Heresy Project X+Y=J: Rhaegar + Lyanna

[Taenqyrhae]

I think it's so foreshadowed at this point that R+L=J is starting to feel like a red herring, but there's a couple of other possible ways GRRM could go with it that would be interesting.

The first is to never reveal in the books, to Jon or anyone, the truth about his parentage.  Leave it a mystery forever.  People would hate him for it, but others would keep talking about the books FOREVER.

The second is to have the twist be that almost all the characters ALREADY KNEW.  "Of COURSE the "Bastard son of Eddard Stark" born right after his sister was kidnapped and raped by Rhaegar is actually the child of Lyanna and Rhaegar.  If anybody had the least bit of doubt, that flew out the window when he was sent to the Wall at 14, right after Robert paid his old friend a visit."

Though it seems humorous, think about how interesting it could make things…now the actions of multiple characters have to be filtered through the new knowledge that they knew that Jon Snow was actually the bastard child of Rhaegar Targaryan.  Only the Stark children are in the dark.  Catelyn knew and she was  mad because Eddard won't admit what she knows.  Robert knew and trusted Eddard to not let him become a threat (same as he trusted him with Theon).  Jeor and Qhorin and Mance all knew.  

The only person who didn't know that everyone knew was Eddard, because there was no benefit for anybody to confronting him about his one, admittedly terrible, deception.  Best to let him think everybody is fooled.  That's why Eddard got so upset when Robert started going on about how Targaryans must be killed, in his head he was thinking "except for Jon, of course, Ned raised that boy up right" because OF COURSE he wouldn't threaten Ned's ward - but Ned didn't know that and got scared.

[Myself656]

I think it's so foreshadowed at this point that R+L=J is starting to feel like a red herring, but there's a couple of other possible ways GRRM could go with it that would be interesting.

Well, to be fair, if the novels weren't coming out at such a snail's pace, leaving us years and years to debate every last nuance of the narrative, I don't think it'd feel nearly as foreshadowed as it does currently.

[kimim]

...

Suppose for the sake of argument that it turns out that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna and raped her with the intent of killing her, their son, and the three kingsguards at the tower in a fiery conflagration that was supposed to cause dragons to hatch. Suppose that Jon was the son. A lot of people would be shocked, including the large majority of RLJ believers. It's certainly not remotely the standard RLJ theory. It would be enough of a twist to satisfy any requirements for GRRM twistiness. It would be something people could look back on and find hints for that they'd missed. It would be a long way away from being a fairy tale. And it would still, unquestionably, be RLJ.

I love this.

[Kingmonkey]

I think that rather than simply ask whether R+L=J is the answer to the mystery and how many people have figured it out, you first have to clear the hurdle of whether there is a mystery in the first place. Its only if and when the realisation dawns, [however this comes about], that Eddard Stark is not the father of Jon Snow, we then move into the question of who his father really was and find the answer staring in our faces.

Absolutely! I think it's easy to forget when we analyse the question of Jon's parentage that that question comes only after we've questioned the story we've originally been given. That's why I was careful in the OP to show the method GRRM used to set up the mystery in the first place. The early chapters of the book set up a clear whodunnit to be solved in the case of Jon Arryn's death. Jon Snow's birth is another whodunnit which is set up in close parallel to the Arryn whodunnit, but you have to read between the lines to notice it's even there. 

Its at that point it becomes so obvious, and quite frankly I don't believe that quoted line above is literally true. Given the frequency with which R+L=J is proclaimed, discussed and argued, there are just two ways in which it can be interpreted; either [a] R+L=J is not the answer, and only a couple of people have so figured out Jon Snow's father was actually Rumpelstiltskin, or GRRM was being ironic.

The third way is that R+L=J is something that careful readers are supposed to figure out, but that isn't the real puzzle that GRRM was talking about. 

This essay series was intended to discuss the who of Jon's parentage, not the why. I suspect that the "why" is a far bigger puzzle than the "who". The "why" is largely avoided in OP, but my Puppets of Fire and Ice essay started off as a small section within this essay dealing with the possibilities there. I think the ideas I've touched on in that essay come far closer to fulfilling GRRMs quote than RLJ itself. I don't claim to have solved the puzzle, but that set of connections between Jon's birth, the birth of Dany's dragons, Summerhall etc. is certainly a better fit for "extremely subtle and obscure clues" than RLJ.

Personally I'll go for cos the major clues are there and straightforward. Much as I like the idea of Ser Arthur Dayne being his real father I do think that on balance it will be revealed that he was fathered on Lyanna Stark by Rhaegar Targaryen, but I also think that will come from what we're told in the text rather than through over-analysing the text for "secret" clues on account of GRRM taking so bloody long to write because every other sentence has to be hand-crafted to include yet another clue.

Well said. I honestly don't believe GRRM put a tenth of the effort into the RLJ puzzle that the most extreme analysts suggest. I hope my essay demonstrated that you don't need to go nearly so deeply down the rabbit hole to see RLJ as the most likely answer to the parentage question. We've been given enough hints to see it for ourselves if we look, but when we get the answer explicitly, it will be another piece of the jigsaw. One with a shape we could anticipate from the gaps, but just another piece, not the finished puzzle. 

Instead I'd much rather see the debate carried further along and acknowledging that because GRRM doesn't like to do the obvious, revealing the truth of Jon's parentage isn't an end in itself and that just because his father may have been Rhaegar Targaryen it doesn't follow that he [assuming he aint dead] will save the day as a Targaryen Prince. That isn't what the 1993 synopsis suggests and it was Maester Aemon who so very forcefully told him what mattered was he was a "son of Winterfell". 

I couldn't agree more, and the underlined is exactly my answer to the complaint of obviousness. This essay series is about the first part of the debate, answering that simple question of parentage. I'm rather hoping that we'll get the official answer next year in TWoW, but the deeper puzzle will remain. Then we can have another series of essays examining that deeper question of why. 

[Taenqyrhae]

I think I'm missing a heresy or two.

 

[wolfmaid7]

I'm on my phone again. First of all happy Yule to those that celebrate. I couldn't agree more and yet disagree with some that was said.

We only have to eye ball alot of the topics that center who Jon's Snow's parents are and the majority, the startling amount would say its been obvious since book one.And BC (Black Crow) is correct in saying its either wasn't a secret in the first place .

The thing though is we know its something to figure out because of clues, the 98 letter and GRRM's own interviews that say otherwise.

Another thing is no matter who his parents are the story isn't over that has nothing to do with the focus of the project. We can all have ideas on where the story goes and have a different formula.

The point is what constitutes a clue? What does that mean? Is the obvious misdirections in this case or was it never a mystery?

I lean toward the former. If you look at the the intricacies employed by GRRM for the
Jon Arryn case the "standard" of those clues were different. But better yet the standard of the misdirection was really really good.

For me this theory lacks that, it lacks what makes a mystery a mystery.

Starting with the Kidnapping and for me the why is second to the who.Despite what the common thinking I don't see evidence to follow that Rhaegar had anything to do with Lyanna's disappearance other than what was reported. And its the big and small things in behavior, and reporting of people-including Rhaegar-involved.

[Taenqyrhae]

If there are parallels between the "Who killed Jon" and "Who fathered Jon" mysteries of the first book, one must remember that all the clues regarding who killed Jon Arryn point towards the wrong suspects in the first book.  I would not be surprised if, like the Jon Arryn mystery, we learn some things in later books that cast a whole different light on the R+L=J hints and provide an alternate solution that makes perfect sense in hindsight.

[SFDanny]

If there are parallels between the "Who killed Jon" and "Who fathered Jon" mysteries of the first book, one must remember that all the clues regarding who killed Jon Arryn point towards the wrong suspects in the first book.  I would not be surprised if, like the Jon Arryn mystery, we learn some things in later books that cast a whole different light on the R+L=J hints and provide an alternate solution that makes perfect sense in hindsight.

Or it could be the obvious parallel. The parallel is the use of explicit naming of who killed Jon Arryn that turns out to be wrong, with the explicit naming of Ashara, Wylla, and a unknown fisherman's daughter, as Jon's mother which all turns out to be wrong. Just like the mystery around who killed Jon Arryn we are given clue after clue that what the Starks have concluded from Lysa's secret message accusing the Lannisters is wrong, so too do we have clue after clue that cast doubt on any of the three named candidates for Jon's mom. Lyanna as a candidate is not named anywhere in the text. We reach that conclusion only after carefully looking at clues left for us. Just as the clues left for us finally all point to Lysa, in conjunction with Littlefinger, as Jon Arryn's murderers.

[J. Stargaryen]

If there are parallels between the "Who killed Jon" and "Who fathered Jon" mysteries of the first book, one must remember that all the clues regarding who killed Jon Arryn point towards the wrong suspects in the first book.  I would not be surprised if, like the Jon Arryn mystery, we learn some things in later books that cast a whole different light on the R+L=J hints and provide an alternate solution that makes perfect sense in hindsight.

There are parallels, and they actually work in favor of RLJ, as SFDanny pointed out above, and I have done earlier in the thread. Some people seem to think that saying "RLJ is a red herring" is a good argument all by itself, but it's really not. Because it fails to take into account how red herrings function. What good is a red herring that the audience doesn't know about?

I think people who don't believe in RLJ often fail to take into account that this series is nearly twenty years old, and was originally intended to be a trilogy, with each book released shortly after the one before it. And that the internet back in 1996 was much different than it is today. Nor would GRRM have likely anticipated how wildly popular this series would become. In fact, from what I understand, AGoT originally didn't sell all that well. The point being, I think people too often look at RLJ as it exists in 2015, nearly 2016, and maybe forget to consider how it existed back in 1995-6. It's something to keep in mind the next time you read that RLJ is too obvious, or the like.

I'm not sure if I've said this before or not, but I full expect that, in the case that RLJ isn't true, GRRM will use it as a red herring in the text. That is, he will have some character say right in print that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents. Just like we've had for Ned + Wylla/Ashara/FMD. In the event that RLJ isn't true, I just can't believe GRRM would skip over all of this RLJ groundwork he's very obviously lain, and go straight the reveal of X+L=J. Again, what good is a red herring that the audience doesn't know about? Further, what good is a red herring if the author isn't going to make full use of it?

[kimim]

If there are parallels between the "Who killed Jon" and "Who fathered Jon" mysteries of the first book, one must remember that all the clues regarding who killed Jon Arryn point towards the wrong suspects in the first book.  I would not be surprised if, like the Jon Arryn mystery, we learn some things in later books that cast a whole different light on the R+L=J hints and provide an alternate solution that makes perfect sense in hindsight.

Arryn's murder is a great example. After rlj, this is the most important mystery, in that it gets Ned to KL. Most people assume it has to be Cersei: She has motive, opportunity, and she's capable of killing someone.

The solution is perfect. The murderer isn't someone we've barely heard about; it's LF, via Lysa. Killing Arryn is absolutely in character for them both, and explains a hell of a lot more than Cersei as the murderer. The reader doesn't need to delve into pre-Christian European myth to make sense of it: Starks were played from the very beginning, their good nature and desire for justice used against them. It's tragic.

...which is why I tend to question people like Dayne or Reed as fathers. We do not know these characters. To get them to work, GRRM would need to devote chapters to exposition, and I so would like this series to be finished before I hit my coffin.

[Ser Creighton]

There are parallels, and they actually work in favor of RLJ, as SFDanny pointed out above, and I have done earlier in the thread. Some people seem to think that saying "RLJ is a red herring" is a good argument all by itself, but it's really not. Because it fails to take into account how red herrings function. What good is a red herring that the audience doesn't know about?

I think people who don't believe in RLJ often fail to take into account that this series is nearly twenty years old, and was originally intended to be a trilogy, with each book released shortly after the one before it. And that the internet back in 1996 was much different than it is today. Nor would GRRM have likely anticipated how wildly popular this series would become. In fact, from what I understand, AGoT originally didn't sell all that well. The point being, I think people too often look at RLJ as it exists in 2015, nearly 2016, and maybe forget to consider how it existed back in 1995-6. It's something to keep in mind the next time you read that RLJ is too obvious, or the like.

I'm not sure if I've said this before or not, but I full expect that, in the case that RLJ isn't true, GRRM will use it as a red herring in the text. That is, he will have some character say right in print that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents. Just like we've had for Ned + Wylla/Ashara/FMD. In the event that RLJ isn't true, I just can't believe GRRM would skip over all of this RLJ groundwork he's very obviously lain, and go straight the reveal of X+L=J. Again, what good is a red herring that the audience doesn't know about? Further, what good is a red herring if the author isn't going to make full use of it?

A lot of this appears to be hindsight, not what you said but the counter arguments. Like you said R+L=J is among the oldest theories going back to the 90's. But the theory itself did not really take off till after Dany saw the Blue rose in Kings. The evidence has slowly increased over 20 years, between the internet, the highly established theory, the TV show and the popularity it is now super obvious.

So now boredom is at an all time high and it's time to find something to talk about. I put the idea in with the Dany will never come to Westeros and is a Red Herring threads from 2 years ago. Just like Martin said she would come he also said he would reveal Jon's parents.

For me it seems that Martin puts a lot of work and detail into the books and he has been slowly building the series to a climax. He is looking fro a huge payoff in the end. Ned and the Fisherman's daughter sort of lack that payoff. Some think it is a great payoff because it is not R+L=J which is basically known so wouldn't this alternative be great. It's nothing against the ideas but Jon is Neds Kid, Dany stays in Essos, the Others are just a random big bad with no story, Arya stays in Braavos, Sansa gets married stays in the Vale and has kids, gives him no payoff for all ground work he has laid in these stories. It's like ok the we know who the hound is and he is going to stay on that isle and dig graves, that's it, that is the payoff because we all really know the gravedigger is the hound because it is obvious.

He knows we know this stuff, he is still going to make us wait, it ain't Christmas yet, you just get to look at the presents you don't get to open them. You may know they are there and even what is in some of them but you still got to wait. He has even said it, it's the same reason he uses act breaks at the end of chapters, he is torturing the readers, he is building up the suspense. We all knew Dany would fly a dragon, still had to wait 5 books, and that is for a dragon ride.

Readers are practically foaming at the mouth these days, you got entire spy teams watching the shows filming, fans flying over the locations in helicopters to get a shot of a boat. You know boredom may be the wrong word, the fans are just glazed over watching those presents with drool coming out of or mouths. "What What! Did someone say winds of winter> Hivelocity harcore entertainment monthly weekly website says that Winds is coming out next week. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! Let it begin, let it begin." Oh it's bullshit? God damn it, Martin does not know what he is doing, he is a hack, I hate him, and I hate this damn series. What Winds is coming out? Oh I mean yeah I don't care, "Amazon.com Winds of winter pre order 6 copies, and 2 limited special edition alternative covers that Martin farted on." "Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek there is a picture of someone playing an extra on Winters Coming.com, this is so major." I mean I totally don't pay attention to that stuff because the show sucks and I won't admit to watching. I mean I don't watch it."

 

[J. Stargaryen]

 

snip

I basically agree that a lot of the desire for a non-RLJ solution stems from people wanting something new. Lots of the fandom has been living with RLJ for several years now. Maybe a decade or more. Even people like me who read the books after learning about them from the show have known about it for ~5 years. So that means that, for example, AD+L=J is a lot fresher to us, and therefore more appealing. At least on some level.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

...a lot of the desire for a non-RLJ solution stems from people wanting something new...

Or something that's more satisfying, and makes better sense of Martin's text.  A lot of fantasy readers have lived with RLJ since Tolkien.  Or T. H. White.  In other words - a long time.

[Ser Creighton]

I basically agree that a lot of the desire for a non-RLJ solution stems from people wanting something new. Lots of the fandom has been living with RLJ for several years now. Maybe a decade or more. Even people like me who read the books after learning about them from the show have known about it for ~5 years. So that means that, for example, AD+L=J is a lot fresher to us, and therefore more appealing. At least on some level.

Yeah I also think there is also a desire to be someone who discovers something that makes them part of this generational phenomenon. I have been down that road personally. You remember the babbling idiot, I figured it out, I figured it out, it's all about Corn. Still makes me shudder a little. You know it's fine to explore the text, if someone enjoys it they enjoy eventually most of this will get put to the test, might as well have some fun while we can. Being reasonable in debates would be nice. I get the desire to diverge from the norm and more traditional stuff I do it all the time. Though it's hard to take some of these seriously when there are like 9 different theories covered under this one idea and you have the original R+L=J, if takes like 9 different tries to just find the target, you are probably missing the shot. It's not like a symbolic thing where you can interpret meaning and something can mean many things, it's his parents there are only going to be two.

[wolfmaid7]

There are parallels, and they actually work in favor of RLJ, as SFDanny pointed out above, and I have done earlier in the thread. Some people seem to think that saying "RLJ is a red herring" is a good argument all by itself, but it's really not. Because it fails to take into account how red herrings function. What good is a red herring that the audience doesn't know about?

I think people who don't believe in RLJ often fail to take into account that this series is nearly twenty years old, and was originally intended to be a trilogy, with each book released shortly after the one before it. And that the internet back in 1996 was much different than it is today. Nor would GRRM have likely anticipated how wildly popular this series would become. In fact, from what I understand, AGoT originally didn't sell all that well. The point being, I think people too often look at RLJ as it exists in 2015, nearly 2016, and maybe forget to consider how it existed back in 1995-6. It's something to keep in mind the next time you read that RLJ is too obvious, or the like.

I'm not sure if I've said this before or not, but I full expect that, in the case that RLJ isn't true, GRRM will use it as a red herring in the text. That is, he will have some character say right in print that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents. Just like we've had for Ned + Wylla/Ashara/FMD. In the event that RLJ isn't true, I just can't believe GRRM would skip over all of this RLJ groundwork he's very obviously lain, and go straight the reveal of X+L=J. Again, what good is a red herring that the audience doesn't know about? Further, what good is a red herring if the author isn't going to make full use of it?

Huh???? Iam a bit confused about  the first bolded statement. A red herring is misleading clues that people follow because of how its presented it has nothing to do with when and if someone says Rhaegar is Jon's father that's not how red herrings work.

A red herring is a common device used in mystery and thriller stories to distract the reader from identifying the real culprit. The red herring in a story can take the form of characters that the reader suspect, but who turn out be innocent when the real murderer is identified. It aims at keeping the readers guessing at the possibilities until the end and therefore keeps them interested in the story. The readers enjoy solving the mysteries created by red herrings in the story. Undoubtedly, it would be difficult to keep the reader’s interest, if thrillers exposed the killer from the start.

 And example would be:

"The character of “Bishop Aringarosa” in Dan Brown’s novel Da Vinci Code serves as an example of a red herring throughout the novel. The character is presented in such a way that the readers suspect him to be the mastermind of the whole conspiracy in the church. Later it was revealed that he was innocent. This example of a red herring in the novel distracts the readers from who the real bad person is and thus, adds to the mystery of the story. Interestingly, the Italian surname of the bishop “Aringarosa” translates in English as “red herring”.http://literarydevices.net/red-herring/

I had to pull some examples of it in a way to get the point across.See it has nothing to do with naming someone.

Again its the way you all underneath speak of this theory as if its the default theory.Jstar did you ever consider that people who don't believe in RLj do so because ohhhh say....I don't know they simply just believe something else?

Further it being originally a trilogy should have no bearing on if its RLJ or not? I believe you can figure it out from the first three books without it being RLJ.I agree there is alot of evidence in the first 3 books the rest is really just gravy.

But this whole thing about it can't be a Red herring because someone has to say Rhaegar and Lyanna is Jon's parents and it not turn out to be so ....Nuh.That is NOT how Red herrings work.

[wolfmaid7]

Seriously? Like the whole Rhaegar and Lyanna crown of winters roses does not ring a bell? Tower of joy? Blue rose wall of ice? Bale the Bard? You don't see the metaphor like everyone else? You understand that the blue rose is relevant to Dany because Jon is relevant to Dany? You ever notice that Dany has a lot of crows in her life? Darrio a blue eyed Stormcrow, Euron a Blue and Black eyed Crowseye, Sam a Crow just sent her a Maester because they need her help. Jon's best friend? Sam? Another Crow, like Jon is a Crow. Like Bloodraven is a Crow and like the Night's King is a Crow. Any of this ring a bell? R+L=J, world famous theory?

Like Dany had a dream about fighting an army of Ice right? And Jon had a dream about fighting the wight's with a flaming sword. And Xaro refers to the Dragons as a flaming sword in fact he does it in Dance one Dany chapter before Jon dreams of the flaming sword. They are not all individual isolated stories, they are interconnecting plot lines both literal and symbolic.

Theon saw Lyanna and the blue winter rose crown, does that mean Jon is not connected to Lyanna but Theon is? Also is the rose is no longer relevant to Dany because Theon saw it blue roses too? What do you think the symbolism is of a Winter Rose growing out of a wall of Ice is? Why does it smell sweet to her?

I had to drink something strong to assimilate this Ser Creighton

Hahaha you get me.Yeah it rings several bells but not Rhaegar and Lyanna in the tower motel 6 grinding it out  until she got preggers while the world burns. i'm one of those people who would see water running down the window pane and don't jump to the conclusion that rain is falling on the account of.

1. I don't hear raindrops on the roof and

2. I see a hose running from the standpipe to the window.

 

[J. Stargaryen]

Yeah I also think there is also a desire to be someone who discovers something that makes them part of this generational phenomenon. I have been down that road personally. You remember the babbling idiot, I figured it out, I figured it out, it's all about Corn. Still makes me shudder a little. You know it's fine to explore the text, if someone enjoys it they enjoy eventually most of this will get put to the test, might as well have some fun while we can. Being reasonable in debates would be nice. I get the desire to diverge from the norm and more traditional stuff I do it all the time. Though it's hard to take some of these seriously when there are like 9 different theories covered under this one idea and you have the original R+L=J, if takes like 9 different tries to just find the target, you are probably missing the shot. It's not like a symbolic thing where you can interpret meaning and something can mean many things, it's his parents there are only going to be two.

Yes, I think this could be also be a part of it. But this wouldn't be exclusive to Jon's parentage, of course.

Hmm. This Corn Code sounds familiar.

Well, I think people can take as many shots as they want. No harm, no foul. That said: no targets were damaged in the making of these essays.

Huh???? Iam a bit confused about  the first bolded statement. A red herring is misleading clues that people follow because of how its presented it has nothing to do with when and if someone says Rhaegar is Jon's father that's not how red herrings work.

That doesn't contradict the statement that apparently confuses you.

Hidden Content

 And example would be:

"The character of “Bishop Aringarosa” in Dan Brown’s novel Da Vinci Code serves as an example of a red herring throughout the novel. The character is presented in such a way that the readers suspect him to be the mastermind of the whole conspiracy in the church. Later it was revealed that he was innocent. This example of a red herring in the novel distracts the readers from who the real bad person is and thus, adds to the mystery of the story. Interestingly, the Italian surname of the bishop “Aringarosa” translates in English as “red herring”.http://literarydevices.net/red-herring/

I had to pull some examples of it in a way to get the point across.See it has nothing to do with naming someone.

I never said it has to do with naming someone. That's not necessarily a precondition for a red herring. I think the audience needs to be aware of the red herring though. Not necessarily that it is a red herring, but that it's being offered in the story as a possibility. This is why I don't think RLJ is a red herring. For all the people who claim it's too obvious, there are plenty of people who don't have any idea about it. And for those people, RLJ wouldn't be a red herring at all.

Again its the way you all underneath speak of this theory as if its the default theory.

Jstar did you ever consider that people who don't believe in RLj do so because ohhhh say....I don't know they simply just believe something else?

It is the default theory. Deal with it. We can talk about RLJ however we want, without your permission or blessing.

I did consider it, which is why I didn't claim to speak for everyone.

Further it being a originally a trilogy should have no bearing on if its RLJ or not? I believe you can figure it out from the first three books without it being RLJ.I agree there is alot of evidence in the first 3 books the rest is really just gravy.

Obviously it's nothing definitive, but it's certainly worth considering when trying to understand the series, and Jon's parentage, as it was originally conceived. Is it really plausible that GRRM set up the RLJ red herring on top of the Ned + Wyllya/Ashara red herrings as something that could conceivably be resolved in three books? That seems like a stretch to me. Of course you're likely to disagree since it's a stretch you require to exist, in order for your theory to be true.

But this whole thing about it can't be a Red herring because someone has to say Rhaegar is the father ....Nuh.That is NOT how Red herrings work.

K, thanks for the tip.

[LmL]

RLJ is not a red herring because less than half of people reading don't even get it. For it to be a red herring, it needs to be presented to the reader to distract. You cannot distract with something that's not presented at all. RLJ is clear enough when you collect the scattered bits, but it is by definition not a red herring because it isn't ever talked about or presented to the reader. JStar is exactly right - the red herrings are the ones we are given to distract us, right at the beginning. Ned, Ashara, Wylla , fishwife... those fit the definition. 

[Kingmonkey]

Or to put it another way, if RLJ is a red herring, it's a red herring that was hidden behind three other red herrings. Which would be silly. 

The way I see it, 

Wylla:  red herring.

The fisherman's daughter:  red herring.

Ashara: red herring.

R+L=J: the answer.

The twist:  that wasn't the real question we should have been asking, but we mostly stopped examining the question when we found the answer. 

 

[J. Stargaryen]

RLJ is not a red herring because less than half of people reading don't even get it. For it to be a red herring, it needs to be presented to the reader to distract. You cannot distract with something that's not presented at all. RLJ is clear enough when you collect the scattered bits, but it is by definition not a red herring because it isn't ever talked about or presented to the reader. JStar is exactly right - the red herrings are the ones we are given to distract us, right at the beginning. Ned, Ashara, Wylla , fishwife... those fit the definition. 

 

Or to put it another way, if RLJ is a red herring, it's a red herring that was hidden behind three other red herrings. Which would be silly. 

The way I see it, 

Wylla:  red herring.

The fisherman's daughter:  red herring.

Ashara: red herring.

R+L=J: the answer.

The twist:  that wasn't the real question we should have been asking, but we mostly stopped examining the question when we found the answer. 

Completely agreed with both of these. On top of KM's post, I'd also add that RLJ would constitute an entirely different kind of red herring than we've seen GRRM use in the series so far. Including wolfmaid's favorite example of the Jon Arryn murder mystery.

I'd like to present an analogy for the "RLJ is a red herring" argument: Jaime as the valonqar is a red herring. We're all familiar with the valonqar prophecy, which Cersei understands to mean Tyrion. That's what she tells us, right in the text. Yet, as far as I can tell, a lot of readers who discuss the subject think it's bloody-frickin'-obvious that Jaime is the valonqar, since he was the second-born twin, and is therefore also a younger brother. This, despite the fact that it never crosses Cersei's mind that Jaime could fulfill this role, even though she knows full well that he is technically younger than her, not to mention her brother.

Jaime as the valonqar is too obvious, right guys? Must be a red herring.