Jump to content

Heresy Project X+Y=J: Rhaegar + Lyanna


wolfmaid7

Recommended Posts

I do tend to think you and I would agree on this issue, KM.  

What I don't understand is this comment, which you also wrote:

"If GRRM wrote a mystery into the books which thousands of rabid fans spending man-centuries discussing around the Internet haven't pretty thoroughly answered to a reasonable degree of confidence by now, he wrote a very cheap mystery."

What does that mean?  Perhaps you can clarify for me. 

That GRRM would not write a mystery like this without leaving sufficient clues for it to be possible to find the answer. To have written such a mystery without giving enough clues for that mystery to be found however close a study of the text is made would be a cheap mystery. By extension, that given the huge amount of attention this mystery has attracted in trying to solve it, it is to be expected that  the solution has been found and discussed at length. Finally and critically, that for this precise reason, the argument that any given theory should be doubted because it has been found and discussed at length is nonsensical. 

There are theories other than RLJ that have been found and discussed at length. This applies to those theories too. That RLJ is by far the most popular may imply that it is the most persuasive. Nobody (as far as I know) is arguing that this means GRRM is making a mistake if RLJ isn't the correct answer, which appears to be the assumption you made. We are arguing, conversely, that it's silly to consider RLJ less likely to be true simply because it has persuaded a lot of people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q: What convinces you that RLJ is correct? 

A: Crowdsourcing. A foolproof source of legitimacy. Thousands of obsessed fans have looked into this. And they've come up with nothing better. For GRRM to write anything different would just be cheap.

Q: So the value of GRRM's writing is determined by the supposed accuracy of popular opinion on this issue?

A: Popular opinion? What are you talking about? Who said anything about popular opinion? This is about quality!

 

(LOL.)

 

See below.

   ... .

I do tend to think you and I would agree on this issue, KM.  

What I don't understand is this comment, which you also wrote:

"If GRRM wrote a mystery into the books which thousands of rabid fans spending man-centuries discussing around the Internet haven't pretty thoroughly answered to a reasonable degree of confidence by now, he wrote a very cheap mystery."

What does that mean?  Perhaps you can clarify for me. 

You don't need me to clarify this for you; you know precisely what it means. Which is why when you make up a phony dialogue, as you did in the first quote, in order to paint other's arguments in a false light and to mock them, my assumption is that you are making up straw man arguments, not just misunderstanding others. Pardon me, for pointing it out, but I don't like such tactics. They are dishonest.

Even now, you know the difference between the first answer of your phony dialogue and in the bolded quote. You take a quote speaking to the need for mysteries to be solvable and when they are not solvable the problems with them, and turn it into "a foolproof source of legitimacy" argument on the part of kingmonkey. As intelligent poster as you are you know full well that was not his argument. So, stop with the dishonest debating tactics, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) That GRRM would not write a mystery like this without leaving sufficient clues for it to be possible to find the answer. To have written such a mystery without giving enough clues for that mystery to be found however close a study of the text is made would be a cheap mystery.

(2) By extension, that given the huge amount of attention this mystery has attracted in trying to solve it, it is to be expected that the solution has been found and discussed at length.

Finally and critically... (3) the argument that any given theory should be doubted because it has been found and discussed at length is nonsensical. 

Okay. I appreciate your patience, and if I've given offense then I apologize. I would not have understood this as the intended message behind that comment, which seemed to say... something very different.

For what it's worth, I agree completely with the first and third statements above. It's the second statement that doesn't quite work. And I expect there's a more interesting discussion to be had there, eventually, regarding why that's been true. But in general, I'd say that what's drawn "huge amounts of attention" so far is not the mystery, per se - but rather, a particular proposed solution: RLJ. And given that focus, it is not all that surprising that no other alternatives have been explored in depth by the masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I appreciate your patience, and if I've given offense then I apologize. I would not have understood this as the intended message behind that comment, which seemed to say... something very different.

For what it's worth, I agree completely with the first and third statements above. It's the second statement that doesn't quite work. And I expect there's a more interesting discussion to be had there, eventually, regarding why that's been true. But in general, I'd say that what's drawn "huge amounts of attention" so far is not the mystery, per se - but rather, a particular proposed solution: RLJ. And given that focus, it is not all that surprising that no other alternatives have been explored in depth by the masses.

I agree, and it's possible the solution has been found by many people, but because the red herring is considered by many to be a sure thing, and because so many people have been pouring over the text looking for clues for RLJ, someone who thinks they independently found a different solution might feel their (correct) guess discredited when they see the wealth of data supporting the other theory, and never delve into their original theory far enough to find the other clues.

It's like this - GRRM obviously wanted to keep Jon's parentage secret.  To do that, he HAS to use red herrings, otherwise, with time, it will be obvious who the parents are because the only clues are for that particular answer.  He could hide a couple of dozen clues across the series, and careful readers will see the solution, see no alternative, and no more mystery.

So, instead of hiding a bunch of clues for one theory only, he puts hints and clues that could indicate other possibilities, so there's uncertainty.  Let's say he puts 20 well hidden clues for each of four different theories.  Some people start picking up on R+L=J, others on E+A=J, others on H+L=J, etc.  Now, the R+L=J theory is appealing to a lot of people because they like Jon and would like for him to be king one day, and they see obvious clues because they were intentionally put there.  Because the R+L=J theory is popular, everybody works together and finds all 20 clues for R+L=J and come to the conclusion that this must be the correct theory.  Now new reader X goes through and he notices 7 clues for R+L=J, 8 clues for H+L=J, and a few clues for the others.  He's not sure which one is the correct interpretation, and goes on a message board to discuss this.  Reader X encounters hundreds of people who are convinced of R+L=J, and they know about all 20 of the clues to that theory as well as several other clues that they imagined are connected and are not.  He sees that there are more than twice as many clues to this theory than his favorite theory, and comes to the realization that he was backing the wrong theory.  Because of this, no further effort is made to find the rest of the 20 clues for his favorite theory.  He assumes because there are more clues for this than the others, the others must be red herrings, without realizing that GRRM put an equal amount of clues for the true theory as well as all the red herrings…and if one is convinced of one interpretation, clues that indicate something else will be disregarded.

This could be intentional, too.  GRRM would know that people would find that theory popular because it makes a well liked character into a super special prince with a tragic yet romantic backstory.  No matter how many clues are found for the true theory, the red herring will always be seen as a strong alternative for those reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snip

One huge mistake on your part. Most of those people who figured out RLJ, did so completely on their own and without any Jon fanboyism, and Jon fanboyism doesn't have anything to do with the strength of the theory, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One huge mistake on your part. Most of those people who figured out RLJ, did so completely on their own and without any Jon fanboyism, and Jon fanboyism doesn't have anything to do with the strength of the theory, either.

Really?  Wasn't there a survey done on this site that showed only about 10% of people figured out R+L=J from reading alone?  And that's a sampling of people who read and enjoyed the books so much they wanted to go online and talk about them.  I would be really surprised if even 5% of readers came to the R+L=J conclusion on their own, and that includes those who didn't go on the boards but had heard that there was something special about Jon's parentage (I knew this before I read the books so I was trying to figure it out as I read).

I didn't accuse anyone of "fanboyism".  It's not being a fanboy to like the idea of a likable protagonist winning big in the end.  Fanboyism is when someone get's defensive of their favorite character and shows hostility to those who suggest the character is not that great or is destined for something bad to happen to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?  Wasn't there a survey done on this site that showed only about 10% of people figured out R+L=J from reading alone?  And that's a sampling of people who read and enjoyed the books so much they wanted to go online and talk about them.  I would be really surprised if even 5% of readers came to the R+L=J conclusion on their own, and that includes those who didn't go on the boards but had heard that there was something special about Jon's parentage (I knew this before I read the books so I was trying to figure it out as I read).

I didn't accuse anyone of "fanboyism".  It's not being a fanboy to like the idea of a likable protagonist winning big in the end.  Fanboyism is when someone get's defensive of their favorite character and shows hostility to those who suggest the character is not that great or is destined for something bad to happen to them.

Oh, really? then perhaps you might explain what it is that you meant by asserting that people are letting their fondness of Jon Snow override their critical thinking and favour a theory because it lends him superpowers and superbackground and what not. I have little doubt that such fans do exist, but it is really not a reason or way how RLJ was pieced together.

BTW, if you think that RLJ is shadowing clues for some other parentage, you can start laying out those clues any time. We yet have to see some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, really? then perhaps you might explain what it is that you meant by asserting that people are letting their fondness of Jon Snow override their critical thinking and favour a theory because it lends him superpowers and superbackground and what not. I have little doubt that such fans do exist, but it is really not a reason or way how RLJ was pieced together.

BTW, if you think that RLJ is shadowing clues for some other parentage, you can start laying out those clues any time. We yet have to see some.

I also never said that proponents of RLJ are lacking in critical thinking…you REALLY need to cut out this straw man BS.  I said that, in the face of multiple theories of Jon's parentage, all of which have evidence, people who like Jon are going to be drawn to the theory that gives Jon potential to rise to the top.  I didn't say that the people who would like this made up evidence or theories to fit what they want for Jon - GRRM intentionally put in clues to lead people to believe that Jon could be the son of Rhaegar.  It's not stupid or closed-minded to see those clues, and decide that this is probably the best theory because it fits what they anticipate should happen.  It's only stupid or closed minded if they decide that those clues are the only ones that are worth paying attention to and the other theories have no value at all.

As an analogy, imagine that there is a theory that Daenerys is going to die in some humiliating way long before she comes close to Westeros, and a theory that Daenerys is going to survive to invade Westeros.  If both theories have an equal amount of deliberate hints from the author that they could happen, which do you think will be the more popular theory?  Since the evidence for both theories is equal and nobody knows what's going to happen, would the logical thing for both theories to have an equal number of proponents?  Of course not.  People are going to put more weight on the theory that makes the story interesting and keeps a generally well-liked character alive than the theory that she dies badly and never achieves anything of importance.  Nothing wrong with that.  However, if people point out "Hey, there's all this foreshadowing and clues that seem to deliberately imply that Daenerys is going to die of the flux in Meereen", the correct thinking would be "Hmm, those clues do seem to be implying that and were deliberately placed, but I don't think that's going to happen, it must be a red herring".  The incorrect thinking would be "Those clues are meaningless and anybody who thinks they indicate what's going to happen is deluded."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, just two things:

Info dumps on Rhaegar are important, because it means that the guy is somehow important for the plot. Not saying that this signifies he is Jon's father, but still important. He is getting way much attention for someone fourteen years dead.

Good point about Rhaegar, that we get info on him. And unless the character is someone like Varys, or Selmy (some of the few who do seem to support a Targ return to the throne-Viserys would feel so vindicated, bless him-) it seems like Rhaegar looms large in the minds of characters who knew him as someone who may have been able to do a considerably good job at running the kingdom. With Aerys chewing on himself and burning people, the realm was pinning its hopes on Rhaegar. I'd guess that was happening all the way up to the Tourney. Once the rebellion started, the options were rapidly narrowing for a qualified Targ. And those who knew him thought he had the makings of a good king. He wasn't the last hope, but he was the best hope.

Had he won? It's possible he would have found some manner to patch things up with the North. At that point, if Robert were out of the picture, we might speculate that Lyanna would be a sensible candidate for an alliance. But even if it was headed in that direction at the Tourney, it was all brought to a crashing halt. As far as we know, the day it came to the halt surely happened on the battlefield. Numerous eyewitness accounts confirm it.

It's rumored that the crashing halt may have come sooner, on the muddy road outside Harrenhal... Where Rhaegar slipped and "fell upon" Lyanna. No eyewitness accounts confirm it. No donkeys have registered complaints of harrassment with the HRH office about being forced to overhear R+L's homemade sex tapes (not to mention the baggage handler).

Blue roses: I don't see how this doesn't tie to Rhaegar

=)

There aren't even any mention of blue roses to munch on; nothing like the catering at Harrenhal. Ned doesn't even bother to give us better than dream details, which can be read as concrete and based on memory of real events that are happening at the same time as other events in the dream, or as some bit he borrowed from Harrenhal, or a memory of Lyanna liking roses in general. And Ned doesn't bother to clarify which it is for us, either. So it's assumption on my part to say that there were blue roses anywhere near the toj, or Lyanna. It's possible. It's not confirmed by an eyewitness in any verifiable form. If we put Ned on the witness stand and allowed him to be cross-examined, I can only imagine what a field day the attorney would have with it.

"There were blue roses? A wreath?"

"There were blue roses, yes, blue rose petals. In a blood red sky."

"Rose petals. Uh huh. And the roses in her hands were blue?"

"Uh... They were black. They had been blue. The room smelled like blood and roses."

"I see. You're sure they were blue originally. And this really happened? Or it happened in a dream?"

" ... "

"Objection! Your Honor, the witness was high on opium at the time, he was under treatment for an extreme injury."

"Right. Did you see who gave her the roses?"

"Uh..."

"I suppose the card was thrown out with the trash? Do you even know how she died?"

"Objection!!"

"Your Honor, I'm asking as there wasn't even an autopsy!"

*facepalm* All I can be certain of is that Rhaegar was large in the minds of many who knew him. Many, even Ned, seem to have respect for him. It's incongruous with the story we hear about kidnapping and rape. It paves the way for Dany, and serves the plot in a pretty important way, to compare her with someone who could have been great. Even Selmy tells her so. She is the best and the last hope. Aegon, if real, may have some potential, too.

All I can be certain of in regards to roses is that Rhaegar once gave them to Lyanna. And that is the last confirmed contact between them that happens in the text. It's the last confirmed, concrete piece of evidence I have. And by the time the Tourney's blue roses are mentioned in the text, we're dealing with what well may be a 14 year old cold case.

Even trying to follow the roses from the Tourney, the trail runs onto rock or water. No broken twigs, no scraped moss on the other side of the stream. And when we pick up the scent of them again, it's two years from the Tourney, with a dead woman, a probable baby, and no father, ostensibly, in sight. For all I know those roses could have been placed in her hand, blackened, and fallen away once she was laid out for burial. I've got nothing to confirm any of it. If she had them while she was actually dying, I still don't know who gave them to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One huge mistake on your part. Most of those people who figured out RLJ, did so completely on their own and without any Jon fanboyism, and Jon fanboyism doesn't have anything to do with the strength of the theory, either.

Not me! I read it... On a forum wiki :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Ygrain on Rhaegar's importance-This is his thread so info dump away-But his relevance and importance seem only identifiable to one character and that's Dany. Almost all his info dumps are in Dany's chapters. He's dead and she has more of a connection to him than Aerys.

Jon....nada.Nothing ,he is far removed from Rhaegar while Dany is comparative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of things that we lack any living eyewitness PoVs for. 

Everyone is under the impression that Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna. The rebellion was triggered by it. Brandon went to KL on the basis that it happened. Robert believes it to this day, as does Dany, the Lannisters, etc. Ned, who surely would know if something was up after having found Lyanna, does not disabuse Robert of this theory, and appears to have passed on the same story to his children. Could he be lying? Yes, but we have no reason to suspect he is. Nor any reason to suspect that Rhaegar did not do what everyone believes he did. 

We cannot be certain it happened, but it's certainly widely, possibly universally believed. What's the evidence it didn't happen?

We could raise a similar objection on the H+L thread. What's the evidence that Howland and Lyanna ever met, before Lyanna's death? As far as I can recall the sole evidence that Howland was even at Harrenhal is the story told by Meera. A single unsupported account, second hand at best. Far less evidence reason to assume this happened than for the abduction. Similarly though, there's no reason to doubt it. 

 

 

I suppose this sums up a few things on my mind:

II

I was of three minds,

Like a tree

In which there are three blackbirds.

V

I do not know which to prefer,

The beauty of inflections

Or the beauty of innuendoes,

The blackbird whistling

Or just after.

-Wallace Stevens, “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird”

In the second, especially, the play between sound and silence- the note and the rest, following it- reminds me that what isn't there may also be important.

Absence can be notable. If I want to find out about Jon's father, I first start with the fact that I highly suspect it isn't Ned... In fact, I start with absence.

I think Rhaegar's absence from the text or any references in Jon's chapters -whereas we have references to Arya, who looks like Lyanna- might be quite important.

Rhaegar himself- whose story and rubies haunt the very landscape in places (the ruby ford), whose presence haunts Jaime's dream, and Dany's vision- turns out to be Ser-not-appearing-in-this-POV. He doesn't haunt Jon. I'll have to search again to be certain, but I don't see any single reference-even in passing- to Rhaegar in Jon's chapters. And that, to me, could be a big red flag. If we don't rely so heavily on symbolism, but instead look carefully for concrete foreshadowing, and don't find any, it could be that were actually finding a lack of foreshadowing for RLJ in these chapters (!)

And I'm at the point now where I'm very cautious about relying on anything symbolic until I have gathered the concrete pieces I can first. Hearsay and speculations must also be very carefully measured and must wait their turn. I just won't settle for less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can be certain of in regards to roses is that Rhaegar once gave them to Lyanna. And that is the last confirmed contact between them that happens in the text. It's the last confirmed, concrete piece of evidence I have. And by the time the Tourney's blue roses are mentioned in the text, we're dealing with what well may be a 14 year old cold case.

Even trying to follow the roses from the Tourney, the trail runs onto rock or water. No broken twigs, no scraped moss on the other side of the stream. And when we pick up the scent of them again, it's two years from the Tourney, with a dead woman, a probable baby, and no father, ostensibly, in sight. For all I know those roses could have been placed in her hand, blackened, and fallen away once she was laid out for burial. I've got nothing to confirm any of it. If she had them while she was actually dying, I still don't know who gave them to her.

:agree:

The only thing we have on the roses, as you say, is that Rhaegar once gave her the crown.

We do know the symbolism from the Bael story--the rose is an insult, sticking it to the Stark in Winterfell by taking and de-virgin-ing his virgin daughter. 

It's spiteful. Vicious. An over-reaction to an insult. And it all ends in kinslaying, tower suicide, and death by Bolton. Given all of that context from Bael and what little we know of Rhaegar--I sincerely doubt he's behind the giving of the rose crown.

So, who gave Lyanna roses in her hands when she was dying? No idea--cannot see where the text has pinned that down. At all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or this. Please try not to let this thread descend into a challenge to the proponents of RLJ in general. That's not what this thread is supposed to be for. You have quite rightly challenged people in the other threads in this series to keep on topic rather than trying to justify RLJ. Likewise this thread should be used to discuss or challenge the theory presented, not other ideas elsewhere. You have a point of challenge to make: whether there is sufficient evidence for Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna even taking place. Great, can we concentrate on that please? What is the basis for challenging what is clearly conventional wisdom? If you have a reason to challenge it, then we have a good challenge to the OP to discuss. 

 

 

This actually wasn't a challange i was using it as and example to ask if this is what a clue looks like and its in the context of this topic.A way of trying to get a visual on what constituites a clue.

Okay, just two things:

Info dumps on Rhaegar are important, because it means that the guy is somehow important for the plot. Not saying that this signifies he is Jon's father, but still important. He is getting way much attention for someone fourteen years dead.

Blue roses: I don't see how this doesn't tie to Rhaegar, because, with the exception of Bael the Bard story - which shares suspicious amount of details with RLJ - the only blue roses in the text are those of Lyanna's, which she received from Rhaegar, and the gift establishes a connection to the giver. It is also interesting to note how the identity of the roses is slowly revealed: first we have Lyanna and roses, then it is Lyanna and blue winter roses, then it is Lyanna with a garland of blue winter roses, and then, bam! the QoLaB crown. After that, it is only Lyanna and the QoLaB crown, in Theon's dream. As if the revelation reached its climax, and we now know that every time Ned thinks of blue roses, it is actually the HH crown that he thinks about. So, in the mind of Lyanna's brother, our only PoV in the know, Lyanna is inseparably connected with a gift from Rhaegar.

Furthermore, the blue roses are not the sole element of the association, it is roses and blood. Lyanna's room smells of blood and roses, the dream of bed of blood contains rose petals, her garlanded statue weeps bloody tears, the thorns of the crown draw blood, Lyanna is wearing a crown of roses and a blood-spattered gown... the roses and blood are connected. The blood stands for the bed of blood, which we know is childbirth, and the childbirth is tied to Rhaegar's gift. Details need to be filled in for sure, but the connection is already there.

 

The only tie the rose have to Rhaegar is that he gave Lyanna the QOLAB Laurel that's it.But other than that whenever Ned thinks of these roses it has nothing to do Rhaegar.Your labeling the roses a "gift" doesn't jive with the tourney.Rhaegar lays the crown on Lyanna who doesn't handle it.Instead Ned picks it up and his reaction is frankly more scary than Brandon's.Also Ned's dream of Lyanna wearing the crown,that imagery is very commom in myth as the weeping woman.The woman crying out for justice.

We actually don't know its childbirth,it is possible but not defnite and even if it is childbirth it doesn't mean Rhaegar is the father.Childbirth tied to Rhaegar's gift could mean a number of things as in a peg that lead to her death.What we know is that the rose in the Bael story doesn't equate baby,just as the Laurel doesn't equate a baby. 

There are a lot of things that we lack any living eyewitness PoVs for. 

Everyone is under the impression that Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna. The rebellion was triggered by it. Brandon went to KL on the basis that it happened. Robert believes it to this day, as does Dany, the Lannisters, etc. Ned, who surely would know if something was up after having found Lyanna, does not disabuse Robert of this theory, and appears to have passed on the same story to his children. Could he be lying? Yes, but we have no reason to suspect he is. Nor any reason to suspect that Rhaegar did not do what everyone believes he did. 

We cannot be certain it happened, but it's certainly widely, possibly universally believed. What's the evidence it didn't happen?

We could raise a similar objection on the H+L thread. What's the evidence that Howland and Lyanna ever met, before Lyanna's death? As far as I can recall the sole evidence that Howland was even at Harrenhal is the story told by Meera. A single unsupported account, second hand at best. Far less evidence reason to assume this happened than for the abduction. Similarly though, there's no reason to doubt it. 

 

 

I was hoping we touch on this and its something that is very important.What we don'ta have eye witness for and what we do have eye witness for.I could actually understand why Ned wouldn't correct Robert about Rhaegar.Rhaegar's dead it won't matter and its actually pretty shitty of Ned. But another issue i think is important,Robert doesn't have a theory he' has an assumption that based on nothing except his deluded idea. "How many times do you think Rhaegar raped your sister how many hundreds of times." No one told Robert Rhaegar raped Lyanna,he doesn't know that even happen. Its the extreme side of he took her so he loved her.In this case he took her so he must have raped her.Everyone has their belief about why Rhaegar took Lyanna and its all based on how these people felt about Rhaegar.

If your on the side of Robert he's a Knave,if you favored Rhaegar he was a romantic.The evidence that Rhaegar did kidnapp Lyanna hmmm.

1. This whole  story Lysa just told Cat in a message that the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn and they ran with that.To the wider world JA died of natural causes.Closer to home the Lannister's killed him and even that is wrong.

Brandon accordng to Cat "took of to KL when he heard about Lyanna" the writing on this is so clever because we never hear exactly what he head.He goes to KL marches up in the throne room and demands Rhaegar come out and die,bt he never mentions Lyanna once?That ommission ( what Brandon heard) and his not asking for Lyanna when he should have are clues.

2.Yeah Rhaegar didn't kidnapp or run away with Lyanna.It was made to look that way yes.And him being absent for a year was one of those things that made him look guilty but it actuall had nothing to do with Lyanna.Jorah or was it Selmy mentioned something

“Tell me, then - when he touched a man on the shoulder with his sword, what did he say? ‘Go forth and kill the weak’? Or ‘Go forth and defend them’? At the Trident, those brave men Viserys spoke of who died beneath our dragon banners - did they give their lives because they believed in Rhaegar’s cause, or because they had been bought and paid for?” Dany turned to Mormont, crossed her arms, and waited for an answer.”

 

 

“Your brother Rhaegar brought as many men to the Trident,” Ser Jorah admitted, “but

 

 of that number, no more than a tenth were knights.

The rest were archers, freeriders,

 

and foot soldiers armed with spears and pikes

. When Rhaegar fell, many threw down

 

their weapons and fled the field. How long do you imagine such a rabble would stand 

 

against the charge of forty thousand screamers howling for blood?"

 

These bolded are important bits of info to me it tells me that Rhaegar's men were there because he paid them and these men that he brought weren't devoted to one house or the other.He had to go find them neogotiate how much they were going to get etc.Look how long it took Dany and even Griff to get men to follow them when they had no "house trained " soldiers in the first place.A while.This is why Rhaegar was missing for so long.He was looking for and gathering fighters.

3. The objection is a valid one even on the other thread and it was raised there as well.I would say its enough to doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:agree:

The only thing we have on the roses, as you say, is that Rhaegar once gave her the crown.

We do know the symbolism from the Bael story--the rose is an insult, sticking it to the Stark in Winterfell by taking and de-virgin-ing his virgin daughter. 

It's spiteful. Vicious. An over-reaction to an insult. And it all ends in kinslaying, tower suicide, and death by Bolton. Given all of that context from Bael and what little we know of Rhaegar--I sincerely doubt he's behind the giving of the rose crown.

So, who gave Lyanna roses in her hands when she was dying? No idea--cannot see where the text has pinned that down. At all.

The kinslaying, tower suicide, and death by Bolton don't have got anything to do with the blue rose Bael leaves, though. Hiding the Stark maiden, impregnating her, and later returning her and the child, are.

 

As to the blue rose in Bael's story.. Bael left a blue rose for Lord Stark, and in the end gave this Stark lord a child, and heir who could continue his line. Just as Rhaegar gave Lyanna the crown of blue roses (is there any special meaning to it having been a crown of roses instead of a single rose?), and, presumably, gave her a child later on (by impregnating her).

But the rose is not the insult. Stealing the Stark maiden for a year, that is the insult.

 

Why do you doubt Rhaegar was behind the giving of the rose crown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also never said that proponents of RLJ are lacking in critical thinking…you REALLY need to cut out this straw man BS.  I said that, in the face of multiple theories of Jon's parentage, all of which have evidence, people who like Jon are going to be drawn to the theory that gives Jon potential to rise to the top.  I didn't say that the people who would like this made up evidence or theories to fit what they want for Jon - GRRM intentionally put in clues to lead people to believe that Jon could be the son of Rhaegar.  It's not stupid or closed-minded to see those clues, and decide that this is probably the best theory because it fits what they anticipate should happen.  It's only stupid or closed minded if they decide that those clues are the only ones that are worth paying attention to and the other theories have no value at all.

Oh? And what else is people liking the theory because it " it makes a well liked character into a super special prince with a tragic yet romantic backstory than lack of critical thinking?

Come on, own your words. 

 

As an analogy, imagine that there is a theory that Daenerys is going to die in some humiliating way long before she comes close to Westeros, and a theory that Daenerys is going to survive to invade Westeros.  If both theories have an equal amount of deliberate hints from the author that they could happen, which do you think will be the more popular theory?  Since the evidence for both theories is equal and nobody knows what's going to happen, would the logical thing for both theories to have an equal number of proponents?  Of course not.  People are going to put more weight on the theory that makes the story interesting and keeps a generally well-liked character alive than the theory that she dies badly and never achieves anything of importance.  Nothing wrong with that.  However, if people point out "Hey, there's all this foreshadowing and clues that seem to deliberately imply that Daenerys is going to die of the flux in Meereen", the correct thinking would be "Hmm, those clues do seem to be implying that and were deliberately placed, but I don't think that's going to happen, it must be a red herring".  The incorrect thinking would be "Those clues are meaningless and anybody who thinks they indicate what's going to happen is deluded."

Here is the thing: you don't have an equal number of clues for the various XYJ theories, and since figuring out various XYJ doesn't answer all the whys and hows, there are several potential outcomes. Some people think Jon will be king. Some think he had better not be king. Some are not convinced if he might survive the end of the story. RLJ itself doesn't answer what Jon's fate will be.

There aren't even any mention of blue roses to munch on; nothing like the catering at Harrenhal. Ned doesn't even bother to give us better than dream details, which can be read as concrete and based on memory of real events that are happening at the same time as other events in the dream, or as some bit he borrowed from Harrenhal, or a memory of Lyanna liking roses in general. And Ned doesn't bother to clarify which it is for us, either. So it's assumption on my part to say that there were blue roses anywhere near the toj, or Lyanna. It's possible. It's not confirmed by an eyewitness in any verifiable form. If we put Ned on the witness stand and allowed him to be cross-examined, I can only imagine what a field day the attorney would have with it.

...

All I can be certain of in regards to roses is that Rhaegar once gave them to Lyanna. And that is the last confirmed contact between them that happens in the text. It's the last confirmed, concrete piece of evidence I have. And by the time the Tourney's blue roses are mentioned in the text, we're dealing with what well may be a 14 year old cold case.

 

Even trying to follow the roses from the Tourney, the trail runs onto rock or water. No broken twigs, no scraped moss on the other side of the stream. And when we pick up the scent of them again, it's two years from the Tourney, with a dead woman, a probable baby, and no father, ostensibly, in sight. For all I know those roses could have been placed in her hand, blackened, and fallen away once she was laid out for burial. I've got nothing to confirm any of it. If she had them while she was actually dying, I still don't know who gave them to her

I am a bit confused here. Didn't you say that you studied literature? Yet you seem to stick with the facts of the narrative and dismiss anything that is not a literal fact, as if the mystery we were solving was a RL detective case.

It is not necessary for blue roses to actually grow around ToJ, it is enough that Ned's subconsciousness places them there, along with bed of blood and the promise, because the connection exists for a reason.

Lyanna did have the roses in her palm because this is Ned's real memory. Who gave them to her? We know of only person in the story who gave Lyanna roses in any form.

Not me! I read it... On a forum wiki :D

I did figure it out, mostly based on the digest that I have stated, but a huge contribution was GRRM's excellent characterisation of Ned. He never lies, only to protect family, yet he has been living lies for fourteen years and at an emotional moment, calls Jon "his blood", not "son". He also never tells the truth to the closest persons whom he loves very much, and thinks about some secrets too dangerous to share. He can't tell and doesn't want to lie more than he already does, who is he protecting and what danger is there? Not Brandon, Benjen or Rickard, because it is considered normal for men to father bastards. Lyanna, though, would definitely need a coverup. Who is the guy who had access to her and there is a connection established to him? Rhaegar. A secret indeed too dangerous to share with anyone. And it fits that weird moment to remember Rhaegar on the way from Chataya's, as well as other instances when Ned remembers "promise me" and Lyanna begging.

I agree with Ygrain on Rhaegar's importance-This is his thread so info dump away-But his relevance and importance seem only identifiable to one character and that's Dany. Almost all his info dumps are in Dany's chapters. He's dead and she has more of a connection to him than Aerys.

Jon....nada.Nothing ,he is far removed from Rhaegar while Dany is comparative.

Well... and does the fact that the info dumps are not aimed at Jon mean that the reader cannot benefit from piecing the characteristics together? 

This is not really an argument for or against anything.

 
The only tie the rose have to Rhaegar is that he gave Lyanna the QOLAB Laurel that's it.But other than that whenever Ned thinks of these roses it has nothing to do Rhaegar.
You can't be serious here. It's still the very same roses - the only time that we learn where Lyanna got those roses from.
 
- Let's take another example (I bet I have already posted something like this once, but it has been a long time):
Person A is often remembered by her brother as wearing a necklace. Later on we learn that it is sapphires and gold. Still later on we learn the necklace was from her grandmother's heirloom. 
From this, we can conclude these facts:
1) every single time the necklace was brought up, it was the very sapphire and gold necklace from the grandma, even though this was not explicitely mentioned
2) the necklace apparently held some importance for the person who wore it as well as for the brother remembering it
3) the necklace is a tie to the grandmother and family heirloom
 
 
 
Your labeling the roses a "gift" doesn't jive with the tourney.Rhaegar lays the crown on Lyanna who doesn't handle it.Instead Ned picks it up and his reaction is frankly more scary than Brandon's.Also Ned's dream of Lyanna wearing the crown,that imagery is very commom in myth as the weeping woman.The woman crying out for justice.
Might I remind you that this part is from Ned's feverish recollections in the Black Cells, and therefore may not be literal? That Ned may not have touched it at all and that the thorns drawing blood ay have been purely symbolic?
Besides, we never know what Lyanna did with the crown afterwards.
 
As for the weeping woman, it is funny but even a quick search yields other themes for which a woman could be weeping, such as Mater Dolorosa, so I doubt that justice is the only motive that GRRM could have had in mind. Sorrow and loss are way more common themes, and deep tragedy (especially with tears of blood)
 

We actually don't know its childbirth,it is possible but not defnite and even if it is childbirth it doesn't mean Rhaegar is the father.Childbirth tied to Rhaegar's gift could mean a number of things as in a peg that lead to her death.What we know is that the rose in the Bael story doesn't equate baby,just as the Laurel doesn't equate a baby. 

Sort this out with JS, I believe that he is right and it does, just like does the blue flower on the wall :-) 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The only tie the rose have to Rhaegar is that he gave Lyanna the QOLAB Laurel that's it.But other than that whenever Ned thinks of these roses it has nothing to do Rhaegar.Your labeling the roses a "gift" doesn't jive with the tourney.Rhaegar lays the crown on Lyanna who doesn't handle it.Instead Ned picks it up and his reaction is frankly more scary than Brandon's.Also Ned's dream of Lyanna wearing the crown,that imagery is very commom in myth as the weeping woman.The woman crying out for justice.

I've always interpreted Ned picking up the roses as part of his dream. Otherwise we're supposed to believe that the QoLaB's crown actually had thorns. Not to mention, there is well known symbolism about roses having thorns. Every rose has its thorn, etc.

As for the weeping woman crying out for justice. If that's what the symbolism actually means, perhaps the injustice that troubles her spirit is the rights denied to her son.

We actually don't know its childbirth,it is possible but not defnite and even if it is childbirth it doesn't mean Rhaegar is the father.Childbirth tied to Rhaegar's gift could mean a number of things as in a peg that lead to her death.What we know is that the rose in the Bael story doesn't equate baby,just as the Laurel doesn't equate a baby. 

It seems pretty hypocritical that you've spent, and continue to spend, so much time criticizing RLJers for claiming to know things you say they don't actually know, when you do the same thing yourself.

If/when RLJ is confirmed, I think it will look to a lot of people like the laurel does equate to the baby, since Rhaegar placed it in her lap with his penis metaphor.

I could see an alternative though, in the case of RLJ. That the lance is the male phallic imagery and the laurel the female. And what GRRM did by having Rhaegar place it in her lap with his lance was essentially tell us, that Rhaegar's penis went into Lyanna's vagina.

 

These bolded are important bits of info to me it tells me that Rhaegar's men were there because he paid them and these men that he brought weren't devoted to one house or the other.He had to go find them neogotiate how much they were going to get etc.

I'm afraid you've misread the text again. Dany and Mormont are arguing about buying the Unsullied. Dany doesn't want to, Mormont thinks she needs them. That's why he replies by telling her that she is correct, the soldiers on the Trident weren't bought and paid for, and look how that worked out for Rhaegar. "all you say is true. But Rhaegar lost on the Trident."

Notice this paragraph prior to the one you quoted:

Dany shrugged him off . “Viserys would have bought as many Unsullied as he had the coin for. But you once said I was like Rhaegar…”

This paragraph tells us that Rhaegar didn't buy soldiers, since Dany makes a distinction between him and Viserys, who would buy all the soldiers he could afford. If Viserys would buy soldiers, yet Rhaegar is different than Viserys, it means Rhaegar didn't buy soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:agree:

The only thing we have on the roses, as you say, is that Rhaegar once gave her the crown.

We do know the symbolism from the Bael story--the rose is an insult, sticking it to the Stark in Winterfell by taking and de-virgin-ing his virgin daughter. 

It's spiteful. Vicious. An over-reaction to an insult. And it all ends in kinslaying, tower suicide, and death by Bolton. Given all of that context from Bael and what little we know of Rhaegar--I sincerely doubt he's behind the giving of the rose crown.

So, who gave Lyanna roses in her hands when she was dying? No idea--cannot see where the text has pinned that down. At all.

Did it ever occur to you that you're mixing up the in-universe symbolism with symbolism meant for the readers? That the crowning isn't meant as an insult in universe, but that Rhaegar does later insult the Starks by kidnapping Lyanna? It would be the same thing as viewing the crowning as a conception metaphor, which I'd say has a pretty damn good chance of being correct. In that case, Rhaegar wasn't declaring to everyone at HH that he was going to get it on with Lyanna by crowning her. Instead GRRM was telling the audience that he (later) did.

No idea, really? If you want leave room for doubt, fine. But one particular character pretty famously gave Lyanna roses. No other character has done so that we know of, famously or otherwise.

I think some people overlook the importance of the placement of that revelation. What GRRM is telling us is: hey, you know those roses that kept showing up around Lyanna all throughout Ned's previous chapters? Yeah, Rhaegar gave her those at HH. It's pretty simple. Q: Who in the story is known for giving Lyanna Stark roses? A: Rhaegar Targaryen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Rhaegar himself- whose story and rubies haunt the very landscape in places (the ruby ford), whose presence haunts Jaime's dream, and Dany's vision- turns out to be Ser-not-appearing-in-this-POV. He doesn't haunt Jon. I'll have to search again to be certain, but I don't see any single reference-even in passing- to Rhaegar in Jon's chapters.

There is precisely one mention of Rhaegar in Jon's POV.  His death is used to illustrate the quality of Donal Noye's skill at the forge.  (Turns out the hammer that killed him was a Noye.) :D 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody ever checked to see how many times Lyanna is mentioned in Jon's chapters? Of course not counting him thinking about his mother. I'm pretty sure Jon talks about her just once, right before Stannis reads him Lyanna Mormont's letter. Does anyone remember anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...