Heresy 198 The Knight of the Laughing Tree

[Black Crow]

Good points all, but let's save it for later in the week when Heresy 199 launches 

[LynnS]

10 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

The only problem with this theory is that Howland only had eyes for Ashara at the party (as evidenced by how he jealously watched her, noting every man she danced with)!

Why yes.  As Dany's future mother, the old gods would have a special interest in Ashara as well.  What is the oath of the crannogmen....

Quote

 

A Clash of Kings - Bran III

"To Winterfell we pledge the faith of Greywater," they said together. "Hearth and heart and harvest we yield up to you, my lord. Our swords and spears and arrows are yours to command. Grant mercy to our weak, help to our helpless, and justice to all, and we shall never fail you."

"I swear it by earth and water," said the boy in green.

"I swear it by bronze and iron," his sister said.

"We swear it by ice and fire," they finished together.

Bran groped for words. Was he supposed to swear something back to them? Their oath was not one he had been taught. "May your winters be short and your summers bountiful," he said. That was usually a good thing to say. "Rise. I'm Brandon Stark."

 

 

 

[JNR]

Thought: Has anybody checked the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the White House, etc., for wildfire caches?

Maybe somebody should...

[Matthew.]

16 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Answers...

My apologies, my point was not "these are my unanswered questions for the theory's proponents," it's "here are all of the things GRRM is now forced to address in the text;" this is a matter of subjective taste, but the issue I have with that is that the revelation becomes unwieldy, and relies heavily on the reader having incorrect information, as opposed to giving the reader just enough breadcrumbs to leap to the wrong conclusion.

As a demonstrative example, if GRRM were to reveal that Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna, and prolonged absence, was really all about dragon eggs and prophecy, this gives us a slightly different context for things we already know, but the story "as told" remains largely intact. On the other hand, if Rhaegar never has anything to do with Lyanna's abduction, then there's all sorts of story that is thrown out the window, and a lot of character behavior that suddenly seems illogical--most significantly, that Rhaegar is a man who has been falsely accused, but did nothing to repair his reputation and political relationships.

I would like to address one specific point though...
 

16 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Rhaegar was down south in Dorne already by the time Brandon arrived at the Red Keep demanding he come out and die. IMO that's when baby Aegon was smuggled to safety. He was planning to oust Aerys, but before he showed his hand he wanted to get his heir to safety. He was bringing the 10,000 men to stand behind him for the coup, but by the time he returned he learned had to go meet Robert at the Trident. He likely was brought up to speed regarding Lyanna by this time, but there must have been a lot of confusion on his end.

As cited on the previous page, GRRM says that morale was poor for the Dornish troops, because they believed that Rhaegar had mistreated Elia--yet if Rhaegar was putting together a secret coalition to both win the civil war and oust Aerys, the Dornish should be among those who know what's really going on; the Martells, in particular, should be Rhaegar's strongest allies, and know that the whole abduction thing is just a lie/cover story for what Rhaegar is really doing, yet that doesn't seem to have been the case.

IMO, Rhaegar being politically motivated, and seeking the crown, is the one context where it really doesn't make sense for him to allow his reputation to be tarnished, especially with the people who should be his most reliable allies.

Rhaegar being framed as a part of someone else's political plot (Tywin?) is an idea I actually like, and would probably be more interesting than what I suspect the author is actually writing, I'd just love to see a bit more build-up seeded in the story by this point: people opining that Rhaegar would never have run off with some girl, rumors that might suggest where Lyanna was really held, etc. I just don't feel like the clues and the foreshadowing are there.

[LynnS]

9 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

Rhaegar being framed as a part of someone else's political plot (Tywin?) is an idea I actually like, and would probably be more interesting than what I suspect the author is actually writing, I'd just love to see a bit more build-up seeded in the story by this point: people opining that Rhaegar would never have run off with some girl, rumors that might suggest where Lyanna was really held, etc. I just don't feel like the clues and the foreshadowing are there.

There is this bit of exposition to question in the matter of subterfuge and betrayals:

Quote

 

A Clash of Kings - Tyrion VI

Pycelle's breathing was rapid and shallow. "All I did, I did for House Lannister." A sheen of sweat covered the broad dome of the old man's brow, and wisps of white hair clung to his wrinkled skin. "Always . . . for years . . . your lord father, ask him, I was ever his true servant . . . 'twas I who bid Aerys open his gates . . ."

"For the realm! Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king . . . I prayed it should be your good father, but Robert was too strong, and Lord Stark moved too swiftly . . ."

 

"How many have you betrayed, I wonder? Aerys, Eddard Stark, me . . . King Robert as well? Lord Arryn, Prince Rhaegar? Where does it begin, Pycelle?" He knew where it ended.

 

The axe scratched at the apple of Pycelle's throat and stroked the soft wobbly skin under his jaw, scraping away the last hairs. "You . . . were not here," he gasped when the blade moved upward to his cheeks. "Robert . . . his wounds . . . if you had seen them, smelled them, you would have no doubt . . ."

 

 

[Matthew.]

11 hours ago, JNR said:

Well, what does "supposed to know" mean, though?

"Supposed to know" meaning "the story, as GRRM wants the reader to understand it (which isn't necessarily the same thing as the truth)."

There's a strong element of subjectivity here, but I'm thinking of how GRRM intends for the story to be understood, as of ADWD, with an assumption that GRRM isn't allowing Internet fan discussion to influence his choices--that he's not writing the story for the person that has spent ~15 years engaging with the story through the prism of Fan Theory Mode, or seen the show, but that he's writing the story for first time reader.

With that in mind, I think reader context is supposed to be this: Rhaegar Targaryen abducted Lyanna Stark. After the sack of King's Landing, Ned and a small group of trusted men head into Dorne, stopping off at the Tower of Joy (so-named by Rhaegar) to fight three King's Guard--an event he mentally associated with Lyanna dying in a bed of blood, and her drawing some final promise from him. Later, Eddard returns Dawn to Starfall, with Jon possibly being nursed by a woman named Wylla within the same time frame, before returning north to marry Catelyn and take over the duties of lordship--with his bastard son in tow.

Thus, I think what the reader is supposed to believe is that Eddard is Jon's father, and the question they're supposed to ask (if they're asking questions at all, as opposed to just embracing the experience as it comes) is "who did Eddard sleep with? Did he love Ashara Dayne, before he was forced into his political marriage by Brandon's death? Why did he never speak of the mother?" etc. The question is not "who are Jon's parents, and what does it mean for the plot?"
 

11 hours ago, JNR said:

You can reasonably choose to weave it into RLJ...

But this is precisely why it works as a reveal. RLJ doesn't take an essay's worth of exposition and explanation to become comprehensible, you need only say to someone who has remotely been paying attention: "Jon's Stark parent is actually his mother, her bed of blood the scene of his birth, and Eddard's promise was to protect Jon."

From there, the reader will indeed "weave" all sorts of things together--the man who, based on the text, was with Lyanna in her final days, the Tower of Joy, the significance of protecting Jon's identity, the significance of the KG missing the Trident and being associated with Lyanna's death (and Jon's birth). The revelation works because the reader can immediately connect the dots, as opposed to needing the author to hold their hand and explain it all in excruciating detail.
 

11 hours ago, JNR said:

But I don't think we know a hell of a lot.

It's enough.

What do we know even less about? Anyone else that might conceivably impregnate Lyanna--save for maybe Robert, if one wants to assume she was abducted while already pregnant.

Another matter of subjective taste, but it seems to me that what you are describing in incredulous terms is a thing that many other readers would characterize as successful writing: that the author has written a cohesive narrative without a glut of words (at least, in this specific instance. AFFC and ADWD, on the other hand...).

[Black Crow]

On that theme there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the paucity of hard information in that the question is not so important as the more enthusiastic fans imagine. Remember that in the original synopsis the point of the reveal was that Jon getting inside Arya's knickers wasn't going to be incest. Obviously a lot has changed since then but essentially the reveal is that Jon is Lyanna's son not Eddard's. What the implications are for going forward remain to be seen, but it doesn't suggest that the resolution of everything is going to revolve around Jon being the son of his real father. 

[Brad Stark]

Who Jon's true parents are, vs who Jon ends up believing his parents are,  vs who the realm believes his parents to be are all potentially different. 

There has been the suggestion Bran will know for certain by looking into the past, and the show used this.  Howland also knows.  Either could tell Jon.

 If Jon isn't the son of Rheagar,  he could end up following the same trail we did or someone else could, and he could still believe he is Rhaegar's.  This is a similar story to what I expect for Aegon, but either,  both or neither could be Rhaegar's son.

If Jon is the son of Rheagar,  he could have a problem convincing people.   If I say I am the rightful King of England,  no one will stick a crown on my head.  Whether I am or not probably doesn't change that.

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, Matthew. said:

My apologies, my point was not "these are my unanswered questions for the theory's proponents," it's "here are all of the things GRRM is now forced to address in the text;" this is a matter of subjective taste, but the issue I have with that is that the revelation becomes unwieldy, and relies heavily on the reader having incorrect information, as opposed to giving the reader just enough breadcrumbs to leap to the wrong conclusion.

As a demonstrative example, if GRRM were to reveal that Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna, and prolonged absence, was really all about dragon eggs and prophecy, this gives us a slightly different context for things we already know, but the story "as told" remains largely intact. On the other hand, if Rhaegar never has anything to do with Lyanna's abduction, then there's all sorts of story that is thrown out the window, and a lot of character behavior that suddenly seems illogical--most significantly, that Rhaegar is a man who has been falsely accused, but did nothing to repair his reputation and political relationships.

I would like to address one specific point though...
 

As cited on the previous page, GRRM says that morale was poor for the Dornish troops, because they believed that Rhaegar had mistreated Elia--yet if Rhaegar was putting together a secret coalition to both win the civil war and oust Aerys, the Dornish should be among those who know what's really going on; the Martells, in particular, should be Rhaegar's strongest allies, and know that the whole abduction thing is just a lie/cover story for what Rhaegar is really doing, yet that doesn't seem to have been the case.

IMO, Rhaegar being politically motivated, and seeking the crown, is the one context where it really doesn't make sense for him to allow his reputation to be tarnished, especially with the people who should be his most reliable allies.

Rhaegar being framed as a part of someone else's political plot (Tywin?) is an idea I actually like, and would probably be more interesting than what I suspect the author is actually writing, I'd just love to see a bit more build-up seeded in the story by this point: people opining that Rhaegar would never have run off with some girl, rumors that might suggest where Lyanna was really held, etc. I just don't feel like the clues and the foreshadowing are there.

But there is foreshadowing and there are clues! Yes, there are the straightforward clues like the ones supplied by LynnS below, but the whole dang story is slowly being revealed through the use of parallel and inverse chapters beginning with The Prophet and continuing into the next book with The Foresaken.

The wheel of time is a construct encompassing the overall story, and demonstrates the true power and influence of greenseers manipulating the people of Westeros like (chess) pieces in a giant game of Cyvasse. Through the manipulation of wards they are able to make history repeat, change who it happens to, and get a different result.

Somehow GRRM will provide a more obvious way to clue the general masses into recognizing that the parallel/inversion chapters are a real thing. As soon as realization dawns, there will be a mass reread and then everyone will be slapping their foreheads and exclaim, "There it is! It's right there!" 

 

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

There is this bit of exposition to question in the matter of subterfuge and betrayals:

 

 

 

[Black Crow]

28 minutes ago, Brad Stark said:

If Jon is the son of Rheagar,  he could have a problem convincing people.   If I say I am the rightful King of England,  no one will stick a crown on my head.  Whether I am or not probably doesn't change that.

Ah, but that's my point. Jon will find his destiny by his own efforts, not through entitlement

[WeKnowNothing]

26 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Ah, but that's my point. Jon will find his destiny by his own efforts, not through entitlement

Reminds me of what Stannis said about how he always had to win the throne to save the realm, but in reality you would need to save the realm to win the throne. Which I feel will apply to Jon in his story arc, because he always seems to care about 'guarding the realm' more than anyone else in the books.

[wolfmaid7]

I am reminded of Syrio's story about the Sealord's Cat and i can't help but think when this all said and done;some fans will be Syrio and some wondering how Jon's father could not be who they all thought he was.

He was wearing a tiara,other jewellery and a dress.But few noticed he had a torn ear and jewells of another kind if you get my drift.

And i get it Rhaegar gives Lyanna flowers so "obviously "he fancied her.And he was the Westrosi version of Bono,Ringo,Michael Jackson and Prince rolled up into one.Therefore,Lyanna didn't have a chance against Rhaegar's poet sorcery.

What is clear...we inhabit a book where Peter Baelish was more of a man and more honorable than Rhaegar..lol.

[Voice]

Forgive my interjection...

On 5/28/2017 at 11:14 AM, Brad Stark said:

It seems blue roses were picked with the intent of giving them to Lyanna Stark, it would make no sense to give them to Lord Whent's daughter or anyone else.  

 

Like most people here, I've seen this assumption countless times.

Why?

Why would it "make no sense to give them to Lord Whent's daughter or anyone else"?

 

Someone may have already addressed the holes in this sort of attempt at deduction, and if so, I apologize for revisiting them.

First, I must point out, that there is nothing at all special about giving a woman flowers. It's a thing. It can be as romantic and symbolic as flowers for your one true love, as solemn as flowers upon a grave, or as non-romantic as flowers for a friend in the hospital.

Second, why in seven hells do so many people assume that Lyanna is the only woman who would appreciate blue flowers? That's not logic, that's baseless conjecture.

Third, if the blueness of the flowers themselves was such a dead giveaway as to their destination, why did the smiles wait so long to die? The smiles kept on a-smiling until Rhaegar passed by his own wife, and gave the crown to Lya.

From Ned's POV, it seems that he expected Rhaegar to give the blue flower crown to Elia.

What was quite fathomable to Ned seems to be unfathomable for those who read his words.

 

On 5/28/2017 at 11:14 AM, Brad Stark said:

Who picked them and why is a little more debatable, but the only 2 candidates I've thought of were Rhaegar and Robert Baratheon.  Can anyone else come up with another credible candidate?

 

Here's another assumption I've seen more times than I can count.

Who here has read of a tourney victor picking flowers and making them into a crown?

Anyone?

Tourney crowns seem to appear out of thin air once a victor has won his final tilt.

From whence do these mystical laurels emerge? The knight's squire? A saddlebag?

And @Brad Stark, are you honestly saying that you can imagine Robert Baratheon picking a bouquet of flowers?

Rhaegar, I can see. He's written as a thoughtful character, and at times, somewhat flowery. But even he seems like a stretch, no?

We've seen men prepare for jousts and tourneys. They arrange their pavilions, get their shields painted, they call for breastplate stretchers.

They do not pick forget-me-nots and weave them into little crowns. At least, not in asoiaf.

 

So I would like to offer a more plausible origin for this infamous qolab crown: Walter Whent (who, should remind us to read some Walt Whitman). As the tourney's host, he would have needed to make the necessary preparations. We've seen LF and Renly begin such preparations on Robert's behalf. Singers, food, city watch. I would guess that tourney grounds must be cleared and prepared, seating areas, feasting areas, etc.

Organizers would also likely be responsible for readying the champion's purse. I would think the qolab crown would be a part of that booty for the victor.

 

Thus, imho, neither Rhaegar or Robert are credible flower-picker candidates – not by a long shot. I'd be far less surprised to learn that Lord Whent's daughter had made the crown herself.

 

 

 

On 5/28/2017 at 11:14 AM, Brad Stark said:

The most obvious answer to me is Rhaegar picked them as a romantic gesture.  Rhaegar secretly backed the tournament to organize a rebellion and take the throne, but fell in love with Lyanna, and thought he could have both.  He underestimated the reaction of both Rickard Stark and his father, which started the rebellion he wanted, but too soon and with him on the wrong side, and he ended up dying for the women he loves at the trident.

 

There's no better way to guarantee a given solution to one of GRRM's mysteries is wrong, than to call it the obvious solution.

In the words of the man's own wife, "George doesn't do 'obvious'."

And can I just ask, how on earth does a 22 year old married man fall in love with a tomboy that is 14 years old or less?

That ain't "love," my friend. That's borderline pedophilia. No wonder Brandon wanted Rhaegar to come out and die.

And, I must state as I have so many times before, that this line of reasoning so common in the forum-verse completely neglect's Lyanna's own character and convictions. In other words, who gives a fuck what Rhaegar loved or wanted? What we should really be asking, imo, is what did Lyanna love and want?

 

On 5/28/2017 at 11:14 AM, Brad Stark said:

We've also discussed Rhaegar as the backer with the roses as an insult to House Stark on heresy before.  This never made sense to me.  Why would Rhaegar insult House Stark if he wanted a rebellion, and why go through all this trouble and expense if he only wanted an insult?

 

Finally, we agree on something.  

 

Yes indeed. Rhaegar was planning a coup, and rallying lords to his cause. Surely he was smart enough to know that his Great Council would go a bit more smoothly if he did not alienate and insult one of the Great Houses of the Seven Kingdoms (let alone two of them at once).

Thus, regardless of what he might have known or not known regarding the lore of winter roses, I find it highly unlikely that Rhaegar's purpose was to insult House Stark. It is far more likely, imo, that the gesture was meant as a innocuous kindness.

That, or, before he raped a girl, Rhaegar got a kick out of messing with the girl's family. Not only that, he wanted to torment the family in front of his own wife and father.

While it is hard for me to imagine Rhaegar being that cruel, given the way his character has been written, it seems to be the only plausible explanation if Rhaegar did indeed fall in "love" with the pubescent she-wolf at Harrenhal. Dragons will be dragons, so it is certainly possible.

 

On 5/28/2017 at 11:14 AM, Brad Stark said:

I don't remember discussing Robert backing the tournament, but I like this very much.  Robert ends up King and gets out of a marriage he didn't want, gaining more than anyone else did.  He'd have the funds to arrange the tournament.  As one of the best jousters,  it would be easier to ensure Rhaegar wins (If Rhaegar fixed the tournament, either Robert had to be in on it, or someone needed to beat Robert fairly).  

A few things don't fit.  Robert and Lyanna were engaged because of the plans for rebellion, which makes no sense if Robert was planning the rebellion and didn't want to marry Lyanna.  And Robert wasn't the scheming clever character Littlefinger and Varys are, he was almost the opposite.  So someone else would have to be the brains behind this, but Robert may have gone along.

 

More than a few. 

[Matthew.]

4 hours ago, LynnS said:

There is this bit of exposition to question in the matter of subterfuge and betrayals:

That all centers around Pycelle, and I don't think that "Pycelle is loyal to Tywin" is followed naturally by "Tywin framed Rhaegar for Lyanna's abduction." 

Even Pycelle's justifications don't really seem to lend themselves to the conclusion that he conspired to bring civil war and chaos--"For the realm!," he says, pointing out that the Trident decided things, and the remaining Targaryens were not in the realm's interest. Self-serving, but it's also probably true to the way Pycelle views his own actions.

For that matter, I'm not entirely sure that this conspiracy fully aligns with the way I perceive Tywin; certainly, he has been shown to be ruthless to those that threaten his House, and he will participate in political schemes that can advance the Lannister's clout...but does he rise to the level of Littlefinger, where he's so malignantly ambitious that he'd burn the realm down to have his family sit the Iron Throne? 

There are two things I'm keeping in mind here: One, that Tywin was, by all accounts, a Hand under which the Realm prospered. Two...this conversation:

Quote

Be quiet, Cersei. Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you. And any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king at all. Aerys never understood that, but you will. When I've won your war for you, we will restore the king's peace and the king's justice.

IMO, it's things like this that distinguish Tywin - ruthless as he is - from someone like Littlefinger.
 

3 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

But there is foreshadowing and there are clues! Yes, there are the straightforward clues like the ones supplied by LynnS below, but the whole dang story is slowly being revealed through the use of parallel and inverse chapters beginning with The Prophet and continuing into the next book with The Foresaken.

Well...maybe. A lot of what I've seen doesn't read to me like clues and foreshadowing, but that doesn't mean my subjective reading experience is "correct." And, of course, there's always the possibility that the series growing from 3 books to 7 books means that GRRM has a plan to heavily back load a lot of the foreshadowing--but if that's the case, I would have preferred to see a lot more conflicting information about Lyanna's abduction up to this point.

To make an analogy, imagine someone tells you a joke, you don't immediately get it, and they have to then explain it; afterward, you may say "Oh, that's funny," but...you're not gonna laugh. The moment has passed.

I think the same "immediacy" holds true for a revelation. The author wants that "Eureka! Of course!" reaction to a revelation, which means the author must straddle the line between giving just enough information, but not too much--which also means that the revelation will be obvious in retrospect, or obvious under scrutiny.

With the information we have to draw upon right now my reaction to 'Lyanna was never abducted by Rhaegar' is less "Of course!" and more "Hmmm...I'm gonna need you to elaborate on that." With at least two books the size of ADWD (or greater) left, though, GRRM still has plenty of time to pull it off.

[Sly Wren]

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

I am reminded of Syrio's story about the Sealord's Cat and i can't help but think when this all said and done;some fans will be Syrio and some wondering how Jon's father could not be who they all thought he was.

Agreed--especially since at the end of Storm, Martin shows us flat out that he will go with the far less evidenced option: Baelish and Lysa killed Arryn, not Cersei and Jaime.

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

And i get it Rhaegar gives Lyanna flowers so "obviously "he fancied her.And he was the Westrosi version of Bono,Ringo,Michael Jackson and Prince rolled up into one.Therefore,Lyanna didn't have a chance against Rhaegar's poet sorcery.

Agreed--especially since Martin sets up the sniffling scene with Arya earlier in the same book.

Arya is with a singer who sings sad songs for the express purpose of seducing women:

"What, with only the boy here? I told you twice, the old woman was up to Lambswold helping that Fern birth her babe. And like as not it was one o' you planted the bastard in the poor girl's belly." He gave Tom a sour look. "You, I'd wager, with that harp o' yours, singing all them sad songs just to get poor Fern out of her smallclothes." 

"If a song makes a maid want to slip off her clothes and feel the good warm sun kiss her skin, why, is that the singer's fault?" asked Tom. Storm, Arya II

BUT: When Arya-the-Wolfmaid hears a song so sad, her response is VERY different. She's just sad and homesick and missing her family, not seduced.

"The wench is dead," the woman hissed. "Only worms may kiss her now." And then to Tom Sevenstrings she said, "I'll have my song or I'll have you gone."

So the singer played for her, so soft and sad that Arya only heard snatches of the words, though the tune was half-familiar. Sansa would know it, I bet. Her sister had known all the songs, and she could even play a little, and sing so sweetly. All I could ever do was shout the words. Storm, Arya IV

NOTE: Arya is sad because of missing her sister. And Lyanna at Harrenhal would soon have been marrying Robert--had a bunch of stuff not intervened. And thus getting ready to leave her siblings whom she loved.

 

Plus--note the phrasing:

"Under Harren's roof he ate and drank with the wolves, and many of their sworn swords besides, barrowdown men and moose and bears and mermen. The dragon prince sang a song so sad it made the wolf maid sniffle, but when her pup brother teased her for crying she poured wine over his head. Storm, Bran II

 

"A song so sad"--very similar to "so soft and sad"--and all in the same book.

 

Just as in Game, after Ned says Lyanna was fond of flowers, Sansa's first POV show Arya's very strong affinity for flowers (which isn't romantic), in Storm, Martin has shown us why wolfmaids get sad at sad songs.

 

And it isn't about seduction--it's about missing family.

 

Seems like there's a good chance Martin put all of that in for a reason.

 

Granted--Lyanna could still be the knight.

 

But I keep feeling like the identity of the knight is a misdirect. The other stuff--like who was there and who was doing what, like the fact that the Knight's defeated foes all come from houses who do unspeakable things for Tywin--those facts get brushed aside as we all look for the Knight.

 

Seems like there's a good case for looking at what else is going on in the story vs. just who the Knight might be. . . 

[Sly Wren]

49 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

That all centers around Pycelle, and I don't think that "Pycelle is loyal to Tywin" is followed naturally by "Tywin framed Rhaegar for Lyanna's abduction." 

Even Pycelle's justifications don't really seem to lend themselves to the conclusion that he conspired to bring civil war and chaos--"For the realm!," he says, pointing out that the Trident decided things, and the remaining Targaryens were not in the realm's interest. Self-serving, but it's also probably true to the way Pycelle views his own actions.

For that matter, I'm not entirely sure that this conspiracy fully aligns with the way I perceive Tywin; certainly, he has been shown to be ruthless to those that threaten his House, and he will participate in political schemes that can advance the Lannister's clout...but does he rise to the level of Littlefinger, where he's so malignantly ambitious that he'd burn the realm down to have his family sit the Iron Throne?

Might depend on how much he has to burn to get what he wants.

We know Tywin was happy to utilize Duskendale to get rid of Aerys. And Tywin's plan would have cost a lot of lives. And we know Rhaegar went along with it--Rhaegar was right there when Tywin said, "yes maybe it will kill Aerys, but at least we'll have a better king."

Most of the small council were with the Hand outside Duskendale at this juncture, and several of them argued against Lord Tywin's plan on the grounds that such an attack would almost certainly goad Lord Darklyn into putting King Aerys to death. "He may or he may not," Tywin Lannister reportedly replied, "but if he does, we have a better king right here." Whereupon he raised a hand to indicate Prince Rhaegar. World Book: The Targaryen Kings: Aerys II

So, Tywin and Rhaegar were clearly agreed on killing Aerys in a show of "saving" him by storming Duskendale. 

That's pretty ruthless. And it's before Aerys stole Jaime from Tywin.

And both Tywin and Rhaegar sit out the Rebellion until the very end.

The idea that the two conspired--and that Tywin might have set himself up to double-cross Rhaegar at the end if necessary--yes--I could definitely see that.

Though--even in that scenario, Lyanna could obviously still be the Knight--but the above scenario would help explain why Martin doesn't tell us who the Knight was, but does tell us whom the knight defeated--three knights from houses who commit atrocities for Tywin.

 

[LordBlakeney]

On 6/5/2017 at 9:42 AM, JNR said:

I think there's a little prize buried in that box of Cracker Jacks, and there are some very interesting possibilities, one of which seems... hm, call it a coinflip.

This is annoying. If you have an idea, put it out here so everyone can review it. Stop hiding your insecurity behind ambiguity.

On 6/5/2017 at 10:00 AM, JNR said:

You're relatively new here, or you'd know I've been saying that for more than four years, since I joined this site and became familiar with the way site culture had brainwashed people so thoroughly they actually believed the above, which made me laugh.  

This was, to say the least, not a popular view at all when I got started.

Forgive me for not being familiar with your exhaustive published history - you're so brave and enlightened fighting back against conventional wisdom. But for all your well-thought out points, this smug attitude and I'm-Smarter-Than-You shtick that permeates your posts is a huge turn-off. 

On 6/5/2017 at 10:00 AM, JNR said:

nd as to the true identities of Jon's parents, let's just say you are likely to get a flat prediction from me on that subject some months before pub date. 

If you've got a prediction spit it out. Like a lot of people I'm sure, I enjoy reading these forums because I like being surprised, I like encountering new ideas, and I like wrestling with different interpretations of the text. In fact, I'd say that's the point of these forums. You're all hat and no cattle. If you have a theory, there's no time like the present to throw it out there. But I bet you don't. I bet you haven't the foggiest idea, you just like hiding out on the anonymous internet where you can live out your fantasy of being super-insightful and knowing more than other people. Put up or shut up.

On 6/5/2017 at 10:00 AM, JNR said:

And I've cited some of those mysteries in earlier posts.

Care to throw your top 3 out there? I mean you're an anonymous poster on an internet forum dedicated to a single fantasy series. You'll have to forgive people not being familiar enough with your canon.

On 6/5/2017 at 10:16 AM, ravenous reader said:

Quote

So when and if TWOW comes out, includes the revelation of Jon's parents, and it is or isn't RLJ, we can then revisit this issue of who's correct and who is not  

I see; you are not at all invested in the longterm viability of your theory (and reciprocally gloating at the fall

Exactly. Throw it out there now. The greater the risk - and the farther removed we are from new revelations from the actual author - the greater the glory for you if you're right. But of course that only happens if you actually have some ideas to throw out there. Been waiting for a few pages of posts now.

On 6/5/2017 at 0:03 PM, JNR said:

Oh, I'm certainly invested, and yeah, there will be some gloating... but there are only so many hours in the day.

It takes less than a minute to type 1) the name of your guess for Jon's mother and 2) the name of your guess for Jon's father. You don't even have to explain it, so you can watch people lose their minds and scream and howl about how there's no evidence and then feel all that much more superior when you're proven correct. Not your usual diarrhea of the mouth posts where you complain about other people getting more attention than you and bury half-explained theories designed simply to vex people into thinking you must be seeing something they're not, but a post with just two names. I don't think you could do it. It's easy to whine when nothing's on the line.

On 6/5/2017 at 0:03 PM, JNR said:

I'm certainly happy to take bets on RLJ, though.  Always have been.  Other people, except one brave guy, invariably decline to bet on RLJ, the so-called sure thing.  There's always some excuse. 

I'll take your bet. Let's get real serious. Do you have the parlay app? Does youbetme still work? $1000 RLJ is confirmed. PM me or post publicly but let's get an escrow account set up I'll put up my $1000 you put up yours. Let's get it done today. Taking money from you is going to be soooooo sweet. No excuses. You wrote the check let's see you cash it.

On 6/5/2017 at 0:03 PM, JNR said:

Re total personal investment, I am certainly nowhere near people like, oh, LmL (who is one of those people for whom RLJ is a fact).  

The last time I looked he had a podcast (!) just for his personal theories (!) and the main one alone topped 100K words.  Wow -- that's novel length.  I can't imagine putting in that kind of time on anything for free.

Sounds to me from what you've said here and elsewhere that you're just jealous you didn't think to start a podcast with your theories. Last I looked he's not exactly doing it for free, his Patreon account looks kind of lucrative. I'm a supporter of his on Patreon, mostly because I appreciate his well-thought out and documented interpretations of the text. Look, I'll give you that @LmL theories come off as far-fetched, and there's plenty I disagree with. But at least he's contributing to the conversation, provoking new thoughts, and engaging with people whether they agree with him or not. That's respectable. That's the point of forums like this. He doesn't just act all smug like he has it figured out then throw shade at anyone who might disagree. If you're theories are so great, why not just throw out there what you think is happening. Unless you don't have a theory, and just hope that if you post with enough ambiguity people will assume there's some fire of imagination producing all your indecipherable smoke.

On 6/5/2017 at 0:11 PM, JNR said:

I would simply say that there is another explanation of Jon's parentage that based on the text I find more likely than RLJ, and I don't think it was bolted on late; I think GRRM had it in mind from day one.

This is exasperating. To quote Rick and Morty, "SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT."

 

[JNR]

5 hours ago, Matthew. said:

Another matter of subjective taste, but it seems to me that what you are describing in incredulous terms is a thing that many other readers would characterize as successful writing: that the author has written a cohesive narrative without a glut of words

Well, that's just it.  It wasn't GRRM who wrote that narrative; it was the fans. 

What GRRM wrote was the handful of scraps I listed in the previous post and a few other scraps besides.  It's just the literal truth, and I'm sure you would agree.

We can connect and interpret the scraps as we please, but we can't reasonably say GRRM wants us to choose a particular interpretation, or that we're supposed to know X, Y, or Z.  We don't know him; we can't read his mind.

To me, it's roughly like a Rorschach narrative, and we're asked: "What do you see?" Lots of people see a heart; others see a bat; others see a butterfly.  The difference between a real Rorschach picture and the question of Jon's parentage is that there actually is a specific answer to Jon's parents, and eventually we're going to be told (or so GRRM said in the B&N interview).

Also, I'm not describing all this incredulously.  I'm not even a little surprised. It's human nature to draw conclusions based on wildly incomplete or uncertain information.

What does surprise me, greatly, is seeing fans so oversold, they would actually describe RLJ as being just as probable as the theory that there is a character named Jon, or the theory that there is a writer named George. 

It also surprises me that they would suggest anybody who sees it differently needs to be bitch-slapped... or is a Scientologist... or believes the Earth is flat.  These are all things that have been said on this site for many years now.  It's just part of the culture; we all know it, because we've all seen it, so many times, in so many threads.

Anybody who says they have a dead-lock, sure thing theory of Jon's parents is almost certainly mistaken, and I would say certainly except that there's a tiny chance that person might be GRRM.

[JNR]

57 minutes ago, LordBlakeney said:

If you have an idea, put it out here so everyone can review it. Stop hiding your insecurity behind ambiguity.

Well, my goodness.  It seems you feel disrespected, but I wasn't writing with you in mind.  I don't think I've ever even heard of you before. 

You say you haven't read my stuff.  That's okay.  But not having read it, how is it you think I haven't put ideas out there?  I've constantly put ideas out there, for years and years. 

See the previous page, which contains this idea: that the three KG wanted to give Lyanna to Aerys as a political hostage, but couldn't because they were bound by the orders Rhaegar gave them (cf the Shaw interview)... and that's the real reason Hightower says Aerys would "yet sit the Iron Throne" if they hadn't been far away from King's Landing.  It had nothing to do with their baddassery.  It might be someone has suggested that idea on this site before, but if so I haven't read it.

I could read your stuff, I guess -- all 42 of your posts -- but from what I can tell, they're apt to be loaded with resentment, and I wonder if you are even real (or perhaps a sockpuppet of someone I have heard of).

Re your proposed bet: I have a bet with Black Crow, because I'm sure he exists.  It's really a form of mutual respect; it's just impossible for me not to respect him after having read his posts so many years now.   I think one of us will eventually lose and pay the other, assuming GRRM ever finishes the canon, and that will be that. 

Similarly, if Ran offered me your bet, I would just take it, and not bother with a third party escrow account in advance, because Ran has far more than enough credibility.  I don't think he's a liar or a cheat; I just think he's an extremely well-informed, but incorrect, fan of ASOIAF. 

But you seem to be a different creature: a troll.  However, I'll humor you a tad, just on the off chance you're not a troll; after all, lots of other people have been annoyed at things I wrote, off and on over the years.

1 hour ago, LordBlakeney said:

Care to throw your top 3 out there?

Three mysteries that will eventually prove a much bigger deal in these books than Jon's parents?  Sure...

1. The true origin and nature of the Others

2. The true explanation of the bizarre seasons and, closely related, the reason why the first Long Night happened and a second never happened until now

3. The fundamental reason why many things seem to be developing in parallel between the current story and earlier points in Westeros' history (or mythology)

As to why they're all more important, that's simple enough.  Those mysteries provide the conflict and structure that drives the whole series.  Jon, meanwhile, is a major POV character, but that's all, and his parents, though an extremely well developed mystery, don't seem likely to be as influential on the biggest possible scale.

[Brad Stark]

3 hours ago, Voice said:

Forgive my interjection...

 

Like most people here, I've seen this assumption countless times.

Why?

Why would it "make no sense to give them to Lord Whent's daughter or anyone else"?

 

Someone may have already addressed the holes in this sort of attempt at deduction, and if so, I apologize for revisiting them.

First, I must point out, that there is nothing at all special about giving a woman flowers. It's a thing. It can be as romantic and symbolic as flowers for your one true love, as solemn as flowers upon a grave, or as non-romantic as flowers for a friend in the hospital.

Second, why in seven hells do so many people assume that Lyanna is the only woman who would appreciate blue flowers? That's not logic, that's baseless conjecture.

Third, if the blueness of the flowers themselves was such a dead giveaway as to their destination, why did the smiles wait so long to die? The smiles kept on a-smiling until Rhaegar passed by his own wife, and gave the crown to Lya.

From Ned's POV, it seems that he expected Rhaegar to give the blue flower crown to Elia.

What was quite fathomable to Ned seems to be unfathomable for those who read his words.

 

 

Here's another assumption I've seen more times than I can count.

Who here has read of a tourney victor picking flowers and making them into a crown?

Anyone?

Tourney crowns seem to appear out of thin air once a victor has won his final tilt.

From whence do these mystical laurels emerge? The knight's squire? A saddlebag?

And @Brad Stark, are you honestly saying that you can imagine Robert Baratheon picking a bouquet of flowers?

Rhaegar, I can see. He's written as a thoughtful character, and at times, somewhat flowery. But even he seems like a stretch, no?

We've seen men prepare for jousts and tourneys. They arrange their pavilions, get their shields painted, they call for breastplate stretchers.

They do not pick forget-me-nots and weave them into little crowns. At least, not in asoiaf.

 

So I would like to offer a more plausible origin for this infamous qolab crown: Walter Whent (who, should remind us to read some Walt Whitman). As the tourney's host, he would have needed to make the necessary preparations. We've seen LF and Renly begin such preparations on Robert's behalf. Singers, food, city watch. I would guess that tourney grounds must be cleared and prepared, seating areas, feasting areas, etc.

Organizers would also likely be responsible for readying the champion's purse. I would think the qolab crown would be a part of that booty for the victor.

 

Thus, imho, neither Rhaegar or Robert are credible flower-picker candidates – not by a long shot. I'd be far less surprised to learn that Lord Whent's daughter had made the crown 

Who physically picked the flowers and made the crown is irrelevant.  And these specific type of flowers could have been picked by chance, although that seems unlikely as they came from far away.

 My suggestion is someone knew the story of Bael the Bard story, that Rhaegar would give them to Lyanna, and that it would insult the Starks, and specifically arranged for these flowers to be used.  It doesn't matter if Old Nan physically picked the flowers,  what matters is who told her to and why.