Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 3

[JNR]

1 hour ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

This is not a peasant's son being born - this is the birth of Aegon VI Targaryen, son of Crown Prince Rhaegar Targaryen and Princess Elia Martell

Yep.

Which is exactly why it's so hilarious seeing people seriously suggest that GRRM... after writing three novels about Westeros, for half a decade, and planning it for years longer that that... somehow didn't know when Aegon was born, when asked, in 1999.  And so he got it wrong!

Not just that, but the World book got it right, despite being written not by GRRM, but instead by a maester GRRM imagined and subsequently warned us in interviews was unreliable.

I should also point out that if this same maester happened to be grossly... misleading... on that subject, it would clear up a number of related oddities.

For instance, the World book suggests Rhaegar rode out on a long road trip in the middle of the worst winter of his lifetime.  Uh huh.  Quite a curious scenario that would have been, if he had died in the Trident of pneumonia with the name of his family doctor on his lips.

The World book suggests that the false spring occupied only two turns.  Thus it came to pass that... in only two turns... the weather warmed up, the maesters were fooled and announced it was spring, Lord Whent decided to hold a tourney, all the logistics related to the tourney were arranged, invitiations were sent, the great lords of Westeros received their invitations, they traveled lickety-split across a great continent, and the tourney itself lasted a week.  All that in only two turns.

And, of course, the World book tells us that Elia... poor fragile Elia... must necessarily have been heavily pregnant at Harrenhal.  Seven months pregnant or so, she nevertheless trekked out to Harrenhal to take in the sights, and subsequently was never remembered as having been notably bun-in-oven by anyone in canon.

Or... instead of believing all that ludicrous crap... we can believe that the World book shouldn't be taken as gospel, as GRRM told us outright, and that it rearranges certain events.

[Kingmonkey]

5 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

So, Robert won't change his bed hopping ways just because of love. That's the problem.

So, if Rhaegar is willing to leave his wife and kids or set them aside for love, he's thus a man who is willing to do that.

And would be willing to do again later if he loved another after Lyanna--love would not change his "wife-leaving" nature, either. At least according to Lyanna's reasoning.

This pretty much covers the difference between the two sides of this argument. The reading of those who see a problem with this statement of Lyanna's for Rhaegar makes the assumption that by leaving Elia, Rhaegar is displaying the same nature as Robert.

Is it Robert's nature to sleep around? Yes. We can surely all agree on that.

Is it Rhaegar's nature to leave his wife? That's where things get slippery. Robert was alive long enough to father 16 bastards, while Rhaegar really only had time to leave his wife once. Would he have been a serial wife-leaver, the way Robert was a serial adulterer? That is, after all, what a "wife-leaving nature" would imply.

We have a single possible example of Rhaegar leaving his wife. A single act does not a nature make. To be clear on this, by no stretch of the imagination are all divorcees serial adulterers. Yet that is the logical extension of the assumption being made here. 

People can do things that are against their nature, in the right circumstances. Indeed, we're given a very specific indicator of this in relation to Rhaegar. We are told that his nature was bookish, not martial -- yet when he decided it was necessary for him to become a warrior, he dedicated himself to it and became a good one. Does that make his nature martial? Nope. Rhaegar loved his harp more than he loved his lance. He appears not to have been that enthusiastic about entering tournaments, yet he appears to have chosen to do so at Harrenhal, so that he could crown Lyanna. Perhaps similarly it was not in his nature to leave his wife, but he chose to do so, so that he could sleep with Lyanna?

So what do we know of Rhaegar's nature? 

We are told that when he was younger, people jokingly called him Baelor the Blessed reborn. This does not suggest that his nature was to sleep around.

We are given a direct comparison between Robert and Rhaegar, by Ned. Robert, we know, visited brothels. This shouldn't be a surprise, as it is very much a part of his nature. The very same nature that Lyanna complained about. In the same chapter that we hear of Lyanna's complaint, we learn that Rhaegar was not the kind of man who frequented brothels. It was not in his nature. 

5 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

If that's her reasoning, it doesn't matter what she thinks of Elia or her children. Just that "what a man has done before he'll do again. No matter how much he loves you."

That's not what she says at all though. What she says is that "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man's nature." Nowhere does she say that a single act proves a man's nature. She gives the fact that Robert had a child in the vale as an example, but her response to Ned, when he tries to comfort her that Robert will change is not that what someone has done once they will do again, but that if it is someone's nature to do that, they will continue to do that. 

To apply Lyanna's complaint about Robert to Rhaegar, it would have to be the case that Lyanna would have seen Rhaegar having the same nature as Robert. While we have been given nothing of Lyanna's opinions about Rhaegar, everything we are told about Rhaegar suggests that he does not have the same nature. Thus all evidence we have points to this statement not being relevant to Rhaegar. 

To put this simply:

Lyanna objects that Robert's nature will not change -- thus her problem is with Robert's nature. Rhaegar does not have Robert's nature. Thus her objection has no bearing on her attitude to Rhaegar. 

[nanother]

On 2016. 09. 18. at 0:21 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Little Scribe as we are on the topic,common sense tells anyone whose reading this that Dany's vision in THOTU puts Rhaegar with Aegon and Elia together at the time he was suppose to be out kidnapping or running off with Lyanna Stark.Or are we going to ignore the SSM about Aegon's age .Basically Yandel or whichever  Maester did a little fabrication on this in order to make Rhaegar the culprit.We don't even have to try and BS how long it takes a person from point A to B in a vicious winter.Rhaegar  per that vision was with Aegon and Elia at the time.

First, whatever Martin had in mind back then, now it seems extremely unlikely that Yandel would try to put Aegon's birth half a year/almost a year before it actually happened. I'm sure he's tailoring details to suit the current regime, and obscures what needs to be obscured, but the birth of a Royal Prince is something that there would be plenty of records of, and a lot of people would still remember. Chancing such an obvious lie for no obvious gain just doesn't make sense. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Ran saying that the False Spring stuff was written by Martin himself, so he likely thought it through before writing something like that down. Therefore I think if Aegon's exact time of birth is ever revealed, it'll be closer to what Yandel implies (however vaguely) than what follows from the SSM. That said, I do wonder why he's so vague and why no-one mentions Elia being pregnant at HH.

Second, it's indeed remarkable that he'd say that, especially in conjunction with the HotU vision. Of course, there's a chance that he made a mistake and never made the connection between Aegon being about a year old and the Sack being a year or so into the war (and that he appears to have changed his mind points towards this), but what if he knew what he was talking about? It'd mean Aegon was born about the same time the war started, or slightly before.  At the earliest, it'd be around the time, or very soon after Lyanna's kidnapping, at the latest a few months after. In this scenario, if he kidnapped Lyanna at all, he would have done so before he learned that Elia couldn't bear more children, and before the Aegon=PtwP stuff.

Had Martin been at all aware of this implication without it raising a mental alarm, that'd make it unlikely that he had prophecy or elopement in mind as Rhaegar's main motivation. Mind you, we also know that Rhaegar did go missing at some point, as he 'could not be found' by the time Aerys realised Robert was a serious threat, so there's still an opportunity for them to possibly spend time together, but I'm doubtful about Lyanna's openness to a relationship at that point. So even with the apparent change of mind, I'd consider this SSM (weak, due to the amount of speculation involved) evidence against RLJ, especially against the 'prophecy' and 'love at first sight' brands.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

22 minutes ago, JNR said:

Yep.

Which is exactly why it's so hilarious seeing people seriously suggest that GRRM... after writing three novels about Westeros, for half a decade, and planning it for years longer that that... somehow didn't know when Aegon was born, when asked, in 1999.  And so he got it wrong!

Not just that, but the World book got it right, despite being written not by GRRM, but instead by a maester GRRM imagined and subsequently warned us in interviews was unreliable.

I should also point out that if this same maester happened to be grossly... misleading... on that subject, it would clear up a number of related oddities.

For instance, the World book suggests Rhaegar rode out on a long road trip in the middle of the worst winter of his lifetime.  Uh huh.  Quite a curious scenario that would have been, if he had died in the Trident of pneumonia with the name of his family doctor on his lips.

The World book suggests that the false spring occupied only two turns.  Thus it came to pass that... in only two turns... the weather warmed up, the maesters were fooled and announced it was spring, Lord Whent decided to hold a tourney, all the logistics related to the tourney were arranged, invitiations were sent, the great lords of Westeros received their invitations, they traveled lickety-split across a great continent, and the tourney itself lasted a week.  All that in only two turns.

And, of course, the World book tells us that Elia... poor fragile Elia... must necessarily have been heavily pregnant at Harrenhal.  Seven months pregnant or so, she nevertheless trekked out to Harrenhal to take in the sights, and subsequently was never remembered as having been notably bun-in-oven by anyone in canon.

Or... instead of believing all that ludicrous crap... we can believe that the World book shouldn't be taken as gospel, as GRRM told us outright, and that it rearranges certain events.

Sure.

Could you lay out a logical scenario which explains how such important events (and that too not one, multiple ones) could have been fudged and kept secret from literally every person in Westeros, including guys like Varys the Spider? I'm willing to buy the argument in that case.

Such as: The WB tells us Elia killed herself. The books contradict that. Do you have similar evidence for the rest of the events you've stated? 

Alternatively, could you give us, from the Doylist perspective, a plausible reason why Martin could have deliberately done this? 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

On the pregnancy of Elia:

It is almost certain that Elia was pregnant at Harrenhal, but the tourney could have been held in the middle of the year: so she possibly might not have been showing, probably being around 3 months along.

On the topic of Rhaegar riding out in Winter:

The entire war of RR was fought in winter if I am not wrong, making it necessary for armies to move around, so unless @JNR is suggesting that the whole RR itself was fabricated, Rhaegar riding out in winter is not really an oddity.

 

[Kingmonkey]

On Aegon's age, let's all keep in mind that...

GRRM + numbers = nope nope nope

Any attempt to draw firm conclusions from a precise timeline of the events of Robert's Rebellion is fundamentally doomed, because there is no such beast. There are inconsistencies in what GRRM has written that cannot, and should not, be forced to make sense. 

Aegon was around a year old or so at the sack, because that's the image GRRM had in his head. Regardless of that fact, Aegon was born around a year and a half before the sack, because GRRM.

 

"The reason I am never specific about dates and distances is precisely so that people won't sit down and do this sort of thing." --GRRM

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

49 minutes ago, Kingmonkey said:

We have a single possible example of Rhaegar leaving his wife. A single act does not a nature make. To be clear on this, by no stretch of the imagination are all divorcees serial adulterers. Yet that is the logical extension of the assumption being made here. 

Uh... but no one's suggested Rhaegar was divorcing Elia.  Or are you suggesting that? Seems like that would change the scenario a bit, no?

Otherwise... are you arguing that it was Rhaegar's nature to be unfaithful to his wife?

Quote

 So what do we know of Rhaegar's nature?

"Able. That above all. Determined, deliberate, dutiful, single-minded..."

That is what Rhaegar was "really like," according to Ser B.S.

Quote

We are told that when he was younger, people jokingly called him Baelor the Blessed reborn. This does not suggest that his nature was to sleep around.

But it may suggest that he was gay, depending on how you read Baelor's (and Rhaegar's) story.

Quote

To apply Lyanna's complaint about Robert to Rhaegar, it would have to be the case that Lyanna would have seen Rhaegar having the same nature as Robert.

What is the logic behind this?  

Lyanna says: 

“Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man’s nature.”

She does NOT say:

“Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change Robert's nature.”

So what is it about Lyanna's statement, or reasoning, that makes it applicable only to Robert?

[nanother]

6 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

But Lyanna isn't idealizing herself. Or assessing her own faithfulness. She's assessing men. Men in general. And what to trust and not to trust. And she's certain, no matter how much Ned and Robert are close as brothers and Roberts'a a good guy and all of that and no matter how much he loves her--Lyanna's certain "love won't change a man's nature." A certainty she applies to all men.

Robert's nature is quite thoroughly depicted. We know what his womanising says about it, and so does Lyanna. We don't know enough about Rhaegar's nature, only that he's supposedly willing to leave a woman he has kids with but does not love. For sure, guy leaving family behind is NOT a good sign, and if he does it with someone he's 'fond of', he MIGHT do it with someone he loves, so I'd expect Lyanna to think twice about getting involved with him but there's enough of a difference between that and the certainty of 'never keeping to one bed' that I can accept her going along with it. We don't know a whole lot about her either, after all. Also, if she fell in love with him against her better judgement, then that vs being mostly indifferent towards Robert would make a massive difference in how acceptable their 'nature' is.

6 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Add in the roses which Martin has repeatedly, symbolically told us were an insult from the start, the idea that Lyanna ran off for love, or that she would have forgotten the assessment she gave Ned when caught up with the son of the king who killed her father and brother is. . . very hard to fathom.

If she took repeated massive blows to the head? Maybe.

But Martin gave us Lyanna's assessment on men and their love for a reason. Seems like we should pay attention.

I asked this in the previous thread, but it probably got lost in the heat of the conversation: if blue roses are associated with spite, but also intrigue/deception, then what does it say about Lyanna's character that she loves the smell of them? Is she a player? Did she get caught up in a sweet deception? Something else?

[The Ned's Little Girl]

35 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Lyanna says: 

 

 

She does NOT say:

 

So what is it about Lyanna's statement, or reasoning, that makes it applicable only to Robert?

She also didn't say: "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change man's nature" ("man's" in the sense of humankind), nor did she say, "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change men's nature" ("men's" in the sense of all of the male gender). 

She said: "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man's nature." Use of the singular form seems to me that she is talking about one particular man. The nature of that man is indicated by the possessive form, i.e. The nature that belongs to this one man cannot be changed by love.

Just before the "love is sweet" quote, she said, "Robert will never keep to one bed." Since Lyanna just referenced Robert in her previous sentence, it makes sense that she means Robert when she says "a man".

 

[Kingmonkey]

25 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Uh... but no one's suggested Rhaegar was divorcing Elia.  Or are you suggesting that? Seems like that would change the scenario a bit, no?

It's the logical conclusion of what is being claimed. If Rhaegar left Elia to sleep with Lyanna, then it does not follow that he is a serial adulterer because of that, any more than it holds that every divorcee is necessarily a serial adulterer. 

25 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Otherwise... are you arguing that it was Rhaegar's nature to be unfaithful to his wife?

Uh? "A single act does not a nature make."

25 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

"Able. That above all. Determined, deliberate, dutiful, single-minded..."

That is what Rhaegar was "really like," according to Ser B.S.

"Dutiful" doesn't sound like someone who sleeps around for jollies and is a "wife-leaver" by nature.

There's also the whole not the kind of man who would frequent brothels thing.

We know he was highly respected, and temperamentally unlike his father (who, incidentally, slept around).

Oh, and we know he was ahem "fond" of his wife.

25 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

But it may suggest that he was gay, depending on how you read Baelor's (and Rhaegar's) story.

I think that's pretty unlikely. "As a young boy, the Prince of Dragonstone was bookish to a fault. He was reading so early that men said Queen Rhaella must have swallowed some books and a candle whilst he was in her womb. Rhaegar took no interest in the play of other children. The maesters were awed by his wits, but his father's knights would jest sourly that Baelor the Blessed had been born again. Until one day Prince Rhaegar found something in his scrolls that changed him. " The joke was being made about a young boy who preferred books to playing with the other children; that's not really the context for hinting he was gay.

Which is not to say that Rhaegar might not have been gay, though poor old Jon Connington seems to have found little to suggest that he had been.

25 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

So what is it about Lyanna's statement, or reasoning, that makes it applicable only to Robert?

I didn't say that the statement is applicable only to Robert. It would be equally applicable to all men with that same nature. However as Rhaegar does not have that nature, it really isn't relevant to question whether love would change it in his case.

For Lyanna to be happy with Robert, she implies, it would be necessary for his nature to change. However love does not change a man's nature. Love would not change Rhaegar's nature either, but Rhaegar's nature is not the same as Robert's nature. In fact it's rather obviously drawn as a contrast. So why should we assume that Lyanna could not be happy with Rhaegar unless his nature changed?

It's already different.

 

 

[Wall Flower]

8 minutes ago, Kingmonkey said:

It's the logical conclusion of what is being claimed. If Rhaegar left Elia to sleep with Lyanna, then it does not follow that he is a serial adulterer because of that, any more than it holds that every divorcee is necessarily a serial adulterer. 

Uh? "A single act does not a nature make."

"Dutiful" doesn't sound like someone who sleeps around for jollies and is a "wife-leaver" by nature.

There's also the whole not the kind of man who would frequent brothels thing.

We know he was highly respected, and temperamentally unlike his father (who, incidentally, slept around).

Oh, and we know he was ahem "fond" of his wife.

I think that's pretty unlikely. "As a young boy, the Prince of Dragonstone was bookish to a fault. He was reading so early that men said Queen Rhaella must have swallowed some books and a candle whilst he was in her womb. Rhaegar took no interest in the play of other children. The maesters were awed by his wits, but his father's knights would jest sourly that Baelor the Blessed had been born again. Until one day Prince Rhaegar found something in his scrolls that changed him. " The joke was being made about a young boy who preferred books to playing with the other children; that's not really the context for hinting he was gay.

Which is not to say that Rhaegar might not have been gay, though poor old Jon Connington seems to have found little to suggest that he had been.

I didn't say that the statement is applicable only to Robert. It would be equally applicable to all men with that same nature. However as Rhaegar does not have that nature, it really isn't relevant to question whether love would change it in his case.

For Lyanna to be happy with Robert, she implies, it would be necessary for his nature to change. However love does not change a man's nature. Love would not change Rhaegar's nature either, but Rhaegar's nature is not the same as Robert's nature. In fact it's rather obviously drawn as a contrast. So why should we assume that Lyanna could not be happy with Rhaegar unless his nature changed?

It's already different.

 

 

I don't think even Baelor the Blessed was gay, otherwise he wouldn't have had to lock his sisters up out of temptation's way. Unlike Baelor, Rhaegar certainly consummated his marriage and fathered two children in quick succession. He just doesn't seem a man who was casual about anything, including sex. Maybe unfair of me but I tend to think that for Rhaegar to be unfaithful to his wife it would have needed to be true love or the end of the world; while for Robert it would have required a few too many wines and nice pair of tits.

I think that Rhaegar and Lyanna being Jon's parents makes the most sense of the textual evidence that we have to date. The hows and whys of that relationship are a mystery yet to be solved. However, that mystery doesn't equate to Robert being the father when there are wheelhouse sized plot holes in the Robert and Lyanna equals Jon theory. Jon having to be significantly older than he is presented as being is just one of those plot holes.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

On Aegon's age, let's all keep in mind that...

GRRM + numbers = nope nope nope

Any attempt to draw firm conclusions from a precise timeline of the events of Robert's Rebellion is fundamentally doomed, because there is no such beast. There are inconsistencies in what GRRM has written that cannot, and should not, be forced to make sense. 

Aegon was around a year old or so at the sack, because that's the image GRRM had in his head. Regardless of that fact, Aegon was born around a year and a half before the sack, because GRRM.

 

"The reason I am never specific about dates and distances is precisely so that people won't sit down and do this sort of thing." --GRRM

There is a difference between distances and the time it takes to cover them in the real world, which George is at times terrible at, and the sequencing of his story. The entire Meereenese knot was his need to make sure all the details and sequencing of his story fit. All evidence is that he takes great care with this aspect of his novels. And I've no doubt somewhere Martin has a file on each character with name days, hair and eye color, etc. all fleshed out. That doesn't mean he doesn't make a mistake or two. Renly's changing eye color is an example. However, I see no reason to think Aegon's birth falls in this category. Because he changes something from his comments in an interview to the written page is something to be expected from time to time. It's our job to then figure out why it was changed, or if the change is just a mistake like Renly's eyes.

Having spent a lot of time figuring out name days, there is just one rule I would suggest for anyone looking into this for any character: Never Trust Ned! 

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

11 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

She said: "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man's nature." Use of the singular form seems to me that she is talking about one particular man.

I agree that she's not speaking of mankind, or of men in the plural.  I disagree that the statement refers only and specifically to Robert, or to Robert's particular nature. 

This is a general comment by Lyanna, who uses an indefinite article ("a", rather than "the") because it does not particularly matter which man is plugged into the statement. It applies to Robert, yes. It also applies to Rhaegar. It also applies to Rickard Stark, who surely loves his daughter, but promises her hand to the young Baratheon lord anyway.  The point is simply that while love is sweet, it would be foolish to expect love to change any man.

13 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

The reading of those who see a problem with this statement of Lyanna's for Rhaegar makes the assumption that by leaving Elia, Rhaegar is displaying the same nature as Robert.

I disagree with this, KM - and I find it confusing, because I'm not clear who was suggesting that Rhaegar left Elia. Possibly I missed a comment upthread - but isn't it commonly accepted that Rhaegar remains married to Elia?  We've certainly never heard anything about that marriage ending in the text...

Regardless... Lyanna's statement can be applied to Rhaegar without having to assume that Rhaegar and Robert display the same nature.  The only assumption one needs make is that Rhaegar's own nature - already well-displayed - does not comport with the behavior of a man who would run off with, and bed, another man's betrothed.  

10 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

"Dutiful" doesn't sound like someone who sleeps around for jollies and is a "wife-leaver" by nature.

"Dutiful" doesn't sound like someone who'd leave his wife at all. For jollies or any other reason. 

[wolfmaid7]

Place holder for later.

[Sly Wren]

18 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I never said to ignore it. In fact, it seems to me like it absolutely must be taken into account if one wants to argue that Lyanna is a hypocrite. Wouldn't you agree? That said, I'm really not looking to make that argument beyond pointing out that it's possible.

You're right. I was sloppy in how I phrased that and apologize.

And Lyanna could be a hypocrite. But so far, given the parallels to Arya, seems like theres's a good chance she said and did what she thought. Rather like Arya. 

And I'm still not sure why Martin would actually give us words from Lyanna's mouth on the subject only to have it be hypocrisy. Ned calls her wolf-blooded, not hypocritical. 

But yes--in unfinished books, you are right: it's possible.

18 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Why does it have to be either romantic or insulting? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the Starks could have been insulted by the prince making a romantic gesture toward their betrothed sister.

And if we didn't have both the Bael Tale and the Blue Bard episode (sounds like a terrible reality show), I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

Game makes those roses sad but equivocal. Bael Tale makes it clear the rose is an insult, but that could still be equivocal.

But then we get the Blue Bard, whose only purpose in being all blue and rosy and bard-y seems to be to make him a symbol for the reader. And that symbol says the roses were an insult from the start.

And the World Book says Rhaegar was plotting. And the novels imply he was, too. And an insult/smack fits with what we have in Game, too.

So, seems like Martin's been telling us throughout the books what blue roses mean, especially when given by a man to rivals. An insult/attack.

[Sly Wren]

15 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

We are given a direct comparison between Robert and Rhaegar, by Ned. Robert, we know, visited brothels. This shouldn't be a surprise, as it is very much a part of his nature. The very same nature that Lyanna complained about. In the same chapter that we hear of Lyanna's complaint, we learn that Rhaegar was not the kind of man who frequented brothels. It was not in his nature. 

Right--but the question is not what Rhaegar or Robert or any other man actually was.

The question is how did Lyanna evaluate men, right? And Lyanna says past is prologue.

Do we know how much past comprises prologue in Lyanna's mind? Nope--we only have one sampling. But Martin took the time to actually give us her take on love and men. And that she thinks past is prologue. 

Could she think that sleeping around in the Vale (and everywhere else) is less egregious than leaving a wife and children? Maybe--but if she's astute enough to realize that past really can be prologue, seems like that's very unlikely.

And if she's figured out that a man who likes to sleep around will keep doing it regardless of love, seems unlikely that she'd not think that a man who would leave his wife and children for another could easily do it again.

15 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Lyanna objects that Robert's nature will not change -- thus her problem is with Robert's nature. Rhaegar does not have Robert's nature. Thus her objection has no bearing on her attitude to Rhaegar. 

But it has bearing on men. "A man"--it's a general statement. "Take any given man, this applies"--that's what she's saying. 

And yes, we only have her applying this maxim to Robert. But we also have her saying it applies to any given man.

[Sly Wren]

15 hours ago, nanother said:

Robert's nature is quite thoroughly depicted. We know what his womanising says about it, and so does Lyanna. We don't know enough about Rhaegar's nature, only that he's supposedly willing to leave a woman he has kids with but does not love. For sure, guy leaving family behind is NOT a good sign, and if he does it with someone he's 'fond of', he MIGHT do it with someone he loves, so I'd expect Lyanna to think twice about getting involved with him but there's enough of a difference between that and the certainty of 'never keeping to one bed' that I can accept her going along with it. We don't know a whole lot about her either, after all. Also, if she fell in love with him against her better judgement, then that vs being mostly indifferent towards Robert would make a massive difference in how acceptable their 'nature' is.

Agreed--but we do know that Lyanna is generalizing her insights to apply to men in general. So, seems like Martin is telling us how Lyanna judges men: by what they do before.

And if she thinks men who sleep around will keep doing so, seems very likely she'd realize that a man who's willing to set aside a wife and children could be willing to do it again.

15 hours ago, nanother said:

I asked this in the previous thread, but it probably got lost in the heat of the conversation: if blue roses are associated with spite, but also intrigue/deception, then what does it say about Lyanna's character that she loves the smell of them? Is she a player? Did she get caught up in a sweet deception? Something else?

This is a very interesting idea--a manipulator and a player? Not sure I can see that in Lyanna: she seems more to say what she thinks and do what she wants. A lot like Arya. Wolf-blood--which gets her in trouble.

But deceived? Maybe. But that's one of the reasons why I think Martin's showing us Lyanna's rather mature assessment of men (if potentially somewhat cynical) is important.

Also, the roses seem fine per se, unless they are "given" from one rival family to another: Bael to Stark, Rhaegar to Starks, Cersei's use of the Blue Bard.

So, maybe the treachery is in the human use, vs. in the roses per se???

14 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

She also didn't say: "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change man's nature" ("man's" in the sense of humankind), nor did she say, "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change men's nature" ("men's" in the sense of all of the male gender). 

She said: "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man's nature." Use of the singular form seems to me that she is talking about one particular man. The nature of that man is indicated by the possessive form, i.e. The nature that belongs to this one man cannot be changed by love.

But "a man" in this case is pretty common English parlance.

"How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?"

"When a man loves a woman, can't keep his mind on nothin' else."

Both Bob Dylan and Percy Sledge are clearly saying, "take any given man, and this applies."

Is Percy Sledge singing about himself and whatever specific woman he's trying to impress? Sure. But he's also saying, "Take any given man in love with any given woman, and this applies."

Lyanna is clearly saying this applies to men in general--at least in her own mind. Take any given man, love can't change his nature. And how does she judge a man's nature? By what he's done before.

[SFDanny]

@Sly Wren I should interject I don't agree with the symbolism of the blue roses to mean spite. A quick google has them associated with impossible  or unattainable love, sometimes mystery (or could we say "magic"). What we have is a symbolism that suggests love across barriers that can't be crossed, not spite. Between the Free Folk and a Stark maiden, or between the married Crown Prince and a woman on the other side of a political divide. Why does the blue rose symbolize such love? Because in our world it is a color that cannot be achieved naturally. Roses don't have the pigment to produce blue. That's how I view it anyway.

[WSmith84]

2 hours ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

"Dutiful" doesn't sound like someone who'd leave his wife at all. For jollies or any other reason. 

A rather wise man once said 'love is the death of duty' no?

[Noel E Mahc]

27 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

And if she thinks men who sleep around will keep doing so, seems very likely she'd realize that a man who's willing to set aside a wife and children could be willing to do it again.

I agree with this.