go again...> Her name was Enaj and I would sooner not speak of her.
No twisting, just yes or no.

I do not believe anyone can objectively say those two conversations are not consistent with each other.

Robert is not speaking as someone who is not certain that the woman being referenced it Jon's mother. Robert certainly knows that he has spoken of this woman with Ned at least once before. Robert also knows that Ned knows the identity of Jon's mother.

Agreed. But after that you go off on irrational tangents insisting that one possible interpretation is the only one. Despite clear alternate possibilities being presented, which IMO are not only entirely reasonable and consistent, but show Ned's behaviour as a consistent and rational pattern, as opposed to your position, which has Ned being irrational and inconsistent from situation to situation.

If you simply say you don't agree, thats fine. But you are not just refusing to agree (no sin at all) you are refusing to make or answer arguments and stating that any position other than your is implausible. There are boarders who I can accept that from, because they show a consistent pattern and consequently I value their opinions very lowly indeed. You are not one of them.
I am self aware enough to know that this (behaviour, not argument) is my biggest trigger button, and I should be just letting go, but I can't, I value you too highly. Sorry. 

[SFDanny]

Are these two conversations internally consistent?
Conversation 1
Friend 1 (a bit of a hound dog): I hear you have a bastard, you sly old dog you.
Friend 2 (a bit uptight about honour, including extramarital sex) : Yes, I am taking him home.
F1: With a wetnurse I hear... I bet she's hot.
F2: <internally rolls eyes>
F1: Its her isn't it. She's the mother you dirty dog!
F2: <another internal eye roll> No, she's just a wetnurse.
F1: It is her! Ha! Whats her name then?
F2: <internal sigh/shrug/eye roll> Her name is Enaj Eod. I'd rather not talk about it.
....
Conversation 2:
F1:(paraphrased = you are so uptight!). And yet there was that one time … what was her name, that common girl of yours?
F1: (rambles on about his own girls). No. You told me once. (ramble), you know the one I mean, your bastard's mother, weird name she had....
F2: <internally resigned, here we go again...> Her name was Enaj and I would sooner not speak of her.
No twisting, just yes or no.

I do not believe anyone can objectively say those two conversations are not consistent with each other.

 

The problem here is that you have no basis for the claim that the first conversation ever occurred in the way you speculate. It all depends on your assertion that Robert starts out with identifying Wylla as "a wetnurse" and Ned continues by allowing Robert's supposed conclusion to stand. corbon, it's all made up, as I said before, out of whole cloth. Even the idea that Wylla travels north with Ned and Jon is unsupported by any evidence, but is crucial to your take on the supposed content of that first conversation. I think I've shown why I think it likely Wylla does not travel to King's Landing or Winterfell, but I certainly admit it's possible she could have. But my version of these conversations does not rely on whether or not she goes. Could it have happened that way? Yes, but without evidence it did it is a huge stretch over a version that relies instead on what is in the conversation that we actually can read.

The evidence in the text shows Robert asked Ned a question concerning what was the name of Ned's bastard's mother, and Ned responds to that question with Wylla's name. Simple and straightforward. I've got to say the attempts to obscure that evidence with made up "what ifs" - while impressive as all your arguments are - well, it just isn't very convincing to me. We will just have to disagree on this, my friend.

[corbon]

The problem here is that you have no basis for the claim that the first conversation ever occurred in the way you speculate.

I don't need to. All I have to do is show that it is possible and my point is entirely made.

It all depends on your assertion that Robert starts out with identifying Wylla as "a wetnurse" and Ned continues by allowing Robert's supposed conclusion to stand.

No, this is just one of many possibilities. The point is that it is not necessary that Robert have gotten the information (or even the idea) that Wylla is Jon's mother directly from Ned.
I have to make these scenarios to demonstrate because people are denying basic and obvious possibilities in favour of their preferred interpretation as the only possibility. And, more importantly, doing so when that gives results that are inconsistent with the text and irrational for the characters.

corbon, it's all made up, as I said before, out of whole cloth.

So, precisely, is the idea that Ned told Robert Wylla was Jon's mother.
Robert thinks so. Ned knows he think so. Ned told him the name once before. But not a single suggestion, not even from Robert, that Ned told Robert "Wylla is Jon's mother" or any words to that effect.

Even the idea that Wylla travels north with Ned and Jon is unsupported by any evidence, but is crucial to your take on the supposed content of that first conversation.

Its not crucial in any way. That conversation can go many ways, and have many setups, including a setup where Wylla never left Starfall after arriving with Ned and Jon.

The idea that Wylla did not travel north is also unsupported by any evidence. Or logic, for that matter.
The fact remains that Ned needed a wetnurse to travel north. And one did. And Wylla is the only known wetnurse we have.And Robert, whom Ned appears to have met with on his way north to reconcile, knows of Wylla.
Thats a heck of a lot more than the case that Ned changed wetnurses offers, which is no data at all and bad arguments.

I think I've shown why I think it likely Wylla does not travel to King's Landing or Winterfell, but I certainly admit it's possible she could have.

And equally I've shown why your arguments don't stand up - they are based on a misreading of the text and run counter to Ned's character, his observed patterns, his goals, his needs, and his logical behaviour.

But my version of these conversations does not rely on whether or not she goes. Could it have happened that way? Yes, but without evidence it did it is a huge stretch over a version that relies instead on what is in the conversation that we actually can read.

Neither does mine. Whether she goes north or not, its still a fact that Robert does not claim Ned told him she was the mother, only that he told him her name. And is still a perfectly reasonable scenario where Robert makes that assumption without Ned's input, for example based on a report from Starfall, where that belief can be found.

I am relying on the conversations we see. I'm the one being 100% consistent with them both in particular details and in the patterns and tones Ned shows. Don't mistake my examples and explanations as limited and restricted scenarios of what actually happened. They are not. They are merely proofs showing the fallacy in the position that Ned must have told Robert something which is irrational and inconsistent with his shown behaviour, and which no one indicates he ever said.

The evidence in the text shows Robert asked Ned a question concerning what was the name of Ned's bastard's mother, and Ned responds to that question with Wylla's name. Simple and straightforward. I've got to say the attempts to obscure that evidence with made up "what ifs" - while impressive as all your arguments are - well, it just isn't very convincing to me. We will just have to disagree on this, my friend.

Sure, we can agree to disagree..
But stop claiming that Ned must have told Robert Wylla was Jon's mother. We didn't see that and its pure supposition that he did, just as pure as mine that he did not (but with much more flawed results). He may have, but doing so is irrational and inconsistent with his shown behaviour, so I'll take my supposition over yours every time.

[SFDanny]

I don't need to. All I have to do is show that it is possible and my point is entirely made.

See, here, is a source for our disagreement. Saying something is possible without something to support it makes no point at all. Or at least that is how I see it. In fiction there are infinite possibilities. Showing the likelihood of something with evidence to support it makes a point.

"You were never the boy you were," Robert grumbled. "More's the pity. And yet there was that one time ... what was her name, that common girl of yours? Becca? No, she was one of mine, gods lover her, black hair and these sweet big eyes, you could drown in them. Yours was ... Aleena? No. You told me once. Was it Merryl? You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?"

"Her name was Wylla," Ned replied with cool courtesy, "and I would sooner not speak of her." (AGoT 92)

Question and response. Evidence in the text that Ned tells Robert his "bastard's mother" name was Wylla. Robert asks the question, and Ned supplies the answer. Whether the answer is true or not is another question, but it is a simple fact Ned responds to Robert's question with Wylla's name. First comes Robert's question, and immediately after Ned answers in a form that perfectly fits a response to Robert's question. Please note I did not write any of this conversation quoted above - Martin did.

My point being that any normal read of the dialogue between the two men tells us Ned is telling Robert Jon's mother's name is Wylla. So, no, it is not "pure supposition" that Ned told Robert Wylla was Jon's mother. The text supports this view. Which does not necessarily mean that is what is happening here, but we need other evidence to show that the plain evidence on the page is not what's going on.

Your point, as I understand it, is that Ned's response is not to Robert's question of "what was her name?" "your bastard's mother?" but to something else from the past. You speculate this is in response to a conversation in which Ned tells Robert Wylla's name in response to a question about Jon's wetnurse. Where is the evidence for this? There is none. It exists only in your imagined conversation. Again, just thinking up possibilities does not make a point. All possibilities are not equal. Because something is possible does not make it credible.

Its not crucial in any way. That conversation can go many ways, and have many setups, including a setup where Wylla never left Starfall after arriving with Ned and Jon.

The idea that Wylla did not travel north is also unsupported by any evidence. Or logic, for that matter.
The fact remains that Ned needed a wetnurse to travel north. And one did. And Wylla is the only known wetnurse we have.And Robert, whom Ned appears to have met with on his way north to reconcile, knows of Wylla.
Thats a heck of a lot more than the case that Ned changed wetnurses offers, which is no data at all and bad arguments.

If we substitute another wetnurse other than Wylla on Ned's trip north, then I think we place another strain on the credibility of your imagined conversation. Just how does Wylla's name come up? Jon had a different wetnurse in Starfall and I'm bringing her name up now for what reason? We agree Ned needs a wetnurse for Jon on the trip north and we know he had one when he arrived in Winterfell, but the question is why does Ned tell Robert Wylla's name, under your scenario, if she is not with him? We will just have to disagree on which scenario is more likely, more logical, and supported by the evidence. Repeating old arguments doesn't seem to be getting us close to agreement of much of anything.

And equally I've shown why your arguments don't stand up - they are based on a misreading of the text and run counter to Ned's character, his observed patterns, his goals, his needs, and his logical behaviour.

Let me just say on the question of Ned's character, I think we have a very different read on him. I think Ned tells us he lies. I think he explains to Arya the concept of an "honorable lie." I think that is exactly what he is doing in the scene with Robert. Lying to protect those he loves. I'm not making Ned into someone who splits hairs to try convince himself he isn't lying to his best friend and king. I'm not making Ned out to be someone who plays with words to avoid thinking he lies. My read of Ned is much more forthright than that. So, we have, another basic disagreement over who Ned is. I'm not sure how to bridge our differences on this.

I am relying on the conversations we see. I'm the one being 100% consistent with them both in particular details and in the patterns and tones Ned shows. Don't mistake my examples and explanations as limited and restricted scenarios of what actually happened. They are not. They are merely proofs showing the fallacy in the position that Ned must have told Robert something which is irrational and inconsistent with his shown behaviour, and which no one indicates he ever said.

I don't think I've ever used the word "must" in these discussions. Again, in fiction all is possible. What is likely and what is supported by the evidence is what I'm arguing.

Sure, we can agree to disagree..
But stop claiming that Ned must have told Robert Wylla was Jon's mother. We didn't see that and its pure supposition that he did, just as pure as mine that he did not (but with much more flawed results). He may have, but doing so is irrational and inconsistent with his shown behaviour, so I'll take my supposition over yours every time.

Once again, no "must" on my part, but we will have to disagree on what is pure supposition and what is supported by the text. Thanks again for the time and effort you put into each response. I've stayed up late to try to respond to yours. Please take that as a compliment to you, as I wouldn't do it for many others. Good night, and I'll check in the morning to see if you want to continue.

[Lord Varys]

Cutting things to the chase Corbon's case is not entirely based on the text. It is based on the text in combination with certain assumptions and speculations. The text does not give us Ned's original conversation(s) with Robert about Jon Snow's mother, nor does the conversation in AGoT only allows Corbon's interpretation that Ned only led Robert to believe that Wylla/the wetnurse was Jon's mother.

In fact, there is not even textual evidence that they ever talked about Jon Snow's wetnurse or that Robert even believes the woman he thinks is Jon Snow's mother - a woman that supposedly is known under the name 'Wylla', as Ned repeatedly told Robert - ever was the boy's wetnurse.

We don't even have textual evidence that Wylla ever was Jon Snow's wetnurse. Edric Dayne's story merely identifies Wylla as Jon Snow's mother and Edric Dayne's wetnurse, making them milkbrothers. All we can reasonably say is that Edric Dayne believes that Wylla breastfed Jon Snow at least once (else his belief that he was Jon's milkbrother would be false).

In light of the fact that there is also no textual evidence that Wylla was ever in Winterfell or at KL I really don't see any reason to buy into all that speculation. The argument that Ned behaves does X at that particular time and in that similar situation doesn't also not necessitate that he would have done X in another comparable situation. Just because I usually don't like to talk about sexual fantasies doesn't mean I never talk about them (i.e. Ned certainly could have wanted to talk to Robert about Jon Snow's mother/been more open to Robert's question during those earlier conversation(s)).

Who Wylla was, where she went, what she did, and what Ned's plans were to obscure Jon Snow's parentage is a completely different topic. That is the field of speculation and informed guesses. In that field my basic premise is that I find it unconvincing to assume that Ned would spin a web of lies (he really thinks about lies in the whole context of whatever it is he lied about) without actually doing everything in his power to ensure that those lies would actually serve their purpose (i.e. protecting Lyanna's child). Just acknowledging a motherless child as his bastard son is, at best, half of the story. And merely hoping that Robert, Tywin, and Jaime (it really seems as if the Aegon atrocity is what motivated Ned into hide Jon's true identity) wouldn't figure out the truth would only be half of the story and completely stupid on his part.

The lies part of this whole thing is actually the interesting thing since stating that Jon Snow is his bastard would just constitute one lie. Not to mention that this is a lie he doesn't repeat all that often, regularly phrasing it in a way where he doesn't actually say that Jon is a bastard or his son. If we go with assuming Ned only omitted the problematic parts of what happened at the tower ('Lyanna died of a fever' omitting what caused it) or at Starfall rather than telling actual lies it is rather difficult to guess at what those lies might have been. 

Therefore I assert that Ned had a more detailed cover story in place which he was prepared to talk about should it be necessary. Whether he actually talked about it in detail I do not know, but I certainly consider it very likely. Giving away Wylla's name - which he does in AGoT rather than inventing some name - would be one crucial detail of that cover story. People at Starfall complicit in the whole charade might have been told detailed aspects neither they nor Ned ever talked about. Edric Dayne certainly knew stuff Ned Stark would not have wanted him to know if there was no cover story in place. Think what might have happened if Ned had realized that Edric Dayne was Beric Dondarrion's squire and had come with him to KL. Conveniently Edric was too shy to talk to Ned in AGoT - if he had done, Ned's POV chapters certainly would have reflected that in a most interesting manner. And somehow I'm pretty sure Beric would never have been sent to arrest the Mountain.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Oh, no, you've been clear enough, just not provided any arguments for your position, or arguments against mine.

 

You state that you believe I have been clear -- but I am not so sure. Given what you say below, I suspect I have not been as articulate I would like to have been.

Yes.

 

Well, at least I got that much right. 

Lets go back then, because you avoided it the first time (by twisting it), and the second (skipping all arguments to restate your already clear position), and the third (again, not making any argument, just restating a very clear position). Its a very simple question.

Are these two conversations internally consistent?
Conversation 1
Friend 1 (a bit of a hound dog): I hear you have a bastard, you sly old dog you.
Friend 2 (a bit uptight about honour, including extramarital sex) : Yes, I am taking him home.
F1: With a wetnurse I hear... I bet she's hot.
F2: <internally rolls eyes>
F1: Its her isn't it. She's the mother you dirty dog!
F2: <another internal eye roll> No, she's just a wetnurse.
F1: It is her! Ha! Whats her name then?
F2: <internal sigh/shrug/eye roll> Her name is Enaj Eod. I'd rather not talk about it.
....
Conversation 2:
F1:(paraphrased = you are so uptight!). And yet there was that one time … what was her name, that common girl of yours?
F1: (rambles on about his own girls). No. You told me once. (ramble), you know the one I mean, your bastard's mother, weird name she had....
F2: <internally resigned, here we go again...> Her name was Enaj and I would sooner not speak of her.
No twisting, just yes or no.

I do not believe anyone can objectively say those two conversations are not consistent with each other.

 

Right -- here is where I think we have the crux of our disagreement and where I think I can make my position more of an "argument" and less of merely re-stating my position. I agree that it is possible that these two conversations happened precisely as you hypothesize -- in particular if these conversations happened about 14-15 years apart. What I don't believe is plausible -- but which I think you are suggesting is not only plausible but likely if the conversations happened as you suggest (or at least not implausible as I suggest) -- is that at the time of the second conversation F1 would think that F2 had not in some way confirmed that the mother's name is Enaj (either right before or at a minimum right after Conversation 2 occurs -- as discussed in more detail below). That conclusion is the basis for our disagreement, and I will try to explain my reasoning and not just repeat my position -- here it goes. I will try my best to make this an analytical argument and not just a restatement of conclusions (as I agree that it gets frustrating when people do that rather than explain why they think their position is the better position).

In Conversation 2, F1 references "that common girl of yours" and states unequivocally that this "common girl of yours" is someone whose name "you told me once" and clarifies that this girl is "your bastard's mother." I simply do not find these statements to be statements that could plausibly be statements by someone who is aware that F2 never really acknowledged the identity of the mother. This conversation is consistent with someone who believes that once F2 originally gave the name -- by giving the name that in and of itself is confirmation that the "wetnurse" is the mother. Here is another way to put it. Let's assume that at the time of Conversation 2, F1 is aware that F2 had previously given the name of a woman that F1 believes to be the mother but F2 has only admitted to being the wetnurse and F1 recalls and understands that F2 never even tacitly admitted that this woman really is the mother but insisted she is only the wetnurse -- but nevertheless F1 still believes F2 was just being "coy" and that the woman really is the mother. If those were the facts then NO (with one exception that I will discuss in the next paragraph), I don't believe that Conversation 2 is consistent with those "facts" as I have outlined in this paragraph and I don't think they are consistent. I simply don't think if F1 has that understanding of the facts that he would ever have constructed the conversation set forth as Conversation 2 (except as discussed in the next paragraph). Someone who actually recalls that F2 never admitted to Enaj being the mother simply does NOT refer to her as "that common girl of yours" and "your bastard's mother" unless F1 does not believe there is any question and that F2 has previously confirmed this identity. So while the conversations are consistent because that is how people tend to hear things that are not exactly as they are stated, they generally are not consistent with F1 appreciating the limits of what F2 actually has admitted to.

OK -- now for the important exception. I think that there is one meaningful exception to what I wrote in the last paragraph. The only way that I would find it plausible that F1 would state what he states in Conversation 2 while also being aware that F2 never actually confirmed that Enaj is the mother is if Conversation 2 is more or less a "test" to try to get confirmation that Enaj is the mother. F1 could be stating what he states to try to get final confirmation that this woman that he has believed is the mother for 14-15 years really is the mother. And in that case, I could see F1 constructing Conversation 2 for that purpose. And then F2 has two choices, either restate what F2 said during Conversation 1 -- that the woman is just the wetnurse and F2 never said she was the mother OR give the name. Once F2 gives the name rather than repeat that the woman they discussed 14-15 years ago was just the wetnurse, F1 would understand that by F2 giving F1 the name when F1 just referred to the woman as "your common girl" and "your bastard's mother" that F2 is admitting that this woman is who F1 has believed her to be all these years -- the mother of F2's son. You contend that F1 could understand that F2 merely is giving F1 the same name -- the name that F2 knows that F1 has previously referred to as the mother -- but F1 would understand that by repeating the name "Enaj" that F2 is in no way actually now admitting that Enaj really is the mother (but only is the name previously given as the "wetnurse" that F2 knows F1 assumes to be the mother). No, I don't find that interpretation of Conversation 2 plausible -- I don't agree that people ever talk or think or act in a way consistent with that interpretation of Conversation 2. I find that construction of Conversation 2 to be so strained and inconsistent with how I have seen people speak for my entire life that I do not find it plausible. 

AT A MINIMUM (now maybe this is a new point, I cannot remember everything we discussed previously), after Conversation 2, F2 has to know that it is possible that F1 considers F2 to have confirmed the name of the mother. Even if you are correct (as I think highly unlikely) that F1 still understands that F2 has never admitted to Enaj as being the mother, F2 cannot be certain what F1 thinks, and F2 has to consider it possible, if not likely, that F1 believes that F2 has confirmed that the mother is Enaj (even if F2 has been careful never actually to do so).

But back to the original point, admittedly, you clearly find it plausible that Robert does not believe that Ned ever confirmed that Wylla is the mother -- so GRRM might as well. And if the series in some way confirms that your interpretation of Conversation 2 (or really the actual conversation from GoT) entailed an understanding of the facts by Robert as you have expressed, I merely would be disappointed that GRRM went to such lengths to have characters speak in way that belies normal human thought process given a set of circumstances. And given, as I have expressed before, that both your original point (that no "cover story" was ever agreed to between Wylla and Ned) and my original point (that such a "cover story" seems likely) are consistent with Robert believing Ned to have confirmed the name of the mother (or at least, Ned understanding the likelihood that Robert believes this "fact"), why bother to construct such an strained understanding of Robert's thought process -- or Ned's understanding of Robert's thought process.

So IMHO, one way or the other, Conversation 2 demonstrates that F1 believes that in some form or other F2 has confirmed (actively or passively or tacitly) that Enaj is the mother. Either F1 considers Conversation 1 as essential confirmation (because people remember things as they "heard" them not always as they were spoken) or because F1 considers Conversation 2 to be final confirmation of the name of the mother. But either way, F2 would understand the likelihood that F1 believes that F2 has confirmed the name of the mother.

So to reiterate one more time, what I don't find plausible is that F1 engages in Conversation 2 -- fully aware that F2 has never really confirmed that Enaj is the mother -- and also understands that when F2 repeats the name Enaj that F2 is merely repeating the name stated years ago as the woman that F1 assumed to be the mother but which F2 has always maintained is just the wetnurse. I find that interpretation of Conversation 2 to be inconsistent with the text of Conversation 2 and inconsistent with the way people generally talk and think. And finally, that at a minimum, F2 would find it likely that F1 has this belief (even if somehow you are correct that F1 understands that F2 never gave F1 this confirmation of the name of the mother).

Agreed. But after that you go off on irrational tangents insisting that one possible interpretation is the only one. Despite clear alternate possibilities being presented, which IMO are not only entirely reasonable and consistent, but show Ned's behaviour as a consistent and rational pattern, as opposed to your position, which has Ned being irrational and inconsistent from situation to situation.

If you simply say you don't agree, thats fine. But you are not just refusing to agree (no sin at all) you are refusing to make or answer arguments and stating that any position other than your is implausible. There are boarders who I can accept that from, because they show a consistent pattern and consequently I value their opinions very lowly indeed. You are not one of them.
I am self aware enough to know that this (behaviour, not argument) is my biggest trigger button, and I should be just letting go, but I can't, I value you too highly. Sorry. 

I agree with you that it is hard to take certain people completely seriously when they really don't engage in an argument but just insist on an opinion or a conclusion and keep repeating it as if repeating it is an argument. I hope I have avoided doing that in my analysis above. I am honored that you "value" me "highly" but really, no need, I am just a random person you have never met who likes to post on this board for entertainment purposes and a little mental stimulation. I appreciate it, nevertheless, and certainly have high regard for your analytical skills (even if I still think you are being "obtuse" on this one little minor inconsequential sub-point).

[UnmaskedLurker]

SFDanny and LV--

While I tend to agree with both of you on the basic point that is seems more likely that Ned and Wylla agreed to let people in Starfall and Robert believe she is the mother (and thus likely were confident that wherever Wylla was 9 months before Jon is supposed to have been born will not be a problem for the "cover story"), I think you are both misunderstanding or mischaracterizing his point. And while corbon is more than capable of defending himself, given that I believe he is in a time zone where he is unlikely to respond for a while, I will give it a crack.

corbon in no way is stating that Conversation 1 occurred as hypothesized. Basically, in the past, an "absolute" statement was made -- Ned "told" (or confirmed) that the mother's name is Wylla. corbon believes this statement to be false -- not proven by the text. Conversation 2 is merely one example of how Ned might never have confirmed the identity of the mother. Just one example of a possible conversation where Ned does not name the mother "proves" that the proposition that Ned must have told Robert the name of the mother is not an accurate statement of fact -- not "proven" by the text. As long as Conversation 1 could have been the conversation that preceded Conversation 2, then corbon has demonstrated that no one can definitely conclude that Ned ever told Robert the name of the mother.

Basically, corbon is responding to points that I believe each of the three of us has tried to make -- the point that the conversation from GoT between Robert and Ned means that Ned told or confirmed the name of the mother as Wylla. corbon's point is that if he can come up with one hypothetical conversation in which Ned never tells or confirms that name of the mother (hypo - Conversation 1), then he has "disproven" our point that Ned confirmed Wylla as the name of the mother. corbon does not need to demonstrate that Conversation 1 happened -- he is not asserting that it did happen -- only that it might have happened and could have been the precursor conversation to Conversation 2, and if it might have happened, then it demonstrates that there is at least one possible set of facts that is consistent with what we know from GoT and does not have Ned confirming the name of the mother. Therefore, we are incorrect to assert that Ned must have confirmed that name of the mother -- he might have, but we cannot be sure. 

corbon then seems to go on and suggests that based on the way Ned tends to shut down all discussion of the identity of the mother, Ned likely did the same thing (or at least might have, we cannot know for sure) in the original conversation -- which might have gone similar to or completely different than Conversation 1 -- but in some way entailed Ned not confirming the name of the mother, but merely giving the name Wylla to Robert in some other way that Robert understood to be the name of the mother but also understood that Ned was not actually confirming that this woman is the mother. Now my problem with corbon's analysis is that even if Conversation 1 is more or less what occurred, I don't think it proves what corbon thinks it proves. I think the GoT conversation is still only consistent with Robert believing that Ned either in the past -- or at a minimum during that conversation when Ned gives the name without correction of her identity as the mother -- has confirmed that Wylla is the mother.

Oh, and as to lies -- I think that corbon has freely admitted that Ned lies and knows that he has lied. The point I think corbon is making is that Ned will not lie in a way that could be proven to be a lie. So the reason that Ned would not give Wylla as the name of the mother is not because Ned is unwilling to lie but rather because Ned knows that Wylla was not near Ned 9 months prior to the supposed date of Jon's birth and if anyone goes to the town where Wylla actually was during that period of time, they would get confirmation of Wylla's location at that time and would know she cannot be the mother. And Ned cannot risk having said that Wylla is the mother if it can be proven later that she could not be the mother based on her location at that time compared to Ned's location.

My counter to this point is that we can be confident that Ned has spoken to Wylla before getting to Starfall so Ned knows Wylla's location at the relevant time. If Ned knows that Wylla either was in riverrun (supplied to ToJ by Whent and not Daynes, for example) or had been brought to ToJ early enough so that no one knows where she was at that time, then Wylla is a safe cover story. corbon has counters to these counters, of course, but I will leave it to him if he wishes to clarify them.

[Avalatis]

I imagine everyone has seen the new HBO poster for the new Game of Thrones season. I guess we're not allowed to talk about it here since it somewhat spoils the books, or does it matter (with the show going it's own route)?

[UnmaskedLurker]

I imagine everyone has seen the new HBO poster for the new Game of Thrones season. I guess we're not allowed to talk about it here since it somewhat spoils the books, or does it matter (with the show going it's own route)?

As I understand the rules (and not sure I do understand them, but I try), I think that the rule is that you should not discuss the show on the book forum (and this is the book forum), but apparently you can discuss the books on the show forum (which I think is a bit odd that books are ok in show but show is not ok in books--but it is not my website). I think that if you put a spoiler tag on the discussion of the show, then I think it can be ok, and of course, people reference the show from time to time anyway and I think as long as the focus does not shift to the show too much, it is tolerated.

Or maybe I completely misunderstand the rules -- I try to follow them, but admittedly, I am not always sure what they are.

[Lord Varys]

Avalatis,

I'd prefer it very much if nobody ever mentions the show ever again in this thread because I've no intention to watch the next season unless I've read TWoW first. And no, I did not see the new show poster yet, and I don't plan to do so. You can stay away from this kind of stuff if you are an iron-willed eunuch with a decade-spanning plan for world domination like I am ;-).

UL,

I really thing the whole thing hinges on 'irrelevancy' insofar as Ned not wanting to lie directly to Robert. Robert will believe - as anyone else will who is fed an indirect lie - that the person he talked to actually told him the stuff he thinks he told him. Ned being smug on Robert, saying 'It is not my fault that you moron did not realize that we were talking about two different women there' if Robert had found out the truth about Jon Snow. That would not, well, deescalate the situation all that well.

It is quite clear that Ned wants Robert to believe that this Wylla woman was Jon Snow's mother since he reinforces that thought again in AGoT. While Robert may have forgotten or confused things over the years Ned most certainly would still know perfectly well about what they were talking, and could therefore have corrected Robert's mistake that Wylla/the woman they once talked about wasn't the mother but merely the wetnurse. Instead the conversation ends with Robert still believing Wylla was the mother of Jon Snow, and Ned actually repeated that name to him then and there rather than giving him another to confuse him some more.

And it is of course a necessary condition that the Wylla woman can be Jon Snow's mother in whatever story/scenario (birth date, conception date. etc.) Ned has set up for his alternative series of events. Assuming Wylla could not have possibly been with Ned at the time of the alleged conception and/or her being a sort of prominent person whose movements would be known makes it very unlikely that Ned would ever have mentioned her name to anyone let allowed other people to reach the conclusion that she was Jon's mother - especially not is she knew (first hand or second hand) the truth about Jon Snow as well as Rhaegar and Lyanna). That way she wouldn't have been part of a cover story but rather a loose end to be tied via and unfortunate accident. If people had believed the mother of Ned Stark's bastard was a woman who could not possibly have been that mother then Ned could just as well tell everybody the truth.

In that sense I'd say that the fact that Ned ever mentions her name at all is a sign that he feel reasonably confident about doing so and has no trouble dragging her into all that.

I'll not go into to much speculation about who Wylla was, but considering that she seems to be trusted by Ned Stark I'd not be surprised if it turned out that she is a woman with a connection to him rather than Lyanna-Rhaegar or the Daynes. But then, he could only have decided to trust her after he met her. The question why the hell the Daynes would trust Ned and vice versa or why the hell Edric's parents seemingly named him after Eddard Stark and/or allowed that he is called by the nickname 'Ned' is still unanswered. One would think that if a guy was directly responsible/involved in the death of two of your beloved family members (Arthur and Ashara) you would not exactly be on all that good terms with those families. Hell, we don't even know what Edric wanted to talk to Ned about. He never met him, and he obviously doesn't know the truth about Jon, yet there is apparently another, less problematic connection between the Daynes and Ned Stark.

Could be stuff about Ashara, but then Edric never met her, either, so this is really strange.

[MtnLion]

UL, your are making a supposition that runs counter to what we know about Ned.  Ned has not named the mother to anyone, in story.  We see from the dialog with Robert that Robert will make his own conclusions, and really it is not a focus for him, since he thinks of his own conquests.  It would be simple to see Robert machine-gunning questions, and Ned picking the ones he wants to answer in any previous or future discussions about Jon's mother.  However, it is very dangerous to outright lie, since the lie might be uncovered.  Allowing Robert to make his own faulty conclusions is the safest course.

[Lord Varys]

ML,

you are raising a non-issue here. It doesn't matter whether Ned told Robert that Wylla was Jon's mother verbatim, or whether he merely tricked him into believing that without actually saying. The result is the same: Robert Baratheon believes that Eddard Stark told him the name of the mother of his bastard son. It will do Ned no good at all to claim that he did not do so or try to wiggle his way out of this whole deception by gleefully pointing out that he never actually lied to Robert. Robert is the king. If he remembers it a certain way, your memory or opinion on the matter doesn't count at all.

Therefore the whole approach on this whole thing is faulty. Ned is not somehow in a better position if he didn't lie directly to Robert on this whole issue - especially in light of the fact that he did lie to him about an awful lot of other things, most notably the whole 'this boy is my bastard' thing.

[SFDanny]

UL, your are making a supposition that runs counter to what we know about Ned.  Ned has not named the mother to anyone, in story.  We see from the dialog with Robert that Robert will make his own conclusions, and really it is not a focus for him, since he thinks of his own conquests.  It would be simple to see Robert machine-gunning questions, and Ned picking the ones he wants to answer in any previous or future discussions about Jon's mother.  However, it is very dangerous to outright lie, since the lie might be uncovered.  Allowing Robert to make his own faulty conclusions is the safest course.

I wish I could have made this argument on the tests my teachers gave me way back in the day when I was going to school. Unfortunately, when my teachers asked questions like "who is so-and-so's mother" and I answered with "x" they didn't allow me to get credit by saying "oh, I was assuming you were asking about so-and-so's wetnurse. If I ignored the question that was actually asked, it was my fault.

The idea that when Ned answers, "her name is Wylla" to Robert's question of "your bastard's mother" is not a case of Ned naming Wylla as Jon's mother is absurd - unless there is evidence to the contrary that he is actually answering another question. There is none. It is taking refuge in the fact Ned never actually says the words, "Wylla is Jon Snow's mother" and ignoring that there are other ways of saying the same thing - which Ned does in his answer.

[UnmaskedLurker]

UL, your are making a supposition that runs counter to what we know about Ned.  Ned has not named the mother to anyone, in story.  We see from the dialog with Robert that Robert will make his own conclusions, and really it is not a focus for him, since he thinks of his own conquests.  It would be simple to see Robert machine-gunning questions, and Ned picking the ones he wants to answer in any previous or future discussions about Jon's mother.  However, it is very dangerous to outright lie, since the lie might be uncovered.  Allowing Robert to make his own faulty conclusions is the safest course.

Basically, what LV said (and to some extent what SFDanny said). If you go back to the hypothetical conversations (Conversation 1 and Conversation 2) that corbon constructed, Ned never states that Wylla is the mother. I conceded that these conversations might have happened that way. Nevertheless, even if Ned never actually stated that Wylla is Jon's mother, Ned left Robert with the impression that Ned confirmed that Wylla is the mother. Ned could not be sure that Robert did not interpret Ned's words as confirming Wylla as the mother -- even if a cunning linguist could deconstruct the conversations and "prove" to Robert that Ned did not do any such thing. The risk is big that Robert will take the position that Ned in fact confirmed that name and is now denying it.

Basically, no matter what conversation Ned and Robert originally had, Robert was left with the impression that Wylla was Jon's mother -- and Ned clearly gave Robert that name in some context that Robert has remembered as being the name of the mother -- it really does not matter what Ned actually said -- Robert makes it clear that he thinks he heard the name of the mother from Ned.

Now is it possible that Ned thought it better to give a name and if proven that she is not the mother, emphasize that Ned never actually told Robert that she is the mother? Perhaps. But I tend to doubt it -- and moreover, that is not the core of the issue we were discussing above on this page. This latest discussion is solely over whether it is plausible to believe that Robert understands that Ned never actually confirmed that Wylla is the mother -- I think it is not plausible -- even if in fact, Ned never actually did confirm that name as the name of the mother. Robert almost certainly believes that Ned did confirm the name as the name of the mother (only clever "word play" can get to the conclusion that Ned did not confirm Wylla as the mother -- which is not going to be the way that Robert likely understands the words).

But as to the point that you seem to be making now (which relates back to a prior discussion I was having with corbon about a week or so ago), you and corbon think Ned is safer playing "word games" and giving technically "correct" answers that if he is later called out on he can clarify to Robert that he never actually told Robert that Wylla is the mother. While my view on this particular issue is a little less strong than it used to be, I tend to think Ned would not be in a good position giving Robert a name that Ned knows Robert will believe is the mother (even if Ned never technically confirmed she is the mother -- he still gave the name and knows Robert believes it to be the name of the mother) if Ned knows that it is possible to prove that Wylla is not the mother (e.g., based on her location at time of conception). In that case, Ned would have been better off saying something like "the woman you are asking about really is only the wetnurse, my son's mother died in childbirth," rather than give a name through some "word play" where Ned can later claim he never actually said "Wylla" is the mother even though Robert clearly was left with the belief that Wylla is the mother -- and got the name from Ned.

[Avalatis]

snip

Ned could have actually denied Wylla being the mother and Robert took it as confirmation. The issue was essentially dead when it was brought up in the second conversation (unlike the first hypothetical conversation). Ned not coming out and denying it does leave a false impression, but a low risk one (less risk than actually going through the motions of denying it again). If for some reason it comes to light Wylla is not the mother, Ned has an easy deflection to it: "I told you she was not the mother, but you are too insistent Robert." Essentially he leaves it off as he had been exasperated at Robert. In that case the question of the mother again becomes a problem for Ned, but isn't damning as if he was caught in a lie to the King.

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV--

I really do not think that the main issue is whether Ned likes to lie. Of course he does not like to lie and will say things like "Jon is my blood," so that he is more comfortable with misleading people -- by making a technically true but materially misleading statement. But with Robert, I don't think that is the point (and I don't think corbon thinks that is the point). I think Ned knows he has lied and has had to lie to Robert. Certainly, I don't think Ned would think that he has not lied to Robert in terms of Jon as Ned's son. But if Robert finds out that Jon really is not Ned's son, then the lie is probably the least of Ned's problems at that point. So Ned will make that lie knowing that he needs the lie and if the lie is found out -- then the entire deception of Jon's identity likely is undone. 

The point about the identity of the mother is that Jon can be Ned's son even if Wylla is not the mother. So the point is not that Ned would not lie about Wylla as the mother -- but rather than it is too risky to name her as the mother if she could be proven not to be the mother. But it also is risky to refuse to name the mother. So take advantage of Robert being obtuse and give him a name in some connected context -- like the name of the wetnurse -- and let Robert make his own conclusions. Then if Wylla is proven not to be the mother, Ned can assert that he never said she was -- Robert just assumed it and Ned did not want to talk about the situation so let Robert believe what he wanted to believe.

Now I have expressed above the problems that I have with this theory. But the theory really is not about Ned not wanting to lie. The theory is about Ned not wanting to be caught in a lie where he does not have to lie and lying would be more risky than not lying and letting Robert jump to conclusions.

[MtnLion]

 But it also is risky to refuse to name the mother.

It is rude, even for the king, to ask the source of a natural child.  Not risky at all to avoid the subject. 

 

What we witness is a sideways conversation about Jon's mum, from Robert.  Robert has never seen Wylla, is an important tidbit of information from that dialog.  And, the riskiness is not all that great, when there are likely hundreds, if not thousands of Wyllas that can be the subject. 

[MtnLion]

I wish I could have made this argument on the tests my teachers gave me way back in the day when I was going to school. Unfortunately, when my teachers asked questions like "who is so-and-so's mother" and I answered with "x" they didn't allow me to get credit by saying "oh, I was assuming you were asking about so-and-so's wetnurse. If I ignored the question that was actually asked, it was my fault.

The idea that when Ned answers, "her name is Wylla" to Robert's question of "your bastard's mother" is not a case of Ned naming Wylla as Jon's mother is absurd - unless there is evidence to the contrary that he is actually answering another question. There is none. It is taking refuge in the fact Ned never actually says the words, "Wylla is Jon Snow's mother" and ignoring that there are other ways of saying the same thing - which Ned does in his answer.

You know the one?

[UnmaskedLurker]

It is rude, even for the king, to ask the source of a natural child.  Not risky at all to avoid the subject. 

 

What we witness is a sideways conversation about Jon's mum, from Robert.  Robert has never seen Wylla, is an important tidbit of information from that dialog.  And, the riskiness is not all that great, when there are likely hundreds, if not thousands of Wyllas that can be the subject. 

Not really a needle/haystack situation when we know from Edric Dayne that people in Starfall believe Wylla -- a specific Wylla -- is Jon's mother. Presumably she was seen nursing Jon, as Edric call them milk brothers. So I don't think it can be just any old Wylla -- I think it is necessarily the Wylla seen coming into Starfall with Jon, nursing Jon and believed by at least some to be Jon's mother. Ned Stark would know when he left Starfall to go to KL to reconcile with Robert that Starfall saw Wylla enter Starfall with Jon and presumably saw her nursing Jon and probably that some have concluded (or were told) that she is the mother. So if anyone retraces Ned's steps, figuring out which Wylla could be meant is quite simple.

No, if Robert tried and succeeded at finding out that Wylla (that particular Wylla seen with Jon at Starfall) could not be the mother, then Ned would have to resort to the quip that he never actually told Robert that Wylla is the mother (he certainly could not claim it was a different Wylla -- one who really is the mother and a different one who brought Jon into Starfall -- that would be ridiculous), and for the reasons stated above by me (and I think SFD and LV), I suspect that such an approach would not go well for Ned -- and he would know as much. Which is why, no matter how suspicious it might seem to refuse to give a name, I cannot see Ned giving the name Wylla to Robert -- no matter the context -- if Ned believes that Robert is going to assume that this name is the name of the mother (even if Ned says it is really only the name of the wetnurse -- but knows that Robert is hearing "mother" when Ned says "wetnurse"), then Ned should give no name at all.

But Ned gave a name -- which leads me to believe that Ned had reason to conclude that the name would hold up under scrutiny -- which means that Ned arranged a "cover story" with Wylla and knows that Wylla was located somewhere 9 months prior to Jon's supposed birth that either is somewhere Ned could have been (maybe Riverrun) or someplace no one else was at all who is still alive (i.e., ToJ). For example, if you go back to corbon's Conversation 1, when Robert asks for the name, Ned could respond, "I told you she is just the wetnurse so why do you care about her name, now can we talk about something else?" If Robert is curious and tries to find the name of the mother -- he will come up blank as there is no mother to be found. But that is true even if Ned gives the name Wylla as unless Ned is certain that the name will hold up, if proven not to be the mother, Robert presumably would search for the real mother. So nothing is gained by giving the name unless Ned is really sure that giving a name will get Robert to stop thinking about the subject while deflecting and not giving any name would get him to investigate -- but how could Ned be certain of any such conclusion?

In other words, I cannot understand why Ned would give Robert a name that Ned knows Robert will conclude is the name of the mother -- and can be traced back to Starfall as a specific Wylla -- unless Ned knows that the name will stand up to scrutiny, i.e., he and Wylla have a "cover story" that will not be pierced through investigation of where Wylla was at the relevant times. Without that comfort, Ned is better off not giving any name at all in connection to Jon. And we know from GoT that the name Wylla came from Ned, and Robert understood that the name being given is the person that Robert believes to be the mother. So Ned played a dangerous game if the name would not hold up under investigation -- which is why I think it would have -- and thus why I lean in favor or a "cover story" between Ned and Wylla and the "luck" of Wylla's location at the supposed time of conception that would not preclude her as the mother.

And yes, I have read all of corbon's arguments for why this version of events is unlikely and his version is more likely -- and maybe he is (and you are) correct. At this point, however, I remain unconvinced.