R+L=J v.163

[Ygrain]

 

Quote

 

8 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

But the AA prophecy predates the Targs. And so far Mel clearly thinks it applies to Stannis.

 

First, you cannot know if it predates the Targs because you don't know how far their origin goes.

Second, the Targs think it applies to them because they have their family version of the prophecy which Mel may not be familiar with, not to mention that Stannis does have a drop of Targ blood inhis veins.

 

Quote

 

8 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

And so far in the novels, nothing says that chasing prophecies is a good idea.

 

And your point is? Something being a good idea or not doesn't mean that the prophecy is incorrect.

 

Quote

 

8 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Bottom line: just because the Targs--and specifically Rhaegar and Aemon--think that their family will bring the savior in no way shape or form suggests that they will. The prophecy and story existed before they did. They chose to embrace it. Just as Stannis and Mel do. Thus, what the are doing is not Targ specific. It's prophecy specific, no?

 

You keep mixing and attaching things together as if one depended on another, which in no way has to be the case. Insisting on the Targs' relatively new origin is invalid reasoning, either, because official establishment of a house doesn't mean that its members somehow came to existence at that very moment, and has nothing to do with the bloodlines that had been passed on to them from time immemorial.

 

Quote

 

8 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Agreed--very possible. But the point holds: just because Jon sees himself in black ice does not mean he's a Targ.

Right--but I can't find a place in the novels where Rhaegar's armor is described as ice.

 

Sheesh, aren't you Heretics supposed to be open-minded? The only two figures in the whole series armoured in black, both connected to the PTWP/AA prophecy, and you call it a nonissue?

Besides, Rhaegar wasn't half Stark, there was nothing icy about him, so it wouldn't make any sense to describe his armour as ice.

 

Quote

 

8 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

You gave the quote above about Dany's dream and the Usurpers being armored in ice. But in that dream--it's actually ice--like Jon sees himself in on the Wall.

And per your observation re: Dany and Jon potentially being adversaries--I agree. I think that outcome is very likely.

 

 If Dany keeps dawdling in Essos some more, then Westeros, or what's left of it, might get united behind Jon as the one actually fighting the Others, which Dany-come-lately and not knowing a shit about the Others might consider usurpation of her claim. All that feverish raving about her identity as fire and blood and dragons not planting trees, IMHO, doesn't bode well for her capacity to think in a broader scope and step down with her claim.

 

Quote

 

8 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Thanks! Especially given the oath--all of the "I am" statements. And the stuff about as long as the Watch holds true, the Wall will hold. Would fit the image of Jon being armored in ice--tied to the ancient Wall.

 

It seems rather that the NW has already failed - there are no brothers with Jon in the dream, only the scarecrow fakes which burn away, and he defends the Wall all alone.

BTW, the dream may be symbolic in this respect and merely show Jon as the one and only seeing the real threat and fighting it, regardless if the Wall still exists or not.

 

Quote

 

8 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Not trying to argue that. Only that the Targs are innately interlopers in Westeros--and the newest of them. Whereas both the Starks and the Daynes have an ancient history of being protectors of the people in some form--the Starks with the Wall and the Daynes with the Sword of the Morning (and some of the other stuff with the stony Dornish). Believing that the "solution" would come from the protectors instead of the conquers--that seems. . . .not unreasonable.

 

Again operating from a potentially incorrect premise. What makes you think that AA is a good thing in the first place? I mean, a champion of the good who burns people alive and creates murderous shadowbabies and fire zombies losing their identity? We have no idea what the agenda behind the prophecy is. It is even possible that what seems like GoHH's confirmation of the PTWP prophecy may have been an attempt to tamper with it so that the PTWP is not merely Ralloo's tool.

 

Quote

 

8 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Agreed. I've also thought that since they don't just have the gemstone eyes but also the white sword (in the same book where we first see that sword in Arthur's hands) that it might be telling us that Dany is part Dayne.

 

That she is either way because, IIRC, there was a Dayne married into the Targs. Not to mention the whole issue of the Daynes having the Valyrian look, which can be pointing at the same ancestry, which would solve your issue with Targs as newbies.

 

Quote

 

8 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Fair enough--but given that we never see Rhaegar's armor described as ice--seems like Jon's armor is much more likely about the Wall, not Rhaegar.

 

Pray, why not both? Because, while you are right that the Wall is described as black twice in ADWD, it's not the colour normally associated with ice or with the Wall itself.

Quote

 

 

8 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

The point: at this point in the novels, he's given us nothing to specifically tie Jon to Rhaegar. Instead, Martin has stressed Dany's ties to Rhaegar while giving her visions asking her to remember who she is. This should at least give us pause. Martin seems plenty skilled enough to make some ties without giving it all away.

 

So we have some very obvious connections for Dany, and as Icefire has pointed out, a lot of subtle hints for Jon. That's almost like a very definition of a red herring versus the real deal, wouldn't you say?

 

[Ygrain]

dp, sorry

[J. Stargaryen]

Why would Rhaegar wear a black suit of armor with a red, three-headed dragon upon the chest? Because it's the Targaryen sigil in armor form. What might GRRM have been trying to convey by having Rhaegar wear that suit? By essentially wearing the Targaryen sigil, Rhaegar became the embodiment of House Targaryen when he donned that armor. This hypothesis fares well at the Trident, where Robert defeated House Targaryen when he smashed their sigil, worn by Rhaegar on his chest.

I think there's another angle, too. Though it's hard to know exactly what to make of it. It might not mean anything, really. Or it might. Who knows. I believe GRRM borrowed a bit from real-world history when constructing Rhaegar's famous suit of armor. If you go back to just a bit before the WotR began, you'll find a character named Edward of Woodstock, who was the son and heir of Edward III. He predeceased his father, and his son went on to succeed Edward III, as Richard II.

Edward of Woodstock is famous for a couple of things. He's most well known as the Black Prince. Historians aren't sure where this name came from. However, the most popular answer seems to be that it is owed to his black suit of armor. Also, to this day the centerpiece of the Imperial State Crown of the UK is a red gem called the Black Prince's Ruby.

So, a crown prince who predeceased his father. Which helped set the stage for the WotR, which GRRM has heavily borrowed from for ASoIaF. Combined with a famous black suit of armor, and a royal ruby. Both of which are associated with said prince. Again, who knows what it all means, or if it even means (re: tells us) anything, but it's unlikely to be coincidental.

[Sly Wren]

10 hours ago, Shmedricko said:

I think the strength of that passage as a clue to Jon having Targaryen blood comes from the fact that there is a Daenerys chapter which contains almost the exact same wording. Compare:

The structure at the beginning is identical: "For a moment she/Jon could almost see him/them." Plus the focus on "his black wings"/"their dark wings" shortly after. Whether these are actually dragon visions/daydreams or not, the similar language Martin has employed here cannot be ignored.

1. I agree that the structure is very similar.

2. But the context of each quote means that the structure highlights the differences between Jon and Dany's reactions to dragons, not the similarities: Dany longs for Drogon so she can get away from Meereen. She even wishes she were a dragon so she could just invade Westeros on her own. Drogon is thus salvation, escape, and her identity.

Jon's fearing the idiots who are chasing dragons (Mel and Stannis). He's afraid of what that pursuit would mean for him and all those who helped save Mance's baby from Mel. That's not identity and affinity with dragons--that's rejection and fear and disdain.

3. Finally--neither of these moments describes a "dragon dream"--like Dany's dreams of being a dragon or Jon's in Ghost. This is showing Dany's desire  and Jon's fear. And all that does is highlight that Dany is a dragon or dragon affiliated. While highlighting that Jon is not. 

8 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

They love to use GRRM's wordplay, echoes, etc on other subjects, but when it comes to pointing to Jon being Targaryen blooded and all the properties that goes along with that house, symbolism and significance, it's conveniently ignored. 

Spinning, Jon saw the drapes he’d ripped from the window. He flung the lamp into the puddled cloth with both hands. Metal crunched, glass shattered, oil spewed, and the hangings went up in a great whoosh of flame. The heat of it on his face was sweeter than any kiss Jon had ever known.

The girl pulled the rough cotton tunic over Dany’s head and helped her into the tub. The water was scalding hot, but Daenerys did not flinch or cry out. She liked the heat. It made her feel clean. Besides, her brother had often told her that it was never too hot for a Targaryen. “Ours is the house of the dragon,” he would say. “The fire is in our blood.”

Yes--but this only works if you completely ignore context.

And if we ignore the context, we aren't reading novels--we're just doing elaborate word searches--which can be fun, but rather defeats the entire process of writing novels int he first place.

In the example you gave above: The context of the love of flames is ENTIRELY different: Dany is loving heat in the a warm place and the heat makes her feel clean and cozy. And she's decided it shows her affinity with the Targaryens. Which it probably does.

But Jon's in the room with a freezing, terrifying, living dead man. 

Jon had no time to be afraid. He threw himself forward, shouting, bringing down the longsword with all his weight behind it. Steel sheared through sleeve and skin and bone, yet the sound was wrong somehow. The smell that engulfed him was so queer and cold he almost gagged. He saw arm and hand on the floor, black fingers wriggling in a pool of moonlight. Ghost wrenched free of the other hand and crept away, red tongue lolling from his mouth. Game, Jon VII

This is a scene of pure fear. And the cold is horrifying. He doesn't think of using the fire from Mormont's lamp until the Raven says "Burn!" Then, with the heat of the fire dispelling that horrible cold--then he feels that the heat is overwhelmingly sweet.

That feeling would be the same for anyone in the presence of the wight's horror and cold--we see how Sam reacts to the Other. How Will does in the Game Prologue. Both of those men would dearly welcome heat--just as Jon does. Dany's love of heat is entirely different. 

Thus once you include context, this potential parallel falls apart. And the only reason to completely ignore context is if we aren't reading novels. 

[velo-knight]

Question: does the World Book have information about how old House Targaryen is, before Westeros? I keep seeing "300 years old" and thinking, "huh, the people who keep calling themselves the Blood of Old Valyria will probably be surprised to learn that". Sure, they weren't the most illustrious of Freehold's houses, but it's not like they were the Valyria version of the Freys.

[J. Stargaryen]

17 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

snip

Thanks.

You're preaching to the choir. With mysteries like Jon's parentage, where there is only one correct solution, often times the best argument against one theory is the strength of another. However, since the discussion I was joining had focused on what was the best non-RLJ explanation, I felt like it made sense to use the RLJ red herring premise when stating my case, as it is the basis for those theories.

17 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

As for the idea that the sword Jon longs for is the IT--maybe. But he longs for a "true greatsword"--not just a general sword. That specific wording seems to make it specific to: Jon wants a greatsword bestowed by his father via Jon's valor. A bestowal that will give Jon his father's name. Nothing Targaryen really fits that.  Not even the IT: it's been taken and fought over. 

Schmendrick's idea was based on the part where Jon thinks that he will not forget that Ned is his father no matter how many swords they give him. Which is kind of clever. The IT– that's a lot of swords!

17 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Far as we know, Dawn is only bestowed when the Daynes deem another Dayne to be worthy of it.

There's seems to be a hiccup or two here for Jon. He's not a knight, and he's almost certainly not a Dayne, even after allowing for AD+L=J. I guess he could be knighted on the battlefield, or something like that. But then how do we get from AD+L's bastard to Jon Dayne?

18 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

And so far, Jon has no Rhaegar-specific imagery around him.

Even if that is true, there's a really good reason for that, which I think somebody else already mentioned. Once you start putting Rhaegar, and/or dragon symbolism all around Jon, there's no more mystery.

17 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

My support for S+L=J is similarly slender to yours for AD+L=J, but I'll continue to defend it. It's thin, but it does actually fit without timeline shenanigans etc. Solid evidence for it is lacking, but frankly so have the arguments against it been -- for example dismissing Benjen on the basis of a presumption that he was at Winterfell. AD+L is attractive in many ways, but S+L has the benefit of being the only non RLJ theory that comes with a solid answer for the question of why all the secrecy. 

1) We are told he was the Stark in Winterfell during the rebellion. Do we have reason to doubt that, or are you suggesting something different, perhaps earlier when Rickard could have been the Stark in Winterfell?

2) I will grant you that. Here's my attempt to patch up this hole in AD+L=J.

LYANNA: I heard the rebels murdered Rhaegar's children. I'm worried about my son.

NED: But your son is Arthur's child.

LYANNA: Close enough.

NED: True.

17 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

However we are still left with an awkward blank as to why the abduction took place, and that requires some more extended hypothetical missing story element.

Retribution for Brandon or Ned dishonoring Arthur's sister at HH. This is just speculation of course. But there are some inverted parallels between Lyanna and Ashara. Lyanna was honored at HH, Ashara dishonored at HH. Lyanna gave birth to living boy, Ashara to a stillborn girl. Lyanna died inside a tower, seemingly struggling to hold on, whereas Ashara allegedly took her own life by jumping off of a tower. So there might be room for the two events, the dishonoring of Ashara and the kidnapping of Lyanna, to be connected. Maybe.

17 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

The whole Jon=Sword symbolism is, I'd agree, probably the most compelling part of the AD+L theory. However I'd like to look at that symbolism in a slightly different way.

There are absolutely different ways to explain that symbolism.

17 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

If Dawn is indeed Lightbringer, then AD+L is much more compelling than if Dawn and Lightbringer are separate swords. I'm inclined to think they are separate. Dawn is "pale as milkglass" (like the Other's bones and blades),  Lightbringer is the "red sword of heroes". It feels to me like there's a dichotomy at play here -- white vs. red, Others vs. R'hllor, cold vs. heat. Then there's Arthur's white cloak vs. Jon's black. 

I kind of like the idea that Dawn is both the original Ice and LB. With the latter possibly being kind of a title given after the WftD. If Dawn is the original Ice, then Jon would have a pretty decent claim to it with RLJ. There's Dayne blood on his father's side, and he's a Stark through his mother.

As for the "red sword of heroes" moniker, I feel like there's a decent chance that is a reference to the great (blood) sacrifice required to forge the sword. Dawn was forged from the heart of a fallen star, and LB was forged in Nissa Nissa's heart. This seems a little too coincidental to me.

It's also possible that LB isn't actually a sword, but a different kind of weapon. Maybe a dragon, or perhaps great warrior/leader.

16 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

snip

Thanks.

While I think is a long shot, to put it mildly, I could see how it might be possible for AD to be Jon's father. But I just can't envision any scenario where Lyanna is not Jon's mother.

[Sly Wren]

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

First, you cannot know if it predates the Targs because you don't know how far their origin goes.

Second, the Targs think it applies to them because they have their family version of the prophecy which Mel may not be familiar with, not to mention that Stannis does have a drop of Targ blood inhis veins.

But the World Book strongly implies the AA story originates in Asshai before the Valyrian empire. 

It is also written that there are annals in Asshai of such a darkness, and of a hero who fought against it with a red sword. His deeds are said to have been performed before the rise of Valyria, in the earliest age when Old Ghis was first forming its empire. This legend has spread west from Asshai, and the followers of R'hllor claim that this hero was named Azor Ahai, and prophesy his return. World Book: Ancient History: The Long Night.

All of which strongly suggests that no matter what the Targs might think, the ideas of the Long Night and all the potential heroes that ended it originate ages before their family became a "thing."

Also, are you assuming that the prophecies are "real?" In that someone will likely interpret them correctly and thus become this savior? Because so far in the novels, Martin seems to push back pretty hard against the idea that prophecy helps things or makes them clearer in useful ways. Case in point: Mel.

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

And your point is? Something being a good idea or not doesn't mean that the prophecy is incorrect.

But chasing a prophecy and/or believing in a prophecy (either as reader or in world person) seems pretty pointless in Martinalndia.

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

You keep mixing and attaching things together as if one depended on another, which in no way has to be the case. Insisting on the Targs' relatively new origin is invalid reasoning, either, because official establishment of a house doesn't mean that its members somehow came to existence at that very moment, and has nothing to do with the bloodlines that had been passed on to them from time immemorial.

But by the same token, assuming that the Targs have some original connection with the Wall and the Long Night, let alone the red sword of heroes is entirely assumption and not yet supported by text. A lot has yet to be revealed. A lot is possible. But so far--the Targs are interlopers in Westeros. 

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Sheesh, aren't you Heretics supposed to be open-minded? The only two figures in the whole series armoured in black, both connected to the PTWP/AA prophecy, and you call it a nonissue?

HA! Fair point. Though I've never fully understood the term "heretic."

But my skepticism about the connection between Jon and Rhaegar is largely tied to context: that Jon thinks of the Wall as being like black ice in the same novel twice. And that his dream is him on the Wall, defending the Wall from wights--that context is ancient and Wall oriented and seems outside what we know of Rhaegar. 

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

If Dany keeps dawdling in Essos some more, then Westeros, or what's left of it, might get united behind Jon as the one actually fighting the Others, which Dany-come-lately and not knowing a shit about the Others might consider usurpation of her claim. All that feverish raving about her identity as fire and blood and dragons not planting trees, IMHO, doesn't bode well for her capacity to think in a broader scope and step down with her claim.

I feel for Dany at the beginning of Game. but she's turning into a conqueror, not a savior. And this is unlikely to be a time for political conquest to do anyone any good.

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

It seems rather that the NW has already failed - there are no brothers with Jon in the dream, only the scarecrow fakes which burn away, and he defends the Wall all alone.

Maybe--but since he's "armored" in the same material as the Wall, also sounds like he's still "the watch"--makes me think again of the oath and it's ties to the Song of Amergin.

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

BTW, the dream may be symbolic in this respect and merely show Jon as the one and only seeing the real threat and fighting it, regardless if the Wall still exists or not.

Possible--also makes me think, though, that he's going back in history: from the battle with the Wildlings to the battle with wights. Seeing the original role.

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Again operating from a potentially incorrect premise. What makes you think that AA is a good thing in the first place? I mean, a champion of the good who burns people alive and creates murderous shadowbabies and fire zombies losing their identity? We have no idea what the agenda behind the prophecy is. It is even possible that what seems like GoHH's confirmation of the PTWP prophecy may have been an attempt to tamper with it so that the PTWP is not merely Ralloo's tool.

1. Not trying to imply AA is good or even original. Just that the story from which it originates comes from very early. 

2. I agree that the AA story sounds like the rise of a blood-sacrifice nightmare (not unlike what I'm afraid Dany will turn into)--not a protector, as the Watch and the Sword of the Morning seem to have originally been.

3. I like the idea that the Ghost was screwing with the Targs.

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

That she is either way because, IIRC, there was a Dayne married into the Targs. Not to mention the whole issue of the Daynes having the Valyrian look, which can be pointing at the same ancestry, which would solve your issue with Targs as newbies.

Right--but so far, Dawn only goes to a worthy member of House Dayne. And so far in the novels, is anyone called "of House Dayne" via their grandmother's origins? So that doesn't solve the problem of Tags as newbies--the Daynes and Hightowers are oldies. The Targs are still newbies--still interlopers and conquerors.

Plus, that moment for Dany comes after Ned's description of Dawn in Arthur's hands. The idea that Dany has a Dayne parent would fit. But that's for another thread.

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Pray, why not both? Because, while you are right that the Wall is described as black twice in ADWD, it's not the colour normally associated with ice or with the Wall itself.

Fair point--the main reason would be the context: Jon sees the Wall that way twice in the novel before having that vision. Rhaegar's armor doesn't make an appearance in that novel (at least I couldn't find it). So, as winter and the Long Night come, the Wall changes color. In his dream, he even sees Longclaw as burning red. As though the Wall and his sword change in response to the oncoming threat.

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

So we have some very obvious connections for Dany, and as Icefire has pointed out, a lot of subtle hints for Jon. That's almost like a very definition of a red herring versus the real deal, wouldn't you say?

But the subtle hints Icefire has pointed out (so far in this thread) fall apart under any examination of context. So, little if any basis for connecting Jon to the Targs if this is what we must rely on.

@Kingmonkey's examination of the case was very solid. But even there, the narrative tie between Jon and Lyanna was stronger than the tie to Rhaegar. 

 

[Sly Wren]

5 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Why would Rhaegar wear a black suit of armor with a red, three-headed dragon upon the chest? Because it's the Targaryen sigil in armor form. What might GRRM have been trying to convey by having Rhaegar wear that suit? By essentially wearing the Targaryen sigil, Rhaegar became the embodiment of House Targaryen when he donned that armor. This hypothesis fares well at the Trident, where Robert defeated House Targaryen when he smashed their sigil, worn by Rhaegar on his chest.

Very likely--though no other Targ seems to have decided to do this.

And, as I said above. given the context of "black ice" and the wording of the Night's Watch vows "I ams"--seems like Jon's seeing himself in black ice is at least as likely if not more so to refer to the Wall, not to Rhaegar.

25 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

Question: does the World Book have information about how old House Targaryen is, before Westeros? I keep seeing "300 years old" and thinking, "huh, the people who keep calling themselves the Blood of Old Valyria will probably be surprised to learn that". Sure, they weren't the most illustrious of Freehold's houses, but it's not like they were the Valyria version of the Freys.

HA! I'm now imagining the Targs guarding a bridge with dragon fire.

We don't know how old they were compared to the founding of the Valyrian Empire--coudl be they were an old but minor house. Or a new and minor house. But we do know the Long Night, House Stark, and House Dayne vastly predate the Valyrian Empire. 

14 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Schmendrick's idea was based on the part where Jon thinks that he will not forget that Ned is his father no matter how many swords they give him. Which is kind of clever. The IT– that's a lot of swords!

Right--but none of that stops Jon's longing for the name and the sword. . . .he only says that because he feels like he'd be usurping Robb. That seems like a much more straightforward reading. I'm all for clever, but Schmedrick's idea seems a bit much.

15 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

There's seems to be a hiccup or two here for Jon. He's not a knight, and he's almost certainly not a Dayne, even after allowing for AD+L=J. I guess he could be knighted on the battlefield, or something like that. But then how do we get from AD+L's bastard to Jon Dayne?

Well, Jon's a Stark despite being a bastard. Ghost alone proves that--in the eyes of the old gods, he's clearly Stark enough for that Stark symbol. And despite all of the problem with the Bael Tale, it does strongly suggest that the Starks at some point were willing to choose a bastard as their leader.

So far, we've no idea how the Daynes choose their "worthy Dayne"--they, like Starks, might be just fine with bastards under the right circumstances. (WE NEED THE NEXT BOOK!!!!!)

And House Dayne vastly predates the concept of knighthood, so seems like there's a good chance the knighthood isn't an innate obstacle.

19 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Even if that is true, there's a really good reason for that, which I think somebody else already mentioned. Once you start putting Rhaegar, and/or dragon symbolism all around Jon, there's no more mystery.

But then this reiterates my point: so far, Jon has no Targ specific traits. His tie to Rhaegar is through the common story that Rhaegar took Lyanna--since Jon is tied to Starks and narratively to Lyanna (Kingmonkey's essay showed this extremely well).

But symbolically, Jon's all Starks and swords and Night's Watching. And a vision of the Sword of the Morning. So, if we go by what Jon is learning and seeing, he's not showing any Targ-ness. He's showing Stark and some Dayne. 

Which brings back my point: it depends on where Martin is going. Is he telling us who Jon's father is via association with Lyanna? Or through showing us who Jon is becoming and what symbols and imagery surround him? 

That seems to be at least one of the key questions brought up when evaluating the differences between ALJ and RLJ.

A question I'm not sure we can answer until we get the next book.

[Black Crow]

38 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

 

HA! Fair point. Though I've never fully understood the term "heretic."

 

A digression purely by way of a point of information.

The original thread in what is now the Heresy series was actually entitled The Wall, the Watch and a Heresy. The latter being a suggestion that the Starks might not necessarily be the all-round good guys everybody assumed them to be and that back in their past there's a connection to what's going bump in the night and that "Winter is coming" isn't a reminder to lay in some extra firewood. Episode two was then simply headed Heresy just by way of convenience, and has stuck. 

[velo-knight]

 

6 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

HA! I'm now imagining the Targs guarding a bridge with dragon fire.

We don't know how old they were compared to the founding of the Valyrian Empire--coudl be they were an old but minor house. Or a new and minor house. But we do know the Long Night, House Stark, and House Dayne vastly predate the Valyrian Empire. 

It's a pretty entertaining image. Imagine what the head houses of the Freehold would think seeing the Targaryens running around, claiming the mantle of Valyria, insisting on their divine nobility as Blood of the Dragon. In a way, the Targaryens wind up becoming their heirs meta-textually: while never very important in Valyria, as the last of the dragonlords they wind up embodying all the upper classes of the Freehold, taking the words and symbols of the Freehold as their own, and forming some bond with dragons that seems to go beyond merely riding them.

Regarding the age of Valyria: that's taking the timeline at face value, which I don't. I believe that Valyria's Doom came 500 years before present, because it's close to the modern age and there were written records. I also believe Valyria was around for a while, since we see the Valyrians listed as causes for multiple separate waves of migrations to Westeros. Beyond that, I doubt anything is more than half as old as it claims to be: it strains credulity that in a world with as high a family extinction rate as Westeros is shown to have that multiple regions have had kings with lineages of many millennia. Why would George make a point of telling us that the histories of the Dawn of Days and Age of Heroes were written down thousands of years later by Septons and Maesters, if not to let us know that the timeline in question is going to be full of oral histories and inaccuracies? I also firmly believe that (I might get some pushback on this) George is trying to tell us through groups like the Wildlings that the official account is incomplete.

I could still buy that the Valyrians are younger than certain groups - certainly the Ghiscari - but even then it's a question of "when was the ethnogenesis of this people" vs. "when did this people become an empire". Put another way, there was a Rome during the late Persian and then Hellenic empires, it just wasn't all that important. A casual observer might think of history as a procession of empires, "Persian - Hellenic/Diadochi Period - Roman Republic", and conclude that Romans, Macedonians and Greeks are younger than they actually are. Since our histories of Planetos are not all that reliable, I think that's a possibility here.

6 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

Right--but none of that stops Jon's longing for the name and the sword. . . .he only says that because he feels like he'd be usurping Robb. That seems like a much more straightforward reading. I'm all for clever, but Schmedrick's idea seems a bit much.

Well, Jon's a Stark despite being a bastard. Ghost alone proves that--in the eyes of the old gods, he's clearly Stark enough for that Stark symbol. And despite all of the problem with the Bael Tale, it does strongly suggest that the Starks at some point were willing to choose a bastard as their leader.

It also implies that female-line descent isn't as big a problem, at least for the First Men, as it's made out to be, since technically in a patrilineal sense Starky McBaelsson wasn't a Stark at all. That's got some interesting implications and suggests to me that the "purity of blood" thing the Targaryens are into is bunkum.

6 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

But then this reiterates my point: so far, Jon has no Targ specific traits. His tie to Rhaegar is through the common story that Rhaegar took Lyanna--since Jon is tied to Starks and narratively to Lyanna (Kingmonkey's essay showed this extremely well).

But symbolically, Jon's all Starks and swords and Night's Watching. And a vision of the Sword of the Morning. So, if we go by what Jon is learning and seeing, he's not showing any Targ-ness. He's showing Stark and some Dayne. 

I don't think it does. Looking at the problem another way, if R+L does equal J, and you were in GRRM's shoes, how would you go about making the link clearer without giving it away?

Even in different context, the similarity of the language itself is significant, I think. Jon uses almost the exact phrasing for his "could almost see them" bit as Daenerys does.

 

[Ygrain]

28 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

But the World Book strongly implies the AA story originates in Asshai before the Valyrian empire. 

It is also written that there are annals in Asshai of such a darkness, and of a hero who fought against it with a red sword. His deeds are said to have been performed before the rise of Valyria, in the earliest age when Old Ghis was first forming its empire. This legend has spread west from Asshai, and the followers of R'hllor claim that this hero was named Azor Ahai, and prophesy his return. World Book: Ancient History: The Long Night.

All of which strongly suggests that no matter what the Targs might think, the ideas of the Long Night and all the potential heroes that ended it originate ages before their family became a "thing."

Well, yes, but the Targs came from somewhere before they became a thing. Who's to know what bloodline they had been carrying along, they and all those Valyrian sorcerers?

28 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

Also, are you assuming that the prophecies are "real?" In that someone will likely interpret them correctly and thus become this savior? Because so far in the novels, Martin seems to push back pretty hard against the idea that prophecy helps things or makes them clearer in useful ways. Case in point: Mel.

This is not one thing but two - I do believe that prophecies in GRRMth are the real deal because we see a whole lot of them come true, but we are also shown that people constantly keep misinterpreting them and that chasing prophecies usually leads to major fuckups. I also tend to think that prophecies come true on their own and not through people acting on them, and if someone's going to become AA, it will be through circumstances that push him into it because he will be at the right place and time.

28 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

But by the same token, assuming that the Targs have some original connection with the Wall and the Long Night, let alone the red sword of heroes is entirely assumption and not yet supported by text. A lot has yet to be revealed. A lot is possible. But so far--the Targs are interlopers in Westeros. 

I definitely wouldn't assume a connection between the Targs and the Wall, but the Long Night? Who knows? If Asshai chronicles speak about the Long Night, then it must have been a world-wide phenomenon, like nuclear or post-cataclysmic event winter, and who knows what some ancient proto-Targs might have had with that?

28 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

But my skepticism about the connection between Jon and Rhaegar is largely tied to context: that Jon thinks of the Wall as being like black ice in the same novel twice. And that his dream is him on the Wall, defending the Wall from wights--that context is ancient and Wall oriented and seems outside what we know of Rhaegar. 

I'd be very careful about bysing my thoughts on an occurence within a single book when the planned number of books was three and ADWD itself is basically one with AFFC.

As far as we know, Rhaegar indeed had no connection to the Wall except corresponding with Maester Aemon, but since we don't know what the PTWP prophecy that he read was about, we can't rule this out, either.

Besides, as I have said multiple times, the elements of the dream needn't be interconnected in the way you would have them. For example, what if, in order to defend the realm, Jon must embrace his identity as a Targ (black armour) and AA (red sword)? Not to mention that, surprise, surprise, black and red are actually Targ colours.

28 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

I feel for Dany at the beginning of Game. but she's turning into a conqueror, not a savior. And this is unlikely to be a time for political conquest to do anyone any good.

Yes, I find Dany's development very disturbing, too. 

28 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

Maybe--but since he's "armored" in the same material as the Wall, also sounds like he's still "the watch"--makes me think again of the oath and it's ties to the Song of Amergin.

Yes, he is still the Watch - the last of them.

28 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

1. Not trying to imply AA is good or even original. Just that the story from which it originates comes from very early. 

Well, yes, but if AA is not a saviour, then your argument that this person should be a Westerosi oldie falls.

28 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

2. I agree that the AA story sounds like the rise of a blood-sacrifice nightmare (not unlike what I'm afraid Dany will turn into)--not a protector, as the Watch and the Sword of the Morning seem to have originally been.

Well, and are you sure that Dawn had always been a good sword? There was this sword which killed Nissa Nissa which is unaccounted for, or that original Stark Ice which is also unaccounted for and whose name is not exactly friendly...

28 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

3. I like the idea that the Ghost was screwing with the Targs.

Perhaps not with the Targs as such but with the original prophecy - now, if AA is not that goody-two-shoe saviour figure but an instrument of the Red God to some vile ends, perhaps some other player(s) in the godly game of thrones thought it a good idea to adjust the said instrument to some better role by manipulating the prophecy.

 

28 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

Right--but so far, Dawn only goes to a worthy member of House Dayne. And so far in the novels, is anyone called "of House Dayne" via their grandmother's origins? So that doesn't solve the problem of Tags as newbies--the Daynes and Hightowers are oldies. The Targs are still newbies--still interlopers and conquerors.

Plus, that moment for Dany comes after Ned's description of Dawn in Arthur's hands. The idea that Dany has a Dayne parent would fit. But that's for another thread.

Well, but unless the hypothetical Dayne father married the hero(ine)'s mother, they are not House Dayne, either.

28 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

Fair point--the main reason would be the context: Jon sees the Wall that way twice in the novel before having that vision. Rhaegar's armor doesn't make an appearance in that novel (at least I couldn't find it). So, as winter and the Long Night come, the Wall changes color. In his dream, he even sees Longclaw as burning red. As though the Wall and his sword change in response to the oncoming threat.

A nice point.

28 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

But the subtle hints Icefire has pointed out (so far in this thread) fall apart under any examination of context. So, little if any basis for connecting Jon to the Targs if this is what we must rely on.

The list of subtle hints is much longer than that, of course, but my personal favourite would be "black has always been my colour" :-)

 

13 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

Well, Jon's a Stark despite being a bastard. Ghost alone proves that--in the eyes of the old gods, he's clearly Stark enough for that Stark symbol. 

 

Weeeell... the Stark symbol is grey, not white, and his symbol was located separately from the others, not quite belonging, which is exactly what the old kings of winter tell him in his dream.

But as Arya says: "Woman is important, too!", which brings us to Jon Stargaryen :-)

13 minutes ago, Sly Wren said:

But then this reiterates my point: so far, Jon has no Targ specific traits. His tie to Rhaegar is through the common story that Rhaegar took Lyanna--since Jon is tied to Starks and narratively to Lyanna (Kingmonkey's essay showed this extremely well).

Which happens to work in the same way in which Jon's comparison to Arya and Arya's comparison to Lyanna bring us to Jon looking like Lyanna :-) In other words, Jon's tie to Lyanna and Lyanna's tie to Rhaegar constitute a tie between Jon and Rhaegar because we don't have any other man with a tie to Lyanna who could be Jon's father.

[Leticia Stark]

I'll leave this amazing @The Fattest Leech thread here:

 

[MtnLion]

20 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Speaking of Dany's visions, I remembered this:

That night she dreamt that she was Rhaegar, riding to the Trident. But she was mounted on a dragon, not a horse. When she saw the Usurper's rebel host across the river they were armored all in ice, but she bathed them in dragonfire and they melted away like dew and turned the Trident into a torrent. Some small part of her knew that she was dreaming, but another part exulted. This is how it was meant to be. The other was a nightmare, and I have only now awakened.

Burning shafts hissed upward, trailing tongues of fire. Scarecrow brothers tumbled down, black cloaks ablaze. "Snow," an eagle cried, as foemen scuttled up the ice like spiders. Jon was armored in black ice, but his blade burned red in his fist. As the dead men reached the top of the Wall he sent them down to die again. He slew a greybeard and a beardless boy, a giant, a gaunt man with filed teeth, a girl with thick red hair. Too late he recognized Ygritte. She was gone as quick as she’d appeared.

I don't recall, has this - rather disturbing - parallel been discussed? Because if it is intentional, it probably hints at Jon and Dany being adversaries.

I go with the adversarial roles, at least initially.  That is how I always read those lines. 

[Kingmonkey]

19 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

The biggest objection to N+A=J is that the timeline supposedly does not fit. 

You make a very valid point that so much of the symbolism supporting AD+L works for N+A as well. However I have to disagree with the timeline issue being even close to the biggest objection. 

GRRM gave us a perfectly good out for any timeline objections with his comment about Ashara not being nailed down. There are months of the rebellion where we literally have no information on the movements of either Ned or Ashara, so timeline simply isn't a major objection.

I'd say the biggest single objection has to be that N+A is the very first explanation we're given - before the fact of the mystery has even been established. It's used as part of the set-up that tells us that there is a mystery about Jon's parentage. To believe N+A is true is to believe that GRRM told us who Jon's parents were, and then went on a big process of raising subtle questions about Jon's parentage, focusing strangely on Jon's appearance, and doing everything he could to indicate that there was a mystery here, for no apparent reason. What's the point of all that? How would it not end up being a massive literary let-down? The biggest necessity for making the N+A case is surely explaining how, if it's true, GRRM isn't just trolling the reader. 

If GRRM reveals that Ned & Ashara are indeed Jon's parents, I'll be hearing "Never gonna give you up" sung in Kit Harrington's voice in my head when I read it. 

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, velo-knight said:

It's a pretty entertaining image. Imagine what the head houses of the Freehold would think seeing the Targaryens running around, claiming the mantle of Valyria, insisting on their divine nobility as Blood of the Dragon. In a way, the Targaryens wind up becoming their heirs meta-textually: while never very important in Valyria, as the last of the dragonlords they wind up embodying all the upper classes of the Freehold, taking the words and symbols of the Freehold as their own, and forming some bond with dragons that seems to go beyond merely riding them.

And yet something odd is going on. While lacking dragons, the heirs to the empire, the "Old Blood of Valyria" are forted up behind the Black Walls of Volantis. When they tried to re-establish the empire Aegon [the conqueror] joined the coalition which defeated them, and now the Red Lot [per Benero] are confidently proclaiming that Danaerys the Dragonlord is Azor Ahai and that as such her role is to finish off the "Old Blood" behind the Black Walls, with nary a mention of any appointments up north. All of which raises questions as to where the Targaryens really fitted in to Valyrian society, why they were on Dragonstone when the Doom fell and what the prophecy actually said.

[velo-knight]

2 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

And yet something odd is going on. While lacking dragons, the heirs to the empire, the "Old Blood of Valyria" are forted up behind the Black Walls of Volantis. When they tried to re-establish the empire Aegon [the conqueror] joined the coalition which defeated them, and now the Red Lot [per Benero] are confidently proclaiming that Danaerys the Dragonlord is Azor Ahai and that as such her role is to finish off the "Old Blood" behind the Black Walls, with nary a mention of any appointments up north. All of which raises questions as to where the Targaryens really fitted in to Valyrian society, why they were on Dragonstone when the Doom fell and what the prophecy actually said.

Interesting. The idea of the Targaryens as a kind of Valyrian exile group that fell from grace and were somehow immune to, or less guilty of, the corruption of Valyria is very entertaining, though it runs a little in contrast to their "bad boy" image.

[Kingmonkey]

2 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

1) We are told he was the Stark in Winterfell during the rebellion. Do we have reason to doubt that, or are you suggesting something different, perhaps earlier when Rickard could have been the Stark in Winterfell?

We're told that he was the Stark in Winterfell at the end of the rebellion. We are told nothing at all about his movements before it started, or in the early stages.

The assumption people often make is that Benjen must have been the Stark in Winterfell at the start of things too, because there was a need of one while Rickard headed south for Brandon's wedding.  This confuses "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell" with "there is always a Stark in Winterfell". Consider the following questions:

1. Could Lyarra Stark have been the Stark in Winterfell? We have no information on when she died.

2. Perhaps Benjen was supposed to be the Stark in Winterfell during Brandon's wedding, but for some reason hadn't showed up. Can we be sure that the "Stark in Winterfell" condition was taken so seriously by Rickard that he would have missed his son and heir's wedding, at risk of undoing the political alliance he'd worked so hard for? Would he have refused the King's demand he go to King's Landing?

3. Stark eyes were turning south, and it didn't go well for them. This seems to be a bit of a Stark theme. We know that Ned takes the "Stark in Winterfell" concept seriously, but how do we know that's a tradition that was taken so seriously immediately before that lesson Ned had in the dangers of looking south? We're told that Benjen was the "Stark in Winterfell" at the end of the Rebellion -- which means that it was Ned's orders keeping him there. There is a very clear contrast between Rickard's "southron ambitions" and Ned's reluctance to leave the North.

4. With just one other adult Stark and one newborn baby left in the family, why did Benjen go to the wall so quickly after the rebellion? Did he do something bad?

There's plenty there to give serious doubt to any suggestion that Benjen must have been the Stark in Winterfell at the start of the rebellion. 

2 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

2) I will grant you that. Here's my attempt to patch up this hole in AD+L=J.

LYANNA: I heard the rebels murdered Rhaegar's children. I'm worried about my son.

NED: But your son is Arthur's child.

LYANNA: Close enough.

NED: True.

I get the impression you don't find this a very satisfactory patch.  Arthur's child would not be dragonspawn. It's hard to reconcile Ned's view that his anti-Targ hatred is a particular "madness" in Robert with the notion that Ned would believe that Robert would go around killing non-Targ kids too. 

2 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Retribution for Brandon or Ned dishonoring Arthur's sister at HH. This is just speculation of course. But there are some inverted parallels between Lyanna and Ashara. Lyanna was honored at HH, Ashara dishonored at HH. Lyanna gave birth to living boy, Ashara to a stillborn girl. Lyanna died inside a tower, seemingly struggling to hold on, whereas Ashara allegedly took her own life by jumping off of a tower. So there might be room for the two events, the dishonoring of Ashara and the kidnapping of Lyanna, to be connected. Maybe.

That "dishonour" should be remembered in the context of Ashara "looking to Stark". It doesn't seem like Ashara would have felt herself dishonoured. Which leaves Arthur kidnapping Ned's sister and starting a war for the sake of getting back at his own sister's boyfriend. That doesn't sit right with either the more relaxed Dornish attitudes to sex, nor to Ned's apparently positive opinion of Arthur. 

It also leaves the question of why Rhaegar wouldn't have slapped Arthur silly rather than conspiring with him to do something so damaging to the realm for the sake of his hurt feelings. 

2 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

As for the "red sword of heroes" moniker, I feel like there's a decent chance that is a reference to the great (blood) sacrifice required to forge the sword. Dawn was forged from the heart of a fallen star, and LB was forged in Nissa Nissa's heart. This seems a little too coincidental to me.

I wouldn't put too much weight on that. Things get forged in the heart of other things all the time, it's too much of a cliche to assume that all incidents of it are linked. Just for reference, Google gives 2.65 million hits for the phrase "forged in the heart", mostly about things (frequently magical weapons) being forged in the hearts of stars. 

Let's not forget Jon's dream, discussed already in this thread. Jon is armoured in black ice and wielding a RED, not a white, sword. 

[Consigliere]

Concerning S+L=J. I read @Kingmonkey's essay many months ago and to the best of my recollection, Benjen was considered to be the most likely candidate and KM did a decent job (here and in the essay) of showing that Benjen does not necessarily have to be the Stark in Winterfell during the rebellion. There is another issue that I don't recall the essay addressing and that is this SSM.

Quote

It's true that in recent times, the Starks have become quite scarce. There's not many of them in the present generatons. Some may say it's because Ned's siblings died. Brandon died before he had sons, and Lyanna is also dead, and Benjen joined the Night's Watch which means he doesn't have descendants either. It might also have to do with their father, Rickard, who was an only son and I'd have to go back to my notes to see why he was the only child -- and really, I'm speaking from memory, so that may not be quite right. At home I have my notecards, my family trees where I keep this information, because unlike some other people I can't remember everything.

So, Brandon died before he had sons and Benjen joined the NW which means he doesn't have descendants either. Seems that rules out two of the brothers, leaving only Ned. The evidence for Starkcest is pretty thin already and this SSM makes it even more unlikely.

[Kingmonkey]

1 minute ago, Consigliere said:

So, Brandon died before he had sons and Benjen joined the NW which means he doesn't have descendants either. Seems that rules out two of the brothers, leaving only Ned. The evidence for Starkcest is pretty thin already and this SSM makes it even more unlikely.

Excellent catch!  

[IceFire125]

43 minutes ago, Kingmonkey said:

Let's not forget Jon's dream, discussed already in this thread. Jon is armoured in black ice and wielding a RED, not a white, sword. 

Not only that, GRRM consistently painted Jon with such colorful detail descriptions of imagery and surroundings, curious to that part of him being RED.

The blood kept running down into his right eye, and his cheek was a blaze of pain. When he touched it his black gloves came away stained with red.

Jon Snow turned away. The last light of the sun had begun to fade. He watched the cracks along the Wall go from red to grey to black, from streaks of fire to rivers of black ice.

**red-grey-black (Targaryen-Stark-NW)