Jump to content

Heresy 188


Black Crow

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

 

I will go with the story and the themes that are ever present in it.But dude you can't tell me ALL Robert's kids must have black hair because of Ned's reasoning,that's,that's a bit...Noo.

 

All those bastards, all with hair as black as night is pretty unambiguous and doesn't depend on a comparison with golden-haired ladies, because all of those Baratheons in the genealogy he was studying were "black of hair". Its simple, its straightforward and its how Ned came to realise the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

.... this is a story where perception and reality is two different things.

absolutely, we should not forget how superstition is used to taint the picture of reality even further.

Is there a POV mention somewhere (somewhere else than the WIF) that Rhaegar abducted Lyanna?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arry'sFleas said:

absolutely, we should not forget how superstition is used to taint the picture of reality even further.

Is there a POV mention somewhere (somewhere else than the WIF) that Rhaegar abducted Lyanna?

Not directly. Eddard and Bran talk about rape and death. Catelyn is not clear (she tells the story of Brandon looking for Rhaegar after learning about Lyanna), Daenerys and Barristan about love. Cersei about attraction. Jamie confirms the way Brandon and Rickard died and that Rhaegar was missing during the first months of Robert's rebellion and that he "returned from the south" after the Battle of the Bells. In one of Arya's chapter Ned says that the wolf blood brought early deaths for Brandon and Lyanna. So in his mind Lyanna is not just a victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's definitely a problem of "theorizing fatigue." The books weren't supposed to take this long. The Starks, who you view as the good guys, think Lyanna was kidnapped. The plot twist is that she ran away for love. The problem is that the books are taking so long people are starting to over analyze things, coming up with more and more convoluted theories because the plot twist is so obvious at this point, we start to say "No, its too obvious. It must be something more complicated." But if the books had come out on schedule, it would have been fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Its a matter of Black yielding to gold...That's the comparison.

It's as Black Crow quoted--there's all those other bastards, all with hair black as coal.

I'm not disputing what's possible here (that Robert could have fathered non-black haired bastards), I'm arguing that this would be inconsistent storytelling on GRRM's part, and not really representative of the way he has handled revelations in any previous volume. This is not a revelation built on a foundation of foreshadowing and subtle clues, it's a revelation built upon retconning.

If GRRM were truly building toward Robert as Jon's father, by this point we'd start seeing the alternate context being constructed, even if subtly--we'd meet a couple bastards that don't have Robert's features, we'd start hearing stories of how Robert and Lyanna's relationship is deeper than presented, perhaps even a tale of time spent together before her disappearance. Something, anything to make this feel like a natural, consistent plot development.

 

18 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Yes,Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna....just as Renly(really Loras wearing Renly's armour) rode to KLanding and aided in the defeat of Stannis when he attacked.Just as all everone saw was a wench(really Cersie) sneaking into Jamie's tent when he was on the road.

Same argument as above; the reader is almost always given insight into the potential alternative contexts. The author has done nothing to craft this around Lyanna's abduction, save to give us several interpretations of Rhaegar's motives.

The reason I personally find this particular approach to theory crafting unconvincing is that, from the outset, it's built upon a logical fallacy: argument from personal incredulity. Rather than taking two competing stories and asking "but which of these is closer to the truth?," it's taking the only story we have and saying "but should we really believe this?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Black Crow said:

All those bastards, all with hair as black as night is pretty unambiguous and doesn't depend on a comparison with golden-haired ladies, because all of those Baratheons in the genealogy he was studying were "black of hair". Its simple, its straightforward and its how Ned came to realise the truth.

I disagree with this Papa Crow as I think a bit of context is needed.Ned had only one bit of info coming into this....The Lannisters killed Jon Arryn.Therefore,when he was told Jon Arryn was reading from:

'The Lineages and Histories of the Great Houses of the Seven Kingdoms,With the Descriptions of Many High Lords,Noble Ladies and their Children."

He had only one point of reference whereby to look in that book anything else would imply he knew what he was looking for.It was the one lead he had...Lannisters

"There was something here,some truth behind these yellow brittle pages."<snip>"The tome was over a century old .Scarecly,a man now alive,had yet been born when Maellon had compiled his dust lists of wedding,births and death."

Note: The book was a bit over a hundread years as Ned said there were few men living who had been born when it was written.So we have an estimated time.....Moving on

"He opened to the section on House Lannister once more,and turned the pages slowly,hoping against all hope that something would leap out at him..(Got,Ned.pg 274).

Later on when he talks to Cersie in the gods wood:

"All three are Jamie's" He said,it was not a question.

""Thank gods."

"The seed is strong, Jon Arryn had cried on his deathbed, and so it was. All those bastards, all with hair as black as night. Grand Maester Malleon recorded the last mating between stag and lion, some ninety years ago,...Their only issue, an unnamed boy described in Malleon's tome as a large and lusty lad boar with a full head of black hair. ... No matter how far back Ned searched in the brittle yellowed pages, always he found the gold yielding before the coal.”

My statement still stands.Ned wasn't looking at every Baratheon pairing in the geneaology book he was looking at the Lannister pages and within those pages ofcourse were Lannister/Baratheon pairings with their offspring.Everything is in context to the mom.It is why Gendry was asked about his mother .If it didn't matter the hair color of the mom there's no need for us to find out Gendry's mom was a blonde or that Barra's mom had light red hair .So in the end Ned comes away with the understanding that Baratheon black is dominant to a particular type.All those bastards that he knew of along with Cersie.

It's all in the context, but yeah he wasn't looking at "every" Baratheon pairing there ever was.Even in a fictionalized world that the Baratheons can only have black haird children no matter the pairing is stretching it and its not what the author said and has put forth.

Diversity abounds.We have dark haired Targ bastards,Renly himself doesn't have the Baratheon eyes his being green and Shireen got big ears of the Florent.

Jon got that unusuall and texbook Baratheon strength,which is more evident with him because he doesn't have the physique ....at all.

 

3 hours ago, Arry'sFleas said:

absolutely, we should not forget how superstition is used to taint the picture of reality even further.

Is there a POV mention somewhere (somewhere else than the WIF) that Rhaegar abducted Lyanna?

George gives us theme over and over again...From Skinchangers/greenseers to mystery knights,noble ladies concealing themselves as septons and wenches so they could meet with lovers,Arya being mistaken for a boy and going with it,people wearing other peoples standards.The Sealord's Cat....Baby Aemon as Monster.This entire story is about perception vs reality and he gives us hints that some peoples perception isn't what happened.What they see isn't the whole truth.

2 hours ago, Tucu said:

Not directly. Eddard and Bran talk about rape and death. Catelyn is not clear (she tells the story of Brandon looking for Rhaegar after learning about Lyanna), Daenerys and Barristan about love. Cersei about attraction. Jamie confirms the way Brandon and Rickard died and that Rhaegar was missing during the first months of Robert's rebellion and that he "returned from the south" after the Battle of the Bells. In one of Arya's chapter Ned says that the wolf blood brought early deaths for Brandon and Lyanna. So in his mind Lyanna is not just a victim.

That story of kidnapping and rape was probably born from the same people who told us Ned beat Arthur in single combat eventhough only Ned and Howland lived to walk away from that fight and Ned said Hoawland saved his ass.

What you said is the same thing problem that needs a better look perception vs reality? .

Rhaegar was said to have abducted Lyanna so ...Obviously there was something going on.Why else would he have taken her(if he had anything to do with her "going missing) I mean all he had to do wa play a note and women everywhere would drop their panties.And Lyanna oh she was a wild beauty and Elia was kinda sickly so who could blame him(sarcasm).

Your right about this though and i will add when Ned is speaking about wolf blood ,Arya having some of it ,how it brought Brandon and Lyanna to an early grave what does that mean.

Brandon sought to pick a fight with Rhaegar for Lyanna( don't know exactly what that entailed but to be a bit vague) ...ended up dead

Arya beat up Joff for Mycah he ended up dead

They were both fighting sooo maybe Lyanna died on account of the same thing?

1 hour ago, firepoet said:

I think there's definitely a problem of "theorizing fatigue." The books weren't supposed to take this long. The Starks, who you view as the good guys, think Lyanna was kidnapped. The plot twist is that she ran away for love. The problem is that the books are taking so long people are starting to over analyze things, coming up with more and more convoluted theories because the plot twist is so obvious at this point, we start to say "No, its too obvious. It must be something more complicated." But if the books had come out on schedule, it would have been fine.

Not fatigue...could it be that some people...I don't know had different theories from the get or they just changed their minds for what they think were better evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, firepoet said:

I think there's definitely a problem of "theorizing fatigue." The books weren't supposed to take this long. The Starks, who you view as the good guys, think Lyanna was kidnapped. The plot twist is that she ran away for love. The problem is that the books are taking so long people are starting to over analyze things, coming up with more and more convoluted theories because the plot twist is so obvious at this point, we start to say "No, its too obvious. It must be something more complicated." But if the books had come out on schedule, it would have been fine. 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

That story of kidnapping and rape was probably born from the same people who told us Ned beat Arthur in single combat eventhough only Ned and Howland lived to walk away from that fight and Ned said Hoawland saved his ass.

What you said is the same thing problem that needs a better look perception vs reality? .

Rhaegar was said to have abducted Lyanna so ...Obviously there was something going on.Why else would he have taken her(if he had anything to do with her "going missing) I mean all he had to do wa play a note and women everywhere would drop their panties.And Lyanna oh she was a wild beauty and Elia was kinda sickly so who could blame him(sarcasm).

Your right about this though and i will add when Ned is speaking about wolf blood ,Arya having some of it ,how it brought Brandon and Lyanna to an early grave what does that mean.

Brandon sought to pick a fight with Rhaegar for Lyanna( don't know exactly what that entailed but to be a bit vague) ...ended up dead

Arya beat up Joff for Mycah he ended up dead

They were both fighting sooo maybe Lyanna died on account of the same thing?

My (unfounded) theory is that Lyanna's actions as the Knight of the Laughing Tree triggered Aerys/Varys to send assasins after her. Rhaegar got word of it (probably from Varys himself) and set off to the Riverlands to stop it. Rhaegar rescued her and they ran off to Dorne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, firepoet said:

I think there's definitely a problem of "theorizing fatigue." The books weren't supposed to take this long. The Starks, who you view as the good guys, think Lyanna was kidnapped. The plot twist is that she ran away for love. The problem is that the books are taking so long people are starting to over analyze things, coming up with more and more convoluted theories because the plot twist is so obvious at this point, we start to say "No, its too obvious. It must be something more complicated." But if the books had come out on schedule, it would have been fine. 

Only up to a point. Its certainly taken too long, but the synopsis makes it clear that there is a mystery, which will be revealed in the last book.

With due regard to the fact that the book has evolved considerably since the synopsis was drafted what I still find striking is that the principal role in uniting the Kingdom to face the blue-eyed horror from the North is Danaerys the Dragonlord, while the resolution of Jon's parentage at last allows him to get inside Arya's [or is it now Sansa's?] knickers.

It seems a long way removed from the now near institutionalised Jon Targaryen assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

It's as Black Crow quoted--there's all those other bastards, all with hair black as coal.

I'm not disputing what's possible here (that Robert could have fathered non-black haired bastards), I'm arguing that this would be inconsistent storytelling on GRRM's part, and not really representative of the way he has handled revelations in any previous volume. This is not a revelation built on a foundation of foreshadowing and subtle clues, it's a revelation built upon retconning.

If GRRM were truly building toward Robert as Jon's father, by this point we'd start seeing the alternate context being constructed, even if subtly--we'd meet a couple bastards that don't have Robert's features, we'd start hearing stories of how Robert and Lyanna's relationship is deeper than presented, perhaps even a tale of time spent together before her disappearance. Something, anything to make this feel like a natural, consistent plot development.

 

Same argument as above; the reader is almost always given insight into the potential alternative contexts. The author has done nothing to craft this around Lyanna's abduction, save to give us several interpretations of Rhaegar's motives.

The reason I personally find this particular approach to theory crafting unconvincing is that, from the outset, it's built upon a logical fallacy: argument from personal incredulity. Rather than taking two competing stories and asking "but which of these is closer to the truth?," it's taking the only story we have and saying "but should we really believe this?"

I agree that alternate contexts are being constructed, but there are still many that do not recognize what seems obvious to me that there is a wheel of time or continual time loop where there is a repeated pattern of events that get played out generation after generation after generation. That is why there are so many parallels and echoes between characters, especially among the same family. The Targaryens are the most pronounced, but there are others. The current generation also has similiar parallel characters, but inverted. IMO this indicates that the wheel of time or time loop has recently begun moving in reverse and we're seeing opposite outcomes. The alternate context is there, but whether or not you or anyone else chooses to believe it is your own, albet stubborn decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

It's as Black Crow quoted--there's all those other bastards, all with hair black as coal.

I'm not disputing what's possible here (that Robert could have fathered non-black haired bastards), I'm arguing that this would be inconsistent storytelling on GRRM's part, and not really representative of the way he has handled revelations in any previous volume. This is not a revelation built on a foundation of foreshadowing and subtle clues, it's a revelation built upon retconning.

If GRRM were truly building toward Robert as Jon's father, by this point we'd start seeing the alternate context being constructed, even if subtly--we'd meet a couple bastards that don't have Robert's features, we'd start hearing stories of how Robert and Lyanna's relationship is deeper than presented, perhaps even a tale of time spent together before her disappearance. Something, anything to make this feel like a natural, consistent plot development.

 

Same argument as above; the reader is almost always given insight into the potential alternative contexts. The author has done nothing to craft this around Lyanna's abduction, save to give us several interpretations of Rhaegar's motives.

The reason I personally find this particular approach to theory crafting unconvincing is that, from the outset, it's built upon a logical fallacy: argument from personal incredulity. Rather than taking two competing stories and asking "but which of these is closer to the truth?," it's taking the only story we have and saying "but should we really believe this?"

Exactly so. There is consistency and there is context. What's more there's no point. Where is a putative Jon Baratheon going to go?

We have two viable options. There's the far-too obvious one that his father was Rhaegar Targaryen and that he is the lost heir to the Targaryen throne - which given that there have been no Targaryens on the throne for a very long time and in any case Danaerys the Dragonlord is coming up hand over fist seems a bit pointless. Making due allowance for the story being stretched too long in the telling its also far too obvious and to anybody looking its hardly worth calling it a mystery. The other alternative is Ser Arthur Dayne and with him Dawn, an old sword belonging to a Westerosi family far older than the parvenu Targaryens, which seems altogether more likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

It's as Black Crow quoted--there's all those other bastards, all with hair black as coal.

I'm not disputing what's possible here (that Robert could have fathered non-black haired bastards), I'm arguing that this would be inconsistent storytelling on GRRM's part, and not really representative of the way he has handled revelations in any previous volume. This is not a revelation built on a foundation of foreshadowing and subtle clues, it's a revelation built upon retconning.

If GRRM were truly building toward Robert as Jon's father, by this point we'd start seeing the alternate context being constructed, even if subtly--we'd meet a couple bastards that don't have Robert's features, we'd start hearing stories of how Robert and Lyanna's relationship is deeper than presented, perhaps even a tale of time spent together before her disappearance. Something, anything to make this feel like a natural, consistent plot development.

 

Same argument as above; the reader is almost always given insight into the potential alternative contexts. The author has done nothing to craft this around Lyanna's abduction, save to give us several interpretations of Rhaegar's motives.

The reason I personally find this particular approach to theory crafting unconvincing is that, from the outset, it's built upon a logical fallacy: argument from personal incredulity. Rather than taking two competing stories and asking "but which of these is closer to the truth?," it's taking the only story we have and saying "but should we really believe this?"

See post to Black Crow...That statement is context specific....

 

As to the other we would have to agree to disagree because that to is a matter of different interpretations,what one pecieves as clues and in general what we each think GRRM has done.We will have to see.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as for the argument that R+L=J isn't obvious and is only widely figured out because of the unanticipated internet - nonsense.

The real issue is not whether people wouldn't otherwise figure out R+L=J but whether they realise there is a mystery at all. Most readers appear oblivious to that, but when they do start looking at it - assuming they haven't just read it on the internet - then it's easy, far too easy to come up with R+L=J.

How many people have actually said, hey, I have my doubts about who Jon's father really was, but for the life of me I can't figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Exactly so. There is consistency and there is context. What's more there's no point. Where is a putative Jon Baratheon going to go?

We have two viable options. There's the far-too obvious one that his father was Rhaegar Targaryen and that he is the lost heir to the Targaryen throne - which given that there have been no Targaryens on the throne for a very long time and in any case Danaerys the Dragonlord is coming up hand over fist seems a bit pointless. Making due allowance for the story being stretched too long in the telling its also far too obvious and to anybody looking its hardly worth calling it a mystery. The other alternative is Ser Arthur Dayne and with him Dawn, an old sword belonging to a Westerosi family far older than the parvenu Targaryens, which seems altogether more likely.

Black Crow really? The same place that Jon Targ, and Jon Dayne are going to go....Nowhere...He is a Snow that's who he is.

Jon Dayne is viable how? Where is Dayne and Lyanna in this narrative?

Hell we have a Rhaegar and Lyanna( whatever that is)

A Robert and a Lyanna (whatever that is)

But where in this story is there a Arthur Dayne and Lyanna?

But Jon's point as Robert's son the former Horned God and archetype that flows from Rober to Jon like liquid in a straw  ...The only lineage in this story said to decend from "gods", is to end up on a throne attached to some Weirwoods.

That's where Jon as Robert son  is going. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole realm believes the Rebellion started with Lyanna's abduction by Rhaegar, and it's widely known that the honorable Ned Stark has a bastard son called Jon. This makes the jump to R+L=J a very short one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

And as for the argument that R+L=J isn't obvious and is only widely figured out because of the unanticipated internet - nonsense.

The real issue is not whether people wouldn't otherwise figure out R+L=J but whether they realise there is a mystery at all. Most readers appear oblivious to that, but when they do start looking at it - assuming they haven't just read it on the internet - then it's easy, far too easy to come up with R+L=J.

How many people have actually said, hey, I have my doubts about who Jon's father really was, but for the life of me I can't figure it out.

I'm with firepoet here, for essentially the same reasons I was just arguing against Lyanna not running off with (being abducted by) Rhaegar--the context for Arthur and Lyanna doesn't exist in the text, with five books already published. If we were to reduce it to "motive and opportunity," the only thing that AD has in his favor is potential opportunity.

To use the above arguments I've made, if GRRM were really setting this up, by this time you'd expect to see some foreshadowing, particularly from Jaime or Barristan's memories of Arthur Dayne. Memories that suggest Arthur Dayne might have occasionally regretted his vows, memories of AD as a lonely man, subtle references to Arthur Dayne loving a woman, or forbidden love. None of the build up is there. The only context for AD that's being subverted is the idea that being the "ideal Kingsguard" is actually an admirable quality, as opposed to AD himself being a less than perfect knight.
___________

By declaring something "too obvious" we are essentially acknowledging that something fits too well with the information that we have. Too obvious is a roundabout way of saying that something is too logical, too consistent, and that because this is GRRM we should be suspicious of something that makes too much sense.

To arrive at the "too obvious" conclusion of Rhaegar, one must first conclude that Jon's Stark parent was actually Lyanna. Once you figure out who his mother is, everything else clicks into place.

I think that's exactly how GRRM intended the mystery to be framed, if things had gone according to plan; the reader would spend most of the story wondering who Eddard slept with (if they ponder the mystery at all, which I did not on my first read through), and miss the retrospectively "obvious" clues pointing to Lyanna. It's a perfectly fine mystery, rendered mundane by Internet over-discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

And as for the argument that R+L=J isn't obvious and is only widely figured out because of the unanticipated internet - nonsense.

The real issue is not whether people wouldn't otherwise figure out R+L=J but whether they realise there is a mystery at all. Most readers appear oblivious to that, but when they do start looking at it - assuming they haven't just read it on the internet - then it's easy, far too easy to come up with R+L=J.

How many people have actually said, hey, I have my doubts about who Jon's father really was, but for the life of me I can't figure it out.

I think GRRM intended some of the smartest, most thoughtful readers to figure out who Jon's father was halfway through the first book, and to make it obvious towards the end of the series for anyone who hadn't figured it out, with the majority of readers having an ah-ha moment somewhere in between.

I agree we are over analyzing, but isn't that the whole point of heresy?  I think Jon's father has been discussed to the point nothing can be said that hasn't been yet, but there are other important clues to other questions in the books that we haven't found yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

I'm with firepoet here, for essentially the same reasons I was just arguing against Lyanna not running off with (being abducted by) Rhaegar--the context for Arthur and Lyanna doesn't exist in the text, with five books already published. If we were to reduce it to "motive and opportunity," the only thing that AD has in his favor is potential opportunity.

To use the above arguments I've made, if GRRM were really setting this up, by this time you'd expect to see some foreshadowing, particularly from Jaime or Barristan's memories of Arthur Dayne. Memories that suggest Arthur Dayne might have occasionally regretted his vows, memories of AD as a lonely man, subtle references to Arthur Dayne loving a woman, or forbidden love. None of the build up is there. The only context for AD that's being subverted is the idea that being the "ideal Kingsguard" is actually an admirable quality, as opposed to AD himself being a less than perfect knight.
___________

By declaring something "too obvious" we are essentially acknowledging that something fits too well with the information that we have. Too obvious is a roundabout way of saying that something is too logical, too consistent, and that because this is GRRM we should be suspicious of something that makes too much sense.

To arrive at the "too obvious" conclusion of Rhaegar, one must first conclude that Jon's Stark parent was actually Lyanna. Once you figure out who his mother is, everything else clicks into place.

I think that's exactly how GRRM intended the mystery to be framed, if things had gone according to plan; the reader would spend most of the story wondering who Eddard slept with (if they ponder the mystery at all, which I did not on my first read through), and miss the retrospectively "obvious" clues pointing to Lyanna. It's a perfectly fine mystery, rendered mundane by Internet over-discussion.

I agree for whatever that is there's context for Rhaegar and Lyanna.He kidnapped her/ran off with her.They go together in peoples mind in someway.Even in Dany's mind.

For whatever reason that is  there is context for Robert and Lyanna.They were bethrothed for a long time.They go together in peoples mind.Even in Jon's mind.

There is no such context for an Arthur and Lyanna .Though i think Arthur did something that earned Ned's admiration.

You know why Rhaegar and Lyanna is obvious? Its been done before several different ways from fairy tales,to Disney reinvention of fairy tales,to Grimm tales.To stories in tiny Inuit villages and African plains.

You know why this clicks for a lot of us early on, or initially because of those stories above.The fairy tales,and romantic tales of courtly romance very common in medeval times and brought to life via the stories that a lot of us  were told as children.One doesn't need anything else beside 

Prince kidnaps girl,girl dies,girl's brother comes home with bastard boy he claims is his.Obviously,its the dashing handsome prince,or the Sherrif of Notthingham in the late 90's recreation of " Robin hood" only he was thrawrted from imprenating her...ah shucks.He was close though.

This is not a mystery, how ever one may have believed it happen and Lyanna's culpability in all this.

This is not a mystery it never was.Its a common story told hundreds of times.

 

With the info we have gotten,i'll stick to Robert being Jon's father for now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRRM has chosen to write his alternate context in the form of symbolic inversions, and we are clued in as readers by taking notice of the multiple parallels and echoes that many readers have noticed scattered throughout the text. If you do not believe that he has written the alternate context in this manner, then you will have a hard time believing what I keep trying to place in front of you.

The closest Rhaegar ever came to Lyanna was at the Harrenhal tourney. After that he was "down south" when her abduction occurred. Robert Baratheon and Arthur Dayne at least were in contact with Lyanna during the time she went missing, so if she ever gave birth to a child either of them is more plausible as fathers than Rhaegar is. Yes, I agree GRRM continually stressed that Robert's bastards all seemed to have black hair, but I also agree that it doesn't mean conclusively that he couldn't father a child with different colored hair.

I'd like to offer one of the inversion passages that suggests Arthur was somehow responsible for Lyanna's fate in some way. In The Queenmaker chapter we have Arthur's mirrored inversion Darkstar talking to Arianne Martell:

Darkstar gets Arianne’s attention by calling her Princess. He stood behind her, half in starlight and half in shadow.

“How was your piss?” she asks. 

“The sands were duly grateful.” Dayne put a foot upon the head of a statue of the Maiden who’s likeness had been scoured away by the sands. “It occurred to me as I was pissing that this plan of yours may not yield you what you want.

 

Lets pause and contemplate that Dayne had his foot upon the head of the maiden. GRRM is using just the last name, “Dayne” so I believe he is telling us that he is pointing his finger directly at Arthur here. The interpretation is open, but I believe that whatever Darkstar is doing, Arthur would have done the opposite or had the opposite outcome.

The statue head is meant to evoke a human skull. The most common symbolic use of the skull is a representation of death and mortality. Our author is telling us that Arthur is to blame for Lyanna’s death. Even more telling is the use of the foot on the skull. Our feet have direct contact with mother earth, and a foot inside a shoe is a euphemism for the genitals with the foot representing the penis and the shoe the vulva. Is this symbolic evidence that Dayne is Arthur and that he is the father of Lyanna’s child?

What is the symbolism of Darkstar being "half starlight half shadow"? Symbolically when he left the campfire he mirrored Ser Hightower, and when he came back he was Dayne. This fits with the two groups that came in contact with the Kingswood Brotherhood. Elia's group that was attacked where Hightower was injured, and the detachment that Arthur led. Our author is further expanding the symbolic change here. We are changing from Hightower to Dayne, Dayne to Lemoncloak. Arthur Dayne was the Sword of the Morning; that is where the lightness comes from, but this half shadow is his white cloak of the Kingsguard turning piss yellow. Now we understand that this is an imperfect man, and that even the noblest knights can become soiled.

“Piss” and “pissing” is brought up repeatedly in this chapter, and the very word makes me think of “pissing match”, which is a phrase that refers to fighting. “Piss” is also yellow, and like I’ve already concluded I believe this is symbolic for Lem Lemoncloak. We are looking for evidence of cowardice or for turning his cloak. And then there’s also this passage of Tansy to Lem:

Lem, is that you? Still wearing that same ratty cloak, are you? I know why you never wash it, I do. You're afraid all the piss will wash out and we'll see you're really a knight o' the Kingguard!”

I think this is our author telling us that Lem Lemoncloak is Arthur Dayne. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2016 at 6:32 PM, Brad Stark said:

" a woman heavy with child emerged naked and dripping from the black pool, knelt before the tree, and begged the old gods for a son who would avenge her"

Any idea who this is?  If " the young knight as tall as Hodor" is Duncan, and the visions are reverse chronological, and the child would have been born between 200AC-260AC.  A lot of people assume the baby is a Stark - we don't know that, it could be a commoner or a girl or stillborn.

We don't know exactly why the pregnant women wanted a son, but it is unlikely she already had another - also she doesn't want her husband to avenge her, so it is likely he's dead (unless he is who she wants vengeance against).  So we are looking for a boy only child or older sisters.

Rickard (as well as his father Edwyle) is an only child.  I can't find any other Starks who fit.  If this is him, could his "Southron Ambitions" be his way of getting vengeance?  The marriages between great houses were the idea of his maester, so if there is a plot, it is likely his.

I'll bump this post by Bran Stark because it could have gone somehwere.

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...