Widowmaker 811

Child of Ice and Fire: More harmful than helpful

46 posts in this topic

The biggest problem with the R + L theory is not the identity of the child, but the belief among some in the fandom that this child would bring something positive to the world.  There is no evidence to suggest that the union of ice and fire is good.  For all we know, the child of such a union is just as likely to be the cause of the White Walkers mobilizing against man than anything else.  Ice and Fire have remained separate for thousands of years and the world for the far greater majority of that time, have done fine.  The problem man had for the majority of those years were with other men, not the White Walkers.  Man's biggest adversary during those years was, you guessed it, other men.  

Given George RR Martin's somewhat cynical views, I would argue that if there is such a child of ice and fire, that child is just as likely to cause harm to the world.  And in GM fashion, the child may not even do this intentionally but rather as a consequence of following his/her own heart.  It is more likely that this union of ice and fire should not have taken place.  As a matter of fact, if we look at where things stand today, that romantic union has brought sorrow, grief, and suffering.  R+L helped bring about a rebellion that killed thousands of people.  The war of the five kings is an aftereffect of the rebellion.  The negative impact of R+L is still being felt today and people are still suffering because of it.  For the fans who believe in R+L=J, this J has caused more problems at the wall than the Night's King ever did.  I would agree that it was unintentional but he chose the interest of one girl over the protection of the realm.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have a very good point.  Rhaegar's song brought war and suffering.  His child is likely to do the same.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the OP makes a good point.  However, ice and fire have been out of balance since all the dragons died.  Over time, this may have given an edge to ice, allowing the Others to once again menace the lands of men.  Their appearance in the prologue to AGoT suggests that without dragons to keep them in check they decided to make a move.  R+L=J notwithstanding, Dany brought the dragons back, nothing that the Others could of foretold.  Or, maybe they did and that is why they started moving south.  The text suggests, though, that the Others have been on the move for quite a while (Mance and Ygritte make this clear in Jon's POV).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some of Martin's short stories deal with ecological issues of sustainability and concern for different forms of life.  The First Men started cutting down the weirwood trees and those may have served to keep the environment in balance.  Fire and ice are parts of nature just like day and night.  You can't have one without the other.  I don't think this story will end with the elimination of the white walkers.  What will likely happen, in my opinion, is some kind of mutual accommodation.  The white walkers get the north while humans get the south.  No dragon flyovers past the ruins of Moat Cailin and the white walkers agree to stay in the north.  No more cutting down any of the remaining weir woods.  Ice and fire must remain separate as that is how nature intended them to be.  Night and day remain apart.  Each has its rightful place and time.  The living and the dead must stay away from one another but neither can destroy the other.

Regarding the op, sure, it's fifty percent chance the way I see it.  Whoever the child of R and L, that person could either be good or bad.  Harmful vs helpful as the op proposed.  I'm saying it is fifty-fifty chance either way. 

Edited by Take Me 2 Your Leader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The biggest problem with the R + L theory is not the identity of the child, but the belief among some in the fandom that this child would bring something positive to the world.  There is no evidence to suggest that the union of ice and fire is good.  For all we know, the child of such a union is just as likely to be the cause of the White Walkers mobilizing against man than anything else.  Ice and Fire have remained separate for thousands of years and the world for the far greater majority of that time, have done fine.  The problem man had for the majority of those years were with other men, not the White Walkers.  Man's biggest adversary during those years was, you guessed it, other men.  

Given George RR Martin's somewhat cynical views, I would argue that if there is such a child of ice and fire, that child is just as likely to cause harm to the world.  And in GM fashion, the child may not even do this intentionally but rather as a consequence of following his/her own heart.  It is more likely that this union of ice and fire should not have taken place.  As a matter of fact, if we look at where things stand today, that romantic union has brought sorrow, grief, and suffering.  R+L helped bring about a rebellion that killed thousands of people.  The war of the five kings is an aftereffect of the rebellion.  The negative impact of R+L is still being felt today and people are still suffering because of it.  For the fans who believe in R+L=J, this J has caused more problems at the wall than the Night's King ever did.  I would agree that it was unintentional but he chose the interest of one girl over the protection of the realm.  

I agree with this.  I have not read a good argument why such a child is actually needed.  A hybrid of the two elemental forces is not natural and would be seen by both sides as a curse.  R + L = bad.  Rhaegar already proved that by his actions, the rebellion was triggered and if Jon is his son, the boy did more harm than help at the wall.  The song is bad news. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Take Me 2 Your Leader said:

The living and the dead must stay away from one another but neither can destroy the other.

That implies that one is life and one is death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steelshanks Walton said:

if Jon is his son, the boy did more harm than help at the wall.  The song is bad news. 

How has he? If Jon hadn't let Tormund and his free folk through the wall there'd just be more corpse's for the dead to throw at the living. If Jon hadn't helped Stannis then there's no way the North would be able to rally in time to face the Others. Jon has been reopening the abandoned forts along the wall, he's making deals with the Iron Bank. By contrast, he made the one mistake of trying to lead the Free Folk to rescue his sister. So tell me, how has he done more harm than good?

As to the OP, it seems to me that ice and fire have always been at an imbalance. The Others marched when there were no dragons in Westeros, leading to ice domination. Thousands of years later, fire has dominance with the arrival of Aegon the Conqueror and now ice has dominance again. I think it's more likely that the union of ice and fire is designed to balance it once and for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

As to the OP, it seems to me that ice and fire have always been at an imbalance. The Others marched when there were no dragons in Westeros, leading to ice domination. Thousands of years later, fire has dominance with the arrival of Aegon the Conqueror and now ice has dominance again. I think it's more likely that the union of ice and fire is designed to balance it once and for all.

Balance doesn't mean they have to merge.  Night and day are balanced in our world and yet they each have their time.  One follows the other.  There is no reason why the mixing of fire and ice will bring benefit. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

Balance doesn't mean they have to merge.  Night and day are balanced in our world and yet they each have their time.  One follows the other.  There is no reason why the mixing of fire and ice will bring benefit. 

 

Yet I've similarly seen no evidence that this union will bring harm. I can't find any textual evidence pointing to Jon being someone who's very existence will bring harm to the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steelshanks Walton said:

I agree with this.  I have not read a good argument why such a child is actually needed.  A hybrid of the two elemental forces is not natural and would be seen by both sides as a curse.  R + L = bad.  Rhaegar already proved that by his actions, the rebellion was triggered and if Jon is his son, the boy did more harm than help at the wall.  The song is bad news. 

The reason we tend to think a son of Rhaegar with Lyann (Jon!) would be so good is twofold:

  • Their son seems to be Jon, who is very much a hero, even if not immune to do bad things by misguidance.
  • Everybody except Robert Baratheon and maybe Ned loves Rhaegar and wants to find a rational explanation for such a disaster.

I always subscribed to this thesis, but I agree the OP has a good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Yet I've similarly seen no evidence that this union will bring harm. I can't find any textual evidence pointing to Jon being someone who's very existence will bring harm to the world.

It is hard to predict the future but we can look at the past. 

  • Rhaegar's relationship with Lyanna sparked the rebellion that killed thousands upon thousands of people, made orphans of thousands of children and widows of many women, destruction of crops, and the destabilization of a government that has stood for three hundred years. 
  • I would not be so sure that Jon is R+L.  But let us say he is for the sake of debate.  He made some good decisions like letting the wildlings through, but letting the wildlings through forced the watch to borrow money to buy enough supplies to feed those additional people.  The watch looked to be as prepared as it can to defend from the Others until Jon started a war with the Boltons over his sister.  Jon started that fight over Arya. 

I will say that at this time the results of R+L has been damaging to the realm and destroyed thousands of lives.  Events that happened because of R+L are bad.   We don't know the future but people around here are bad about making wild predictions that history repeats itself.  It doesn't look promising for the son of R+L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

until Jon started a war with the Boltons over his sister.  Jon started that fight over Arya. 

One it was Ramsey the one who was going to attack the Watch and second the Watch exists because of Jon. Without him and his leadership during the battle the Free Folk would had taken the Black Castle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

It is hard to predict the future but we can look at the past. 

  • Rhaegar's relationship with Lyanna sparked the rebellion that killed thousands upon thousands of people, made orphans of thousands of children and widows of many women, destruction of crops, and the destabilization of a government that has stood for three hundred years. 
  • I would not be so sure that Jon is R+L.  But let us say he is for the sake of debate.  He made some good decisions like letting the wildlings through, but letting the wildlings through forced the watch to borrow money to buy enough supplies to feed those additional people.  The watch looked to be as prepared as it can to defend from the Others until Jon started a war with the Boltons over his sister.  Jon started that fight over Arya. 

I will say that at this time the results of R+L has been damaging to the realm and destroyed thousands of lives.  Events that happened because of R+L are bad.   We don't know the future but people around here are bad about making wild predictions that history repeats itself.  It doesn't look promising for the son of R+L.

Doctor's Consort got there first but like she said, Jon didn't start any war with the Bolton's. Ramsay; as far as Jon knows; sent a letter threatening to destroy the watch if Jon didn't hand over a bunch of prisoners, some of which he doesn't have (FakeArya and Theon/Reek). While his decision to fight the Bolton's might in part have been motivated by a desire to save his sister and avenge his brother, Ramsay had still openly declared his intention to destroy the NW and as such Jon did nothing wrong in responding to that threat. Nothing in the vows say the NW can't fight off an army from the south that clearly intends to destroy them.

Also, I am 95-99% sure that R+L=J. Literally no other option makes sense, except perhaps FAegon being Lyanna's son, but even that is a bit convoluted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

Doctor's Consort got there first but like she said, Jon didn't start any war with the Bolton's. Ramsay; as far as Jon knows; sent a letter threatening to destroy the watch if Jon didn't hand over a bunch of prisoners, some of which he doesn't have (FakeArya and Theon/Reek). While his decision to fight the Bolton's might in part have been motivated by a desire to save his sister and avenge his brother, Ramsay had still openly declared his intention to destroy the NW and as such Jon did nothing wrong in responding to that threat. Nothing in the vows say the NW can't fight off an army from the south that clearly intends to destroy them.

Also, I am 95-99% sure that R+L=J. Literally no other option makes sense, except perhaps FAegon being Lyanna's son, but even that is a bit convoluted.

Jon provoked that fight.  He should have stayed out of the Bolton's business and let fArya fend for herself, even to die if she has to.   Sending your thugs (Mance and the spear women) to steal away the bride of a noble man is an act of war.  Jon was the one at fault in this situation.  He was in the wrong and he was about to commit an even bigger treason if Bowen Marsh had not stopped him.

I would even say that Jon is partly responsible for the breaking of guest rights.  His thugs killed people who worked for their host, Roose Bolton while they sheltered in his home.  Jon basically declared war on the Boltons when he sent the wildlings to steal Arya from Ramsay.   

Edited by Widowmaker 811

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon provoked that fight.  He should have stayed out of the Bolton's business and let fArya fend for herself, even to die if she has to.   Sending your thugs (Mance and the spear women) to steal away the bride of a noble man is an act of war.  Jon was the one at fault in this situation.  He was in the wrong and he was about to commit an even bigger treason if Bowen Marsh had not stopped him.

I would even say that Jon is partly responsible for the breaking of guest rights.  His thugs killed people who worked for their host, Roose Bolton while they sheltered in his home.  Jon basically declared war on the Boltons when he sent the wildlings to steal Arya from Ramsay.   

Dead wrong. He didn't send Mance to do anything, Melisandre did. Jon knew that Mance was going to Long Lake to intercept what they thought to be Arya, but knowing about it and ordering it are separate things. Plus, even if he had opposed Melisandre's decision to send Mance, he had no authority to stop him. So no, Jon provoked nothing.

Jon's also not responsible for breaking guest right because as I said above, Mance didn't go on his orders. Even then, Mance's orders were to intercept fArya on the road. Mance went to Winterfell of his own volition.

And what bigger treason? Defending the watch from the Bolton's isn't treason, but stabbing your Lord Commander to death most certainly is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18.4.2017 at 1:35 PM, Steelshanks Walton said:

  if Jon is his son, the boy did more harm than help at the wall.

He absolutely didn't?

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Jon provoked that fight.  He should have stayed out of the Bolton's business and let fArya fend for herself, even to die if she has to.   Sending your thugs (Mance and the spear women) to steal away the bride of a noble man is an act of war.  Jon was the one at fault in this situation.  He was in the wrong and he was about to commit an even bigger treason if Bowen Marsh had not stopped him.

I would even say that Jon is partly responsible for the breaking of guest rights.  His thugs killed people who worked for their host, Roose Bolton while they sheltered in his home.  Jon basically declared war on the Boltons when he sent the wildlings to steal Arya from Ramsay.   

Oh please, the Boltons started the war by uhm burning Winterfell and killing everybody there. Pretty damn warlike. Guest right, lol. They continued the war by allegedly kidnapping and torturing Arya. Jon didn't *start* anything and wouldn't even if Mance's mission was his idea alone, including the murders. Which is not the case.  

I don't get this. What is to be gained by pretending kidnapping, rape and torture of little girls is fine and dandy while saving them is a horrible thing to do. I mean nobody can actually believe that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

Dead wrong. He didn't send Mance to do anything, Melisandre did. Jon knew that Mance was going to Long Lake to intercept what they thought to be Arya, but knowing about it and ordering it are separate things. Plus, even if he had opposed Melisandre's decision to send Mance, he had no authority to stop him. So no, Jon provoked nothing.

Jon's also not responsible for breaking guest right because as I said above, Mance didn't go on his orders. Even then, Mance's orders were to intercept fArya on the road. Mance went to Winterfell of his own volition.

And what bigger treason? Defending the watch from the Bolton's isn't treason, but stabbing your Lord Commander to death most certainly is.

I disagree with you.  Jon had the final say on whether Mance would go to save Arya or stay at the wall.  The decision was his.  Mellissandre was simply offering the opportunity.  Jon is responsible for Mance going to Winterfell.  Jon sent him on that mission and therefore should be held responsible for their actions.  Jon even sent one of the brothers to Mole's Town to bring the women that Mance had asked for as a condition of doing the mission.  Why would you need women disguised as entertainers just to rescue a girl out in the wilderness?  You wouldn't.  Jon knew everything that could happen.  Mance anticipated going to Winterfell and when he asked for those women, Jon would have known.  If Mance had said, "You know Jon, I may have to go to Winterfell to get your girl for you"  do you think Jon would object?  I don't think so.  Jon put his love for Arya ahead of everything.  He was willing to do anything, up to and including betraying the watch,  to save his sister.

You're forgetting that Jon is a member of the Night's Watch and therefore he is forbidden from attacking the Boltons or anyone in the kingdom for that matter.  He should have left fArya to her fate, whatever that fate might be.  Let me say this, sending your wildlings to take away the wife of Ramsay Bolton was an act of war.  Any man would have taken it as such.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened when the Starks thought Rhaegar took Lyanna?  The heir to Winterfell rode to the capital and threatened to kill the ruler's son.  Jon should have known better and stayed out of it.  He attacked the Boltons first and Ramsay reacted not too unreasonably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I disagree with you.  Jon had the final say on whether Mance would go to save Arya or stay at the wall.  The decision was his.  Mellissandre was simply offering the opportunity.  Jon is responsible for Mance going to Winterfell.  Jon sent him on that mission and therefore should be held responsible for their actions.  Jon even sent one of the brothers to Mole's Town to bring the women that Mance had asked for as a condition of doing the mission.  Why would you need women disguised as entertainers just to rescue a girl out in the wilderness?  You wouldn't.  Jon knew everything that could happen.  Mance anticipated going to Winterfell and when he asked for those women, Jon would have known.  If Mance had said, "You know Jon, I may have to go to Winterfell to get your girl for you"  do you think Jon would object?  I don't think so.  Jon put his love for Arya ahead of everything.  He was willing to do anything, up to and including betraying the watch,  to save his sister.

You're forgetting that Jon is a member of the Night's Watch and therefore he is forbidden from attacking the Boltons or anyone in the kingdom for that matter.  He should have left fArya to her fate, whatever that fate might be.  Let me say this, sending your wildlings to take away the wife of Ramsay Bolton was an act of war.  Any man would have taken it as such.  

Except he didn't. He had knowledge that Mel was sending Mance to rescue a girl who was fleeing from a horrible fate. That's not the same as authorizing a kidnapping. Furthermore, Jon is well within his rights to defend the NW from a southern threat. He can't take part in the affairs of the south but defending against a southern attacker when aforementioned attacker has threatened to destroy the NW if Jon doesn't meet conditions that are impossible to meet.

Whether Jon would have objected or not is irrelevant because he didn't know. And he had no authority over Mance or Mel, so he couldn't just say "F*** it, leave her," and even if he could why would he? Even if you're right and Jon knew about Mance going to Winterfell, authorized it and then somehow betrayed the watch in response to Ramsay's letter nothing he did was morally wrong. If you try and say that Jon and Mance were somehow morally wrong in this, then I'd suggest examining your sense of morality.

Just now, Moiraine Sedai said:

What happened when the Starks thought Rhaegar took Lyanna?  The heir to Winterfell rode to the capital and threatened to kill the ruler's son.  Jon should have known better and stayed out of it.  He attacked the Boltons first and Ramsay reacted not too unreasonably.

He didn't though. Mance was sent to lead a fleeing girl back to Castle Black from Long Lake, not sneak into Winterfell, kill a bunch of people and steal Ramsay's wife (not that they were wrong to do so). That was all Mance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

What happened when the Starks thought Rhaegar took Lyanna?  The heir to Winterfell rode to the capital and threatened to kill the ruler's son.  Jon should have known better and stayed out of it.  He attacked the Boltons first and Ramsay reacted not too unreasonably.

Ramsay is Rheagar in this comparison. Ramsay stole the girl. Jon is quite literally in the position of the BROTHER of the kidnapped and raped girl. Like what the hell, how could you possibly turn the roles around like that? (Nobody *took* his bride. You might have noticed that she was literally fleeing together with another prisoner. Nobody who could have been by any stretch of imagination sent by Jon held any kind of power over her, so what are you talking about?)

Roose even told Ramsay he is a fool to publically mistreat "Arya" because that might actually cost him the loyalty of lords who have nothing specific to do with Arya, because Ramsay is objectively in the absolute wrong and boldly disrespecting the Starks. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.