Jump to content

Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 4


wolfmaid7

Recommended Posts

On 11/27/2016 at 9:58 PM, Ygrain said:

Nice strawmen there but the point is that Robert is perfectly comfortable with others doing the dirty job and lets them get away with it so no, Ned wouldn't think Rhaegar's child safe, and nor would Lyanna.

Robert is comfortable with people making choices for him,or blaming others for  what has befallen him and that's it.At that point in time Robert has given no one any indication that he is capable of such a thing.Nothing had happened to him whereby Ned or Lyanna could have made such a leap that Robert would kill her child. 

Bringing this  up again as a point.Ned years after the fact believes Robert wouldn't hurt "him or his" .So if this was a matter of him believing Jon was a risk from Robert because he was Rhaegar's that didn't come across.It was better off just not to have put that in.Straw man,no .Its  an observation that you can't claim she didn't know him and believe she knew him just enough to know he would kill babies.

On 11/28/2016 at 9:17 PM, Kingmonkey said:

Ned's reply to Cat is: "I was eight when my father sent me to foster at the Eyrie". Yes, Cat is protective of Bran. Ned on the other hand? Yeah, I think a man who wants to take his son to witness him executing a prisoner would be perfectly prepared to relate war stories to that son. 

Yes, if X doesn't show up in places it should -- the problem here is that it has to be shown that it should have shown up. Let's take that internal monologue you give -- where's the time frame for Rickard's death? Look at the paragraph immediately before you start quoting: 

"(Rickard Stark) sat with quiet dignity, stone fingers holding tight to the sword across his lap, but in life all swords had failed him."

As far as I recall, Ned does not once think about how Rickard died. Is that reason to doubt that story too?

So, what reason would there be for Ned to be thinking about Lyanna's abduction? He already knows about it, he doesn't have to remind himself. When he thinks of Rhaegar, there's no need to monologue about what Rhaegar did, because that's already there. He knows.

On the other hand, what about the various times he talks as if Lyanna had indeed been abducted? Robert certainly seems to think she was. If he's covering the truth when Robert talks about getting Lyanna back, and Ned is lying when he talks about Robert avenging himself on Rhaegar, why doesn't that crop up in his thoughts, there and then when it's relevant? Your "If X doesn't show up..." principle should surely apply there.

Lord Borrel wasn't in the know, so he'd only have the generally received story -- that's true whether it's a cover story or not, right? So even if Lyanna wasn't really abducted, Lord Borrel would have the story of the abduction, which is the established narrative. As you say, he doesn't talk about this. What that shows is that even WITH the belief that Lyanna was abducted, people wouldn't necessarily talk about it.

This idea is clearly shown in just about every time any character talks about the realities of war -- that it's really only a few people at the top who care about the issues. The vast majority of people in the rebellion were not fighting to get Lyanna back, or to revenge Rickard and Brandon, or to get the Targs off the throne -- they were fighting because their lords told them to. 

I offer you the counter-example of Jorah and Lynesse. Despite her treatment of him, Jorah remained obsessed with her long after she'd left him.

Your argument can be simplified thus: "There is no such thing as unrequited love". Of course there is.

If your only evidence for Lyanna loving Robert is that Robert loved Lyanna, then you have no evidence for Lyanna loving Robert. 

I don't know why you're complicating this. That happened well after Ned's comment to Robert. Look:

 

Robert makes a statement indicating his belief about what Lyanna would have done.

Ned corrects him.

Robert got it wrong. Robert was wrong about what Lyanna would have done. How can Robert being wrong about what Lyanna would have done indicate that Robert knew Lyanna well? It can't. You're using black to prove white.

If Robert knew Lyanna so well, how is it that he never saw the "iron beneath"? This is pretty much the single overriding characteristic detail we have any time we hear about Lyanna.

Robert doesn't know this basic fact about Lyanna.

Robert doesn't know Lyanna. 

We don't know how long they had together. Could have been a long conversation. The death of Rhaegar's children was a massive issue at the time, driving a wedge between Ned and Robert. It would be hard to update Lyanna on what was going on without telling her.

So yeah, it's perfectly feasible that Ned told her, even if she hadn't heard previously. Remember, perfectly feasible is all that's required -- you can't exclude something that's perfectly feasible just because it's not 100% certain.

Being told that he was responsible. Or at least that he condoned it.

Of course it is, but if she believes that Ned is blind to his beloved BFF's womanizing, why wouldn't she think that he would tend to overlook other things about him as well?

I think it's pretty much universal in RLJ theories that Ned didn't tell Robert because he promised Lyanna. It doesn't matter if HE thinks that Robert wouldn't kill Jon, it only matters if Lyanna thought it possible.

 

We have Ned's thoughts on this as well:

"The Robert he had known"... in other words the Robert of the time he would have been making this decision about Jon. That Robert, Ned believes, would not "stand by and let it happen". 

I think your muddling war stories in general vs telling your eight year old son that some guy kidnapped and raped his aunt.That's quite different. No matter how gritty this time is suppose to represent,Ned isn't telling Bran or anything like that.

Well we know that some parts of that story might be different.Ned says his father was forced to watch Brandon strangle.We can conclude from Ned that he "thought" Brandon died first.Jamie says that Brandon strangled while trying to save Rickard we can conclude that Jamie who was actually a witness is thinking Brandon died first.

From my perspective they watched each other die and this is one of George's lesson in different people seeing different things and drawing conclusions based on internal and external forces.Which brings me to this:

We can't doubt that Rickard and Brandon died at the hands of Aerys because Jamie was an "eye witness" he told us what he saw and we can evaluate from his account what is objective and what is not.

Objectively,there is no doubt that Rickard was the one hanging in the suit getting roasted and that Brandon was the one at the end of the contraption getting strangled.

Its subjective and thus up to debate on who died first if we find that important.

Maybe,in a flashback we will actually get an account of someone who saw the kidnapping take place and thus be able to evaluate what they saw.The way this story presents things we can get.

1. Some dudes wearing Targ armor grabbed her and it turns out hey,no Targ loyalists beneath them.

2.She could have ended up getting picked up by  Rhaegar and co only to use her smarts and escape them 

3.What Brandon heard had something to do with Lyanna,but it had nothing to do with her being kidnapped.

We don't know what Ned knows because he never thinks about Lyanna in an abducted state or in a state of running off with another man.We have ambiguity such as " her's and Brandon's wolf blood led them to an early grave." That description in itself is open to all sought of interpretation "vis a vis" what does it mean to be wolf blooded?

We don't know if Lord Borrel knew anything beyond  Oye we rebelling its on.You with us or you with them? When did everyone know she was missing? During or after the rebellion? Clearly fighting to get a girl back wasn't mouthed by anyone during the rebellion.It was basically a Westside brawl and when it was over it was given a nice story to make it more clean.

Of-course there is such a thing as unrequited love but Ned gives no indication that Robert's feeling was unrequited.He speaks of Lyanna as a loved one absent from them both.

No its not my only evidence.I think again you are diminishing human behavior especially from Ned.If this was just a figment of Robert's emotion there's no literary reason to have Ned fuel and invoke such a hollow  and meaningless thing.Nor is there any reason for him to look upon it profoundly and with fondness if it was one-sided. 

However, none of this matters unless we can prove a case for them having sex right. Robert believes Rhaegar raped her.A statement that is not based on knowing,its based on feeling.He has no basis for the rape accusation unless there's a CSI Westeros team that i don't know about.

But as i've pointed out before we do get allusions to that taking place with Robert.

Quote

Her {Cersei’s} eyes burned, green fire in the dusk, <snip>. “The night of our wedding feast, the first time we shared a bed, he called me by your sister’s name. He was on top of me, in me, stinking of wine, and he whispered Lyanna.”Ned thought of pale blue roses, and for a moment he wanted to weep.—Ned,GoT, pg. 480.------

 

What prompted Ned to think of pale blue roses? If we look at it Ned's waking moment recollection about the crowning it was an account of what happened. @Ygrain has argued that Rhaegar is the only connection to the roses,but that's not true.So is Robert in the above.Robert  having sex with Lyanna Cersie prompted that connection from Ned.

Then we have:

Quote

 

I will,” Ned had promised her. That was his curse. Robert would swear undying love and forget them before evenfall, but Ned Stark kept his vows. He thought of the promises he’d made Lyanna as she lay dying, and the price he’d paid to keep them.<snip>She had smiled then, a smile so tremulous and sweet that it cut the heart out of him. Riding through the rainy night, Ned saw Jon Snow’s face in front of him, so like a younger version of his own. If the gods frowned so on bastards, he thought dully, why did they fill men with such lusts?Lord Baelish, what do you know of Robert’s bastards?

“Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister’s eyes. Ned remembered the way she had smiled then…”(GOT,Ned 1).

 

Another allusion where we have a young girl  as a stand in for Lyanna holding Robert's baby while extracting a promise from Ned.

I mean its in the narrative and there's no connection i've seen to Rhaegar beyond the rumor mill. 

Look at it this way and in a nutshell....Robert could say what he said about what Lyanna wouldn't do because he did nothing to cause Lyanna to show her  iron side. Again and i keep saying this like a broken record.Its a matter of perspective.From Ned's point he isn't wrong about how Lyanna would react.From Robert he isn't wrong because he gave her no cause to express that side to him.We need to think of from how Lyanna would have expressed this. Ned wasn't there Varys and Robert was.Lyanna telling Robert he had no buisness fighting in the Melee.Ned told him that and immediately what did Robert do.He pulled back.If Ned had said "Robert your not fighting in the Melee" Robert would have had a different reaction.Its not complicated.What he's saying is Lyanna wouldn't have given him a command in front of his court...

Hell no he could update Lyanna without telling her that.How hard would it be to not mention that. I disagree Kingmonkey there's no reason to tell Lyanna that Rhaegar's kids were murdered by Tywin and Robert did nothing. I know its feasible he certainly may have had "time" .i don't believe that there was any time to get anything beyond "take care of my child" .What Ned didn't do with regard to Robert on his deathbed gives insight into Ned.What would be the reason to tell a dying woman that.There's no reason to hurt her so.

Lyannas doesn't think that Ned is blind to Robert's womanizing,she thinks that Ned is naive when it comes to love.

We don't know if Lyanna thought it possible because we don't have Lyanna's  thoughts beyond "Promise.me Ned."

I absolutely love your post of Ned's thoughts because it points to what i've been saying.Ned believes Robert won't hurt "his" at the end of the day his blood is Jon.Flashback, if Ned believes this currently,he has always believed it therefore this angle of Ned protecting Jon from Robert because he would have killed him is not part of the underlining narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

As I showed, there are plenty of examples of people travelling through war zones. Indeed, technically Ned did exactly that when going to the ToJ.

You know why i re-posted you saying  this right?:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Of course not. You KNOW I agree with you on this! :D I placed Ned well behind Benjen as a possibility for this reason. I also place Starkcest well behind RLJ as a possibility. I completely agree that it's not a probable thing. However it is a possible thing.

There is a window of opportunity that stop us from being able to dismiss Ned/Lyanna on timeline issues. That's a simple falsification process we can use for any of these theories -- whether there is a credible possibility for X and Y to have met at the right time. If we can show there isn't, the theory can be put aside. Ned is a squeaker here, but he does pass.

I just want to make sure we are still on the same page here, and, more importantly, I think, it is good for others to see how well you explain the possibilities and probabilities. No doubt we agree here. :D

4 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Right, but after those two weeks were over? All we know is that Jon and Ned left Riverrun "to rejoin the rebellion." That means they went out into the field to take charge of their forces that had been active (at least on guard) elsewhere. That's a very simple opportunity for Ned to slip away for a day or two. 

Even here, if it is for only a "day or two" one has to have someone cover for you. That can be as simple as having a squire who will turn away all others form an empty tent, Or it get's more and more complex depending on if Robert, Jon Arryn, or Hoster Tully are within the vicinity. These are men you don't just tell Ned is under the weather.

4 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Fully agreed, but I maintain there's a clear window where we simply don't have sufficient detail to colour our estimates of what is likely. How many people were with Ned when he left Riverrun? Where did he set out for? What was the state of the land around? Was Rhaegar friendly enough with Tywin that he could have set up a meeting on "neutral" Lannister territory, a short distance from encamped Norther armies? These kinds of things could let us know, or at least give us a strong indicator, of the possibility of a Ned Away Mission. They're all complete unknowns, so we really can't make any strong judgement of probability.

My judgement is that Rhaegar's relationship with Tywin is complex. He understands this father's need to have him, and he understands there are real reasons  for his father and him to distrust Lord Lannister, not just the paranoid delusions of Aerys. I highly doubt that would translate well with getting Tywin involved with anything that entails knowledge of Lyanna's whereabouts or that depends in anyway on Tywin's good will for her safety and his own.

Nonetheless, you are trying to craft the most likely way in which a meeting could take place and if all things fell into place you are getting there minus Tywin's involvement.

If we are talking about any time when Lyanna is located at the Tower of Joy, then we are talking about journeys of much more than a few days to see her. And unexplained absences to cover for much longer periods of time. That could change with knowledge of Ned leading his army deep into the Reach at any time during the war, but given that nothing seems to have changed the Redwyne / Tyrell siege of Storm's End, I think that unlikely.

4 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

On the subject of Ned T. Stark, Lannister red-cloaks are Lannister red-shirts, right? I mean it's not just me?

You are not alone, my friend! 1000% agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Of course not. You KNOW I agree with you on this! :D I placed Ned well behind Benjen as a possibility for this reason. I also place Starkcest well behind RLJ as a possibility. I completely agree that it's not a probable thing. However it is a possible thing.

There is a window of opportunity that stop us from being able to dismiss Ned/Lyanna on timeline issues. That's a simple falsification process we can use for any of these theories -- whether there is a credible possibility for X and Y to have met at the right time. If we can show there isn't, the theory can be put aside. Ned is a squeaker here, but he does pass.

Sorry SFDanny but i don't agree with @Kingmonkey and you here.Especially in determining whether  something is credible or not.What is "the right time?" and who determines the criteria for that? 

The determination is based on and only George's statement that Jon was born 8-9 mths before Dany.I have voiced my problems with this but to do it again.

1.Jon's parentage is a secret.The author in several things he has done has establish that is the case.Therefore,i highly doubt George would sink this mystery with simple math.That's exactly what this is.The only reason for George to do that is made clear by how he chose to reply to the question.There is ambiguity on Dany's side of the equation her conception and birth is not as it is.

And i know @Kingmonkey hates the Rhaella angle but its solid as a rebuttal.The way that is crafted by the author, what Jamie expected to see and who was actually under that hood was different.

The cultural description of what constitutes a babe also serves as concealment of a child's age.No one would query was the babe newborn or otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Robert is comfortable with people making choices for him,or blaming others for  what has befallen him and that's it.At that point in time Robert has given no one any indication that he is capable of such a thing.Nothing had happened to him whereby Ned or Lyanna could have made such a leap that Robert would kill her child. 

Bringing this  up again as a point.Ned years after the fact believes Robert wouldn't hurt "him or his" .So if this was a matter of him believing Jon was a risk from Robert because he was Rhaegar's that didn't come across.It was better off just not to have put that in.Straw man,no .Its  an observation that you can't claim she didn't know him and believe she knew him just enough to know he would kill babies.

Still strawmanning. If a man says over the bodies of brutally murdered children "I see no babes, only dragonspawn", would you presume that your dragonspawn baby would be safe with him? Hell no. Even if he didn't have it in him to murder the baby with his own hands, there would be others perfectly willing to do it for him, and Mr No-babes-only-dragospawn wouldn't move a finger to prevent this. Or would you bet your child's life on him finding his better self? It's not a game where you can reload from he last save when you guess wrong. On top of that, the man is king now. His is the final responsibility, and he has exonerated such a murder already. Furthermore, we have there Ned comparing Sansa's pleading with Lyanna's, and what Sansa is pleading is "don't let them hurt her", in the situation that mirrors the Sack - Lannisters poising the immediate danger and Robert letting them do it.

Besides, Ned is even forced to reassess his belief that Robert wouldn't harm "him or his", not to mention that, strictly speaking, Jon isn't "his". Not-his but Rhaegar's, on top of that. A totally different kettle of fish.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2016 at 11:46 PM, wolfmaid7 said:

Sorry SFDanny but i don't agree with @Kingmonkey and you here.Especially in determining whether  something is credible or not.What is "the right time?" and who determines the criteria for that? 

The determination is based on and only George's statement that Jon was born 8-9 mths before Dany.I have voiced my problems with this but to do it again.

1.Jon's parentage is a secret.The author in several things he has done has establish that is the case.Therefore,i highly doubt George would sink this mystery with simple math.That's exactly what this is.The only reason for George to do that is made clear by how he chose to reply to the question.There is ambiguity on Dany's side of the equation her conception and birth is not as it is.

Who determines what is credible or not? Obviously, on one level for each of us we must determine that ourselves. You and I have very, very different views of what is credible, and I don't think I can change your view. But on another level, there is a basic definition of the word "credible" and when one person decides to use it in a way that is totally out of sync with the dictionary definition and what is commonly agreed to be the meaning of the word, then people will argue and pass judgement on what is credible and what is not. These forums and the debates that are held here have something to do with developing a consensus between readers what is credible and what is not. All of that is true. I would also hope that we can agree that certain sources - the books themselves, the author himself, etc. - would have an impact on what we think is credible.

So, when the author makes a statement that the age difference between two of his characters is "eight or nine months or thereabouts" I take that as a highly credible source. You obviously think you know better than the author and do not.

We agree on somethings here, I should point out. I think Jon's parentage is a secret. I don't think Martin's statement on the age difference between Jon and Dany changes that fact. It does give us an important tool to help us figure out who might be Jon's parents, and other mysteries of his backstory. So for instance, we should apply this information in combination with other information in the books to determine approximate timing of Jon's conception and birth, Daenerys's  conception and birth, and the relative timing of these events around the general events of the rebellion.

But here I need to state my absolute belief that none of that destroys Martin's secret. We have a basic disagreement that it does so. He has not sunk his mystery with basic math. He has only made us look deeper into the possibilities he lays out. For instance, one of the possibilities for who is Jon's mother is Ashara Dayne, the Lady of Starfall. Her name is raised by Catelyn's character early in the book and it is a possibility that gets support from the author in some ways throughout the series. Does Martin's chronology destroy this possible answer? No it does not. It only makes us look deeper to see how the story of the Lady Ashara being Jon's mother would have to work to remain credible. Both Kingmonkey and I, and others in these forums like @Twinslayer have done for many years, that there are ways that this story remains credible, and in someways is strengthened, by looking at how a meeting of Ashara and Ned would look like in the timeframe Martin gives us. There is no elimination of this possibility by doing simple math, there is only a new understanding that the two characters would have to meet during this time period to conceive a child. The same is true of Ned and Wylla being Jon's parents, of Ned and the Fisherman's daughter, and, indeed, of Rhaegar and Lyanna being Jon's father and mother.

But let's not be disingenuous here. this information does cast doubt on some possible combinations of characters to be Jon's parents. Kingmonkey and I have just had a long discussion about the whereabouts of Ned and Benjen during the timeframe and what it means for each of them as candidates to be Jon's father in a liaison with their sister. It does make some cases less credible than others. That is to the good. It means we are being attentive readers and listening to what the author is telling us. Not making up our own criteria out of thin air.

The Dany being Dany part of this question I will leave to that thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On October 27, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Sly Wren said:

Heresy's discussed the possibility that Jon Arryn was in cahoots with Rhaegar and even Tywin, not just with the Starks, Baratheons, and Tullys. Not sure if that's just @Voice or @Black Crow who had these sorts of ideas, but the Eyrie may have been involved in multiple ways with a clandestine Targaryen rebellion (Rhaegar vs. Aerys).

 

Yup. That's been a pet theory of mine for a while, but if I remember correctly, @Black Crow supported the idea as well. As has happened oft before, I think the heretics will prove to be ahead of the curve on this one. :cheers:

Contrary to how it might appear when it comes time to debate some X+Y=J, I don't get too caught up in this Iron Throne stuff. I'm more concerned with howling winds than brittle chairs. But one thing that has always stood out to me has been just how odd the timing of the banner-call was. I put together some (slightly) more polished thoughts on the subject in this post:

http://thelasthearth.com/post/49003

TL;DR

Tywin + Jon Arryn = Rhaegar's "Changes"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On November 7, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Kingmonkey said:

So far the only thing I recall reading in these wrap-up threads that actually challenges something in that RLJ essay rather than the side issues is the question of whether Lyanna's objection to Robert would mean she must also object to Rhaegar. Voice and I argued that one to death without either being able to budge the other's viewpoint on this one.

 

What is dead may never die! But yeah. We kinda did. LOL

Either Lyanna eventually became a swooning hypocrite, was raped to death for a prophecy (by another woman's dutiful husband), or, Lyanna Stark was a she-wolf who died bleeding for her own convictions. ;) 

 

On November 7, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Kingmonkey said:

However there is one unassailable defence against the charge. As we cannot exclude the rape possibility, or the changing of the mind possibility, Lyanna's opinions, whichever way you read them, cannot preclude RLJ.


We completely agree, but I would argue that, rather than seek to first construct a theory then rationalize Lyanna's protest within that framework, that it makes for better theorizing if we instead begin with Lyanna as the framework itself. 

Also, I would argue that Ned's wolf-blood comment makes the possibilities you raise somewhat unlikely (unless GRRM, a feminist?, is going to use the "she was asking for it" date rape defense). 

We might then ask ourselves, does wolf-blood cause Starks to change their convictions?

Given Brandon and Arya as examples, and the iron underneath, this also seems unlikely. 

 

On November 7, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Kingmonkey said:

I think there's a good reason why we're not getting any solid challenges to RLJ, and that's because whether it turns out to be true or not, it's a strong theory with lots going for it. If there was some solid blow that could be struck to make the theory less likely, someone would probably have found it long before now. 

 

Rather than ring with strength, statements like this sprout from the very literary pareidolia of which you've warned. 

I would restate this paragraph to say that RLJ is a theory, with a lot of supporters going for it. Like a glass half full or a glass half empty, the volume of the theory is a matter of opinion, rather than a test of time. 

That the Earth was flat, and that the Earth was the center of the heavens, were once very enduring theories. In fact, people who questioned these widely held and long sanctioned beliefs were dismissed as "heretics."  ;)    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Voice said:

Rather than ring with strength, statements like this sprout from the very literary pareidolia of which you've warned. 

I would restate this paragraph to say that RLJ is a theory, with a lot of supporters going for it. Like a glass half full or a glass half empty, the volume of the theory is a matter of opinion, rather than a test of time. 

That the Earth was flat, and that the Earth was the center of the heavens, were once very enduring theories. In fact, people who questioned these widely held and long sanctioned beliefs were dismissed as "heretics."  ;)    

I don't know about you, but if GRRM gave a lot of hints that Planetos is flat, with all the evidence that points to it being flat and then in the end, telling the readers that it's round... would he do that?

I think you know the answer.

"I will not change midstream just because people have figured it out."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Voice said:

Either Lyanna eventually became a swooning hypocrite, was raped to death for a prophecy (by another woman's dutiful husband), or, Lyanna Stark was a she-wolf who died bleeding for her own convictions. ;)

May I suggest that your three options may not be all that we have to choose from?

Let's suppose we read the Lyanna depicted in her standing up for Howland Reed against the three squire bullies correctly. Meaning she is willing to put her own body at risk for some one she doesn't know, and who she deems is being treated unfairly. Sounds like the "wolf blood" Ned talked about to me.

Now, let us also suppose she is willing to stand up to her family and speak her mind about a marriage she doesn't want. Takes some courage and also speaks to that "wolf blood" I think. And it is exhibited in her conversation with Ned about Robert's nature. That is even more true if she doesn't restrict her comments to Ned, but also says the same thing to Rickard and Brandon. A distinct possibility we have to consider given her conduct in our first two examples.

Now, let us also suppose that she isn't just willing to go along with what is the normal expectation of women in most of Westeros and do what her father and what looks likely to be her two elder brothers are telling her she must do in marrying Robert. She, like Prince Duncan and his brothers before her, are ready to stand up to the powerful and say no. Again, sounds like that pesky "wolf blood."

Now, tell me given the above what are Lyanna's "convictions" concerning a marriage to a man she chooses, who it appears she loves, or has grown to love, who has been forced into a marriage of political convenience, just like the one she seeks to avoid, but whose wife she has no animosity for, and whose children she has no reason to want to harm. Does this sound like the woman who stands up to the bullies and the powerful and demands to be treated with respect, or one who bullies everyone herself into doing what she wants? Are her convictions so clearly a demand for the "normal" approved marriage to the man she wants, or are those convictions better understood if both Rhaegar and her get to choose, and Elia doesn't have to be harmed in the process? Which sounds like the young woman who rejects the gender roles that will not let her learn to fight, and the traditions that deny her the choice of whom to marry?

Let me suggest, that rather than being a hypocrite, Lyanna is the one being consistent under these conditions, and it is the reader who isn't understanding just what her "convictions" are truly about that see hypocrisy where there is none. I would challenge you to show were we see a Lyanna who demands everything meet with society's norms. Unless you can do so, I suggest maybe you are reading her character wrong.

Just another view of the problem than your three "either or" choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

I don't know about you, but if GRRM gave a lot of hints that Planetos is flat, with all the evidence that points to it being flat and then in the end, telling the readers that it's round... would he do that?

I think you know the answer.

 

Uhmm. I think you do, too. 

 

A Game of Thrones - Eddard II 

"You were never the boy you were," Robert grumbled. "More's the pity. And yet there was that one time … what was her name, that common girl of yours? Becca? No, she was one of mine, gods love her, black hair and these sweet big eyes, you could drown in them. Yours was … Aleena? No. You told me once. Was it Merryl? You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?"
"Her name was Wylla," Ned replied with cool courtesy, "and I would sooner not speak of her." 
"Wylla. Yes." The king grinned. "She must have been a rare wench if she could make Lord Eddard Stark forget his honor, even for an hour. You never told me what she looked like …
Ned's mouth tightened in anger. "Nor will I. Leave it be, Robert, for the love you say you bear me. I dishonored myself and I dishonored Catelyn, in the sight of gods and men."


A Storm of Swords - Arya VIII 

"Milk brothers. Not blood. My lady mother had no milk when I was little, so Wylla had to nurse me."
Arya was lost. "Who's Wylla?" 
"Jon Snow's mother. He never told you? She's served us for years and years. Since before I was born."

[...]

Jon has a mother. Wylla, her name is Wylla.


LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Just another view of the problem than your three "either or" choices.

 

I had no idea my "either or" choices were so well aged into the collective consciousness that there were multiple views as to the problem with them. 

I'm honored. :cheers:

LOL, no in truth, that quip was a bit of a joke. @Kingmonkey and I really did beat that horse to death, and those were the three most plausible scenarios that arose in our debate of fan speculations. 

But if you'd like, I can debate the point a bit. Either Lyanna swooned for a married man, or she didn't. Either Lyanna was raped to death for a prophecy, or she wasn't. And either her wolf blood led her to an early grave, or, it didn't. 

Given the limitlessness of human imagination, and logical calculus, I do agree that there might be infinite universes in which each of these three dichotomies are actually a single, unified, nebula of events. 

But, such convolutions do not seem necessary if we simply treat Lyanna as the framework for the theory itself. We have nothing to suggest Lyanna would swoon for a married man. We have nothing to suggest that she was raped for a prophecy.

Instead, we have evidence to suggest Lyanna Stark was a she-wolf who died bleeding for her own convictions (see she-wolf in an early grave, Bran I, AGOT;  bed of blood, Eddard X, AGOT;  and wolf-blood, Arya II, AGOT), that she did not approve of married men siring bastards in other beds (see man's nature, Eddard IX, AGOT), and that, like wolf-blooded Arya/Brandon/Robb/Ned/Brandon/Rickon, she would bare fangs when the honor of the north was threatened (see the she-wolf, Bran II, ASOS). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Voice said:

 

Uhmm. I think you do, too. 

 

A Game of Thrones - Eddard II 

"You were never the boy you were," Robert grumbled. "More's the pity. And yet there was that one time … what was her name, that common girl of yours? Becca? No, she was one of mine, gods love her, black hair and these sweet big eyes, you could drown in them. Yours was … Aleena? No. You told me once. Was it Merryl? You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?"
"Her name was Wylla," Ned replied with cool courtesy, "and I would sooner not speak of her." 
"Wylla. Yes." The king grinned. "She must have been a rare wench if she could make Lord Eddard Stark forget his honor, even for an hour. You never told me what she looked like …
Ned's mouth tightened in anger. "Nor will I. Leave it be, Robert, for the love you say you bear me. I dishonored myself and I dishonored Catelyn, in the sight of gods and men."


A Storm of Swords - Arya VIII 

"Milk brothers. Not blood. My lady mother had no milk when I was little, so Wylla had to nurse me."
Arya was lost. "Who's Wylla?" 
"Jon Snow's mother. He never told you? She's served us for years and years. Since before I was born."

[...]

Jon has a mother. Wylla, her name is Wylla.


LOL

Do you believe that's who Jon's true Mother is?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Voice said:

she did not approve of married men siring bastards in other beds (see man's nature, Eddard IX, AGOT)

Just so. If she objected to Robert siring bastards in other beds why should she give herself a pass? If she were the one with Rhaegar's bastard in her belly, he's no better choice than Robert since he didn't keep to one bed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Voice said:

Rather than ring with strength, statements like this sprout from the very literary pareidolia of which you've warned. 

I would restate this paragraph to say that RLJ is a theory, with a lot of supporters going for it. Like a glass half full or a glass half empty, the volume of the theory is a matter of opinion, rather than a test of time. 

All true. Such literary pareidolia is always easier to spot in hindsight. However that doesn't mean that the amount of support is meaninglessness. This is a much-challenged idea, yet it remains persuasive to the majority. Such a measure does not grant any kind of certainty, but it would be foolish to dismiss it. RLJ wouldn't have that many supporters if it wasn't persuasive. It has faced a lot of challenges, but as yet nobody has come close to a disproof.

11 hours ago, Voice said:

That the Earth was flat, and that the Earth was the center of the heavens, were once very enduring theories. In fact, people who questioned these widely held and long sanctioned beliefs were dismissed as "heretics."  ;)    

Flat earth was a far less enduring theory than geocentrism. The obvious reason why this is -- the observations required to dismiss geocentrism are rather complex and specialised, while the observations for a globe are not. The idea of a flat earth was not so much a theory based on evidence as the assumption without evidence. Generally flat earth cosmologies vanish very quickly when people actually challenge the evidence. By contrast, people have been examining the evidence for RLJ in great detail, and nobody has yet come up with any fundamental challenge remotely close to the "watch the mast of a ship get lower as it passes over the horizon" demonstration.

Geocentrism was a pretty natural assumption based on the simple observation that the sun and moon both appear to rotate around the Earth, and the turning of the apparently fixed firmament. It really took very close observations of other bodies to provide reason to dismiss geocentrism. It's not until the 19th century that we had the technology to observe stellar parallax, so you need to make the jump to conclude that the stars are a LONG way off compared to everything else in the sky to support a non-geocentric universe. Planetary movement required considerable mathematical analysis to point away from geocentrism. 

However the idea of a "central fire" around which the earth orbits predates Copernicus by at least a couple of thousand years. It wasn't generally considered heretical -- just unlikely, due to the lack of stellar parallax. I know why you like to bring up the heresy argument here, but the Gallileo Affair is really a small part of the history of the debate. People are, in general, eventually persuaded by convincing arguments. Some of the alternatives to RLJ have presented arguments that most will concede are possibilities, but none have made any meaningful dent in the credibility of RLJ.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

Just so. If she objected to Robert siring bastards in other beds why should she give herself a pass? If she were the one with Rhaegar's bastard in her belly, he's no better choice than Robert since he didn't keep to one bed. 

I can't imagine what Lyanna would do after her father and brother are murdered in such a terrifying and grotesque manner.  Arya sees her father executed leaving a hole where her heart used to be and a death list she recites like a prayer.   Arya runs with Yoren, a black crow and Lyanna runs with Maester Walys, a grey rat.

Quote

A Dance with Dragons - The Prince of Winterfell

"They heal, yes. I never said they were not subtle. They tend to us when we are sick and injured, or distraught over the illness of a parent or a child. Whenever we are weakest and most vulnerable, there they are. Sometimes they heal us, and we are duly grateful. When they fail, they console us in our grief, and we are grateful for that as well. Out of gratitude we give them a place beneath our roof and make them privy to all our shames and secrets, a part of every council. And before too long, the ruler has become the ruled.
"That was how it was with Lord Rickard Stark. Maester Walys was his grey rat's name. And isn't it clever how the maesters go by only one name, even those who had two when they first arrived at the Citadel? That way we cannot know who they truly are or where they come from … but if you are dogged enough, you can still find out. Before he forged his chain, Maester Walys had been known as Walys Flowers. Flowers, Hill, Rivers, Snow … we give such names to baseborn children to mark them for what they are, but they are always quick to shed them. Walys Flowers had a Hightower girl for a mother … and an archmaester of the Citadel for a father, it was rumored. The grey rats are not as chaste as they would have us believe. Oldtown maesters are the worst of all. Once he forged his chain, his secret father and his friends wasted no time dispatching him to Winterfell to fill Lord Rickard's ears with poisoned words as sweet as honey. The Tully marriage was his notion, never doubt it, he—"

"Lyanna was … fond of flowers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

Just so. If she objected to Robert siring bastards in other beds why should she give herself a pass? If she were the one with Rhaegar's bastard in her belly, he's no better choice than Robert since he didn't keep to one bed. 

But she never did object to Robert siring bastards in other beds. No, really. She didn't. She objected to the fact (as she perceived it) that Robert would repeatedly cheat on her after they got married. 

There are two ways to read this. One is that she had a very strong and conventional belief in the sanctity of marriage. In that case, she would be being hypocritical to wander off with Rhaegar, true. The other way to read this is that she didn't want to be cheated on. In that case, the problem vanishes. What do we have to favour either of these two readings? I'd say that given everything we know about Lyanna tells us she was not a conventional person, the former doesn't seem like a sensible reading. Our closest Lyanna parallel, Arya, clearly does not have a romantic view of marriage. However I doubt she'd be happy at the idea of being repeatedly cheated on by any future husband, either.

This is why I disagree with @Voice's "three most plausible scenarios" claim. He omits the possibility I in fact favour.  When Lyanna corrected Ned that her objection was not to Robert having already sired a child with another woman but rather that he would cheat on her and continue to sleep around after their marriage, I propose that she was objecting to the idea of a man who would cheat on her, not a man who had already sired children. 

Thus we come to the fourth plausible scenario, and the one I argue is the most plausible because it's what the words in the book actually say. The daughter in the Vale was not the problem -- future sleeping around would be. Rhaegar's previous children were not a problem -- future sleeping around by Rhaegar would be. Why would Lyanna think that Rhaegar was the kind of person who frequented brothels  slept around a lot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2016 at 0:01 AM, Ygrain said:

Still strawmanning. If a man says over the bodies of brutally murdered children "I see no babes, only dragonspawn", would you presume that your dragonspawn baby would be safe with him? Hell no. Even if he didn't have it in him to murder the baby with his own hands, there would be others perfectly willing to do it for him, and Mr No-babes-only-dragospawn wouldn't move a finger to prevent this. Or would you bet your child's life on him finding his better self? It's not a game where you can reload from he last save when you guess wrong. On top of that, the man is king now. His is the final responsibility, and he has exonerated such a murder already. Furthermore, we have there Ned comparing Sansa's pleading with Lyanna's, and what Sansa is pleading is "don't let them hurt her", in the situation that mirrors the Sack - Lannisters poising the immediate danger and Robert letting them do it.

Besides, Ned is even forced to reassess his belief that Robert wouldn't harm "him or his", not to mention that, strictly speaking, Jon isn't "his". Not-his but Rhaegar's, on top of that. A totally different kettle of fish.

 

Was Lyanna in the throne room? I wouldn't presume anything of a sort ( unless i was there and heard it) nor could Lyanna because she wasn't there.You can't just say something like that when the person wasn't there ,and there's no reason to believe telling a dying woman something like that would be helpful on her way out ....how? If you try to sell me Ned making that choice on his own based on what he's seen in the throne room.Very possible and works well with this theory.I don't see Ned telling her that while she was dying.

Sansa is pleading a lot of things,but her pleads were because the threat to Lady was imminent.A future threat that would only come to fruition if your brother tells doesn't jive with this.

Ned, never changed his mind about Robert having the capability to harm him or his.Never had that happened.

Well we are debating who Jon is aren't we!!

The whole point is,Ned has no reason to tell Robert about Jon even if Jon was Robert's himself.All around Jon would be in danger.

On 12/3/2016 at 3:13 AM, SFDanny said:

Who determines what is credible or not? Obviously, on one level for each of us we must determine that ourselves. You and I have very, very different views of what is credible, and I don't think I can change your view. But on another level, there is a basic definition of the word "credible" and when one person decides to use it in a way that is totally out of sync with the dictionary definition and what is commonly agreed to be the meaning of the word, then people will argue and pass judgement on what is credible and what is not. These forums and the debates that are held here have something to do with developing a consensus between readers what is credible and what is not. All of that is true. I would also hope that we can agree that certain sources - the books themselves, the author himself, etc. - would have an impact on what we think is credible.

So, when the author makes a statement that the age difference between two of his characters is "eight or nine months or thereabouts" I take that as a highly credible source. You obviously think you know better than the author and do not.

We agree on somethings here, I should point out. I think Jon's parentage is a secret. I don't think Martin's statement on the age difference between Jon and Dany changes that fact. It does give us an important tool to help us figure out who might be Jon's parents, and other mysteries of his backstory. So for instance, we should apply this information in combination with other information in the books to determine approximate timing of Jon's conception and birth, Daenerys's  conception and birth, and the relative timing of these events around the general events of the rebellion.

But here I need to state my absolute belief that none of that destroys Martin's secret. We have a basic disagreement that it does so. He has not sunk his mystery with basic math. He has only made us look deeper into the possibilities he lays out. For instance, one of the possibilities for who is Jon's mother is Ashara Dayne, the Lady of Starfall. Her name is raised by Catelyn's character early in the book and it is a possibility that gets support from the author in some ways throughout the series. Does Martin's chronology destroy this possible answer? No it does not. It only makes us look deeper to see how the story of the Lady Ashara being Jon's mother would have to work to remain credible. Both Kingmonkey and I, and others in these forums like @Twinslayer have done for many years, that there are ways that this story remains credible, and in someways is strengthened, by looking at how a meeting of Ashara and Ned would look like in the timeframe Martin gives us. There is no elimination of this possibility by doing simple math, there is only a new understanding that the two characters would have to meet during this time period to conceive a child. The same is true of Ned and Wylla being Jon's parents, of Ned and the Fisherman's daughter, and, indeed, of Rhaegar and Lyanna being Jon's father and mother.

But let's not be disingenuous here. this information does cast doubt on some possible combinations of characters to be Jon's parents. Kingmonkey and I have just had a long discussion about the whereabouts of Ned and Benjen and during the timeframe and what it means for each of them as candidates to be Jon's father in a liaison with their sister. It does make some cases less credible than others. That is to the good. It means we are being attentive readers and listening to what the author is telling us. Not making up our own criteria out of thin air.

The Dany being Dany part of this question I will leave to that thread.

I get what you are saying believe me i do.I'm just saying that some take into consideration the unreliable narrator and the author's own ambiguity and assertion through various behaviors that this is a mystery.

Which brings me to this point and I'm not dismissing what the author said at all.I'am factoring GRRM's penchant for misdirection.The perception by a lot of fans is that he gave an answer which depends on Rhaella having been the person that Jamie saw.That's where the count begins.Readers i believe had been drawn into Jamie's expectation of the person being Rhaella.

But there is a way that it is written that calls into question the above being the case and if its thought through,a decoy being used to disseminate false information about the Queen having left when she probably left way before that is more likely the case.

Being an attentive reader is discerning that Jamie didn't actually see the Queen,he saw what he expected to see.

47 minutes ago, IceFire125 said:

I don't know about you, but if GRRM gave a lot of hints that Planetos is flat, with all the evidence that points to it being flat and then in the end, telling the readers that it's round... would he do that?

I think you know the answer.

"I will not change midstream just because people have figured it out."

Well it depends on if the clues you speak of are clues,or one big misdirection and play on reader expectation.Expectation,the girl always runs off with prince,and they always have a secret baby who needs to be hidden from some big bad.

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...