Heresy 199 Once upon a Time in the West

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Just now, wolfmaid7 said:

I kid of course...Not really 

Lol. Nope, not really. 

[Matthew.]

17 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Not to disagree with this but I would like to emphasis the information gap between Lyanna's abduction and death.

Whatever anybody else might know, we know nothing, literally nothing.

At no point does Lord Eddard ever speak of searching for Lyanna, and there is no evidence that he was actively looking for here when the rencounter took place at the tower.

Was she believed to be dead?

The tower is a false clue, because we have no evidence that Lyanna was actually there, with or without Rhaegar.

We have talked before about the practical difficulty in two supposed lovers hiding out in a tower in the Dornish Marches when Rhaegar has so grievously upset the Dornishmen.

Lord Eddard recalls that it was said Rhaegar had called it the tower of joy [lower case initial letters] and who are we to doubt it. Was it as so many assume because he and Lyanna were being very naughty over a period of months or did he name it thus because that was where he met his beloved Elia as she came out of Dorne to be his wife?

Before I speak to the points above, it might be necessary to step back and clarify the nature of the argument, so that I'm not perpetually talking at cross purposes: my premise is not "RLJ is true," my premise is "RLJ is a reasonable conclusion to reach based on the text, and the most easily supported L+X scenario." I find RLJ to be a plausible, text-based idea in the same way that I find Eddard as Jon's father to be a plausible, text-based idea--that the latter might not be true is not the same as it being a flawed premise.

We cannot definitively place Lyanna anywhere between her abduction and death, but we the story context suggests she is Rhaegar's hostage during that period of time--this is a conclusion that might not be true, but is nonetheless reasonable within the text in way that, say, "Lyanna Stark was at the Vale with Yohn Royce" is not a text based conclusion, even if it's theoretically possible.

For me, this is the context the author intends for Lyanna's final days:

Quote

"Unspeakable?" the king roared. "What Aerys did to your brother Brandon was unspeakable. The way your lord father died, that
was unspeakable. And Rhaegar … how many times do you think he raped your sister? How many hundreds of times?"

Quote

They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it.

Quote

He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood.

Quote

"No," Ned said with sadness in his voice. "Now it ends." As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. "Eddard!" she called. A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.

"Lord Eddard," Lyanna called again.

Quote

 "Rhaegar … Rhaegar won, damn him. I killed him, Ned, I drove the spike right through that black armor into his black heart, and he died at my feet. They made up songs about it. Yet somehow he still won. He has Lyanna now, and I have her." The king drained his cup.

Quote

"Robert was betrothed to marry her, but Prince Rhaegar carried her off and raped her," Bran explained. "Robert fought a war to win her back. He killed Rhaegar on the Trident with his hammer, but Lyanna died and he never got her back at all."

I apologize for the unwieldy formatting and wall of quotes, so I hope my context has been conveyed: Howland is there for the duel, Howland is there for Lyanna's death. Just before the dream duel begins, Eddard also thinks of Lyanna calling out. "He dreamt an old dream--three knights in white cloaks, a tower long fallen, Lyanna in her bed of blood." The latter, to me, is the most interesting--it is clearly interlocking the three images of duel, tower, and Lyanna's death.

Regardless of whether or not Lyanna was specifically at the ToJ, the storytelling context links the tower with Rhaegar, the tower with Lyanna's death, and Rhaegar with both the tower and Lyanna.

This is both very little to work with, and yet far more to work with than any other interpretation of Lyanna's absence; dubious and incomplete text is better than no text at all.

To argue it from a different perspective, there's also very little text to suggest that Eddard Stark impregnated a woman named Wylla--yet a single conversation where Eddard seems to uncomfortably suggest to Robert that Wylla was the "common girl" that was the mother of his bastard is, for me, more than enough to make it an extremely plausible conclusion to draw from the text; plausible, based on a single line in five books. Rhaegar + Lyanna, on the other hand, has more than just a single line of context.

[Matthew.]

50 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

We simply don't know and can't therefore cite it as "evidence"

I suppose that depends on what we consider to be "textual evidence," given that we are discussing fictional literature, rather than discussing a literal crime scene. The knowledge that we are reading a crafted story, with an expectation that every line is written as an expression of creative intent, as a part of some overarching narrative is inescapable in discussing what we believe--the only objectively factual answer to the question "who are Jon Snow's parents?" is "we don't know."

If the ToJ cannot be cited in discussing who might have impregnated Lyanna, then what can be cited, given that the text cannot even be used to demonstrate that Lyanna Stark was ever pregnant? Indeed, if that's our new standard of what constitutes "evidence" that's worthy of exploring, we're essentially throwing all theoretical discussion out the window.

This is where treating the mystery of Jon's parents as a standard "whodunit" begins to fall short; realistically, Jon Snow could be a war orphan that Eddard felt some responsibility for, and who just happens to have a long face. Realistically, any number of random guards, servants, or unnamed Starfall/ToJ/Whatever staff could have impregnated Lyanna Stark. Realistically, Brandon could have littered Westeros with bastards, of which Jon is just one of many.

We don't seriously consider those options because we know we're discussing fiction, and we expect to be told a satisfactory story; nobody will ever seriously present their "Oswell Whent + Lyanna = Jon" theory because it's not a story we care about; when ADWD introduces the notion of the fisherman's daughter as Jon's mother, we don't take it seriously, because it's about as on-the-nose as the author can be without having a character literally declare "I heard that Lord Eddard jumped into the ocean and fucked a red herring during Robert's Rebellion!"

RLJ's strength is that it inspires the imagination--both positively, and negatively. For proponents, they can see where it fits in the story of Robert's Rebellion, and what it might mean for Jon's future: and they like the idea of that story. The same is true for opponents: they can imagine what the story there might be, and they hate what they are imagining.

This is fine...but to belabor the same point, as a matter of literary discussion, endlessly observing that something might not be true and all of the various ways in which seemingly significant lines of text are actually insignificant is not a compelling point of view.

Edit: The above should not be taken as criticism pointed at you specifically, as the OP of this thread is a prime example of what I think constitutes compelling discussion--an interpretation of the ToJ with a point of view to offer, and advocacy for why it's interesting.

[Black Crow]

17 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

Before I speak to the points above, it might be necessary to step back and clarify the nature of the argument, so that I'm not perpetually talking at cross purposes: my premise is not "RLJ is true," my premise is "RLJ is a reasonable conclusion to reach based on the text, and the most easily supported L+X scenario." I find RLJ to be a plausible, text-based idea in the same way that I find Eddard as Jon's father to be a plausible, text-based idea--that the latter might not be true is not the same as it being a flawed premise.

We cannot definitively place Lyanna anywhere between her abduction and death, but we the story context suggests she is Rhaegar's hostage during that period of time--this is a conclusion that might not be true, but is nonetheless reasonable within the text in way that, say, "Lyanna Stark was at the Vale with Yohn Royce" is not a text based conclusion, even if it's theoretically possible.

For me, this is the context the author intends for Lyanna's final days:

I apologize for the unwieldy formatting and wall of quotes, so I hope my context has been conveyed: Howland is there for the duel, Howland is there for Lyanna's death. Just before the dream duel begins, Eddard also thinks of Lyanna calling out. "He dreamt an old dream--three knights in white cloaks, a tower long fallen, Lyanna in her bed of blood." The latter, to me, is the most interesting--it is clearly interlocking the three images of duel, tower, and Lyanna's death.

Regardless of whether or not Lyanna was specifically at the ToJ, the storytelling context links the tower with Rhaegar, the tower with Lyanna's death, and Rhaegar with both the tower and Lyanna.

This is both very little to work with, and yet far more to work with than any other interpretation of Lyanna's absence; dubious and incomplete text is better than no text at all.

To argue it from a different perspective, there's also very little text to suggest that Eddard Stark impregnated a woman named Wylla--yet a single conversation where Eddard seems to uncomfortably suggest to Robert that Wylla was the "common girl" that was the mother of his bastard is, for me, more than enough to make it an extremely plausible conclusion to draw from the text; plausible, based on a single line in five books. Rhaegar + Lyanna, on the other hand, has more than just a single line of context.

I don't disagree, but what I'm arguing is not that R+L=J is untrue or unlikely [I think your right in interpreting the association] but rather I'm speaking to the actual encounter at the tower and rejecting the "traditional" scenario which portrays the three Kings Guard defending Lyanna in his nibs' love-nest.

In his dream Lord Eddard is connecting different, but related, episodes and boiling them down into a single consolidated event

[wolfmaid7]

26 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Lol. Nope, not really. 

Hehehehehe.Yep,we went there. toj style.

[wolfmaid7]

42 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

Before I speak to the points above, it might be necessary to step back and clarify the nature of the argument, so that I'm not perpetually talking at cross purposes: my premise is not "RLJ is true," my premise is "RLJ is a reasonable conclusion to reach based on the text, and the most easily supported L+X scenario." I find RLJ to be a plausible, text-based idea in the same way that I find Eddard as Jon's father to be a plausible, text-based idea--that the latter might not be true is not the same as it being a flawed premise.

We cannot definitively place Lyanna anywhere between her abduction and death, but we the story context suggests she is Rhaegar's hostage during that period of time--this is a conclusion that might not be true, but is nonetheless reasonable within the text in way that, say, "Lyanna Stark was at the Vale with Yohn Royce" is not a text based conclusion, even if it's theoretically possible.

For me, this is the context the author intends for Lyanna's final days:

I apologize for the unwieldy formatting and wall of quotes, so I hope my context has been conveyed: Howland is there for the duel, Howland is there for Lyanna's death. Just before the dream duel begins, Eddard also thinks of Lyanna calling out. "He dreamt an old dream--three knights in white cloaks, a tower long fallen, Lyanna in her bed of blood." The latter, to me, is the most interesting--it is clearly interlocking the three images of duel, tower, and Lyanna's death.

Regardless of whether or not Lyanna was specifically at the ToJ, the storytelling context links the tower with Rhaegar, the tower with Lyanna's death, and Rhaegar with both the tower and Lyanna.

This is both very little to work with, and yet far more to work with than any other interpretation of Lyanna's absence; dubious and incomplete text is better than no text at all.

To argue it from a different perspective, there's also very little text to suggest that Eddard Stark impregnated a woman named Wylla--yet a single conversation where Eddard seems to uncomfortably suggest to Robert that Wylla was the "common girl" that was the mother of his bastard is, for me, more than enough to make it an extremely plausible conclusion to draw from the text; plausible, based on a single line in five books. Rhaegar + Lyanna, on the other hand, has more than just a single line of context.

If i may interject this goes toward the unreliable narrator.

 

42 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

Upeakable?" the king roared. "What Aerys did to your brother Brandon was unspeakable. The way your lord father died, that
was unspeakable. And Rhaegar … how many times do you think he raped your sister? How many hundreds of times?"

Unless there is a CSI Westeros,there is no way for Robert to know this and in fact what he said may not be something he knows,but from a natural inclination given what he thinks happened.I brought this up before.Its masculine nature.

I ask any man here, if you are told some dude kidnapped your love interest you will have two thoughts.

1.Hurry up and find her can you imagine what he is doing to her by now.Oh god he's probably raping her over and over.

2. What if they knew each other and ran away together .Was she having an affair?

A man would seldom ever or seldom think its none of the above.

Secondly,

42 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it.

The use of this word is peculiar given RLJ assertion that the "they" were Howland and a the midwife/wet nurse  Wylla.

Found: "having been discovered by chance or unexpectedly, in particular."

We can infer a few things from this....I leave it for discussion though.

[Black Crow]

20 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

If i may interject this goes toward the unreliable narrator.

Not necessarily if it condenses the narrative into a single dream rather than the separate incidents it was in reality, it provides for economy of effort end ensures that the necessary connections are made.

As I said, I'm not arguing against R+L=J but rather examining why GRRM cautioned against interpreting the dream literally

[Frey family reunion]

1 hour ago, Matthew. said:

 

I apologize for the unwieldy formatting and wall of quotes, so I hope my context has been conveyed: Howland is there for the duel, Howland is there for Lyanna's death. Just before the dream duel begins, Eddard also thinks of Lyanna calling out. "He dreamt an old dream--three knights in white cloaks, a tower long fallen, Lyanna in her bed of blood." The latter, to me, is the most interesting--it is clearly interlocking the three images of duel, tower, and Lyanna's death.

Regardless of whether or not Lyanna was specifically at the ToJ, the storytelling context links the tower with Rhaegar, the tower with Lyanna's death, and Rhaegar with both the tower and Lyanna.

This is both very little to work with, and yet far more to work with than any other interpretation of Lyanna's absence; dubious and incomplete text is better than no text at all.

To argue it from a different perspective, there's also very little text to suggest that Eddard Stark impregnated a woman named Wylla--yet a single conversation where Eddard seems to uncomfortably suggest to Robert that Wylla was the "common girl" that was the mother of his bastard is, for me, more than enough to make it an extremely plausible conclusion to draw from the text; plausible, based on a single line in five books. Rhaegar + Lyanna, on the other hand, has more than just a single line of context.

Eddard's dream, in my opinion, works both ways on the theory.  Yes Eddard clearly associates the tower of joy with Lyanna's death.  But oddly enough he doesn't associate it as a memory, he associates it as a dream.

If his dream is a literal recollection of the events as they occurred, then Eddard's thoughts should have fallen along the lines that he dreamed of an old event, of a memory.  But instead he associates these events as a dream only.

Now I agree that based on Ned's recollections, Howland Reed is directly connected to both events.  But Eddard's memories don't connect Lyanna to the tower of joy, only Ned's dreams make this connection. 

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

Eddard's dream, in my opinion, works both ways on the theory.  Yes Eddard clearly associates the tower of joy with Lyanna's death.  But oddly enough he doesn't associate it as a memory, he associates it as a dream.

If his dream is a literal recollection of the events as they occurred, then Eddard's thoughts should have fallen along the lines that he dreamed of an old event, of a memory.  But instead he associates these events as a dream only.

Now I agree that based on Ned's recollections, Howland Reed is directly connected to both events.  But Eddard's memories don't connect Lyanna to the tower of joy, only Ned's dreams make this connection. 

You're going to get a lot of these....

[JNR]

4 hours ago, Matthew. said:

I'm open to a relatively generous time frame in which Jon might have been conceived

Then it's puzzling that you quoted the usual case -- SSM + Dany born on Dragonstone nine months after Sack -- because that very case appears to pin down Jon's time of conception.

If you're open to a "generous time frame," what part of the case you quoted do you not believe is accurate?  Was it GRRM, or was it Dany, or was it both?

4 hours ago, Matthew. said:

What the text establishes is the idea that Lyanna was Rhaegar's hostage before the Rebellion began, and remained his hostage until the war ended--by inference, if she was anywhere at all three months into the Rebellion, she was wherever Rhaegar was keeping her

You said your focus was on citable text.  That's a simple enough concept.

I'm sure you could easily cite text to show that, for instance, Rhaegar was in King's Landing prior to the Trident.    You could easily cite text to show that Lyanna was in the Winterfell godswood when she was stickfighting her younger brother Benjen.

But it seems you cannot cite text to show any of the following:

1) Where Lyanna was at any time in the Rebellion from its beginning to its end

2) Where Rhaegar was during the Rebellion until he "returned from the south" (whatever that means)

3) Whether they were together at any point, or for any length of time, during the Rebellion

The idea that they were together thus only exists in some readers' imaginations.  Not in citable text.  That's exactly why Rhaegar's "opportunity" to impregnate Lyanna can't be demonstrated -- only imagined. 

[JNR]

3 hours ago, Black Crow said:

We have talked before about the practical difficulty in two supposed lovers hiding out in a tower in the Dornish Marches when Rhaegar has so grievously upset the Dornishmen.

I also find it personally very unlikely that if they were there, they were not getting news of any sort, and in this way, Lyanna did not know the fate of her brother and father and of the Rebellion...

...and yet when Ned finds the KG there in his dream, it's perfectly obvious the three KG are fully up to speed.  They know of the Trident, its outcome, of Viserys fleeing, his company, the Sack, and Jaime's handling of Aerys.   So they were getting news, and they were getting it fairly quickly.

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

t would be a pretty obvious mistake to spot if Yandel got the year wrong that the Battle of the Trident occurred, even for Robert.  (After all he was there).

I absolutely agree, but Robert is a bit... let's be kind, and say dim... when it comes to recalling such basic facts, you know?

Quote

 

[Context: Ned is discussing the Sack with Robert in AGOT]

"Aerys was in the Red Keep with several thousand loyalists. I expected to find the gates closed to us."

Robert gave an impatient shake of his head. "Instead you found that our men had already taken the city. What of it?"

"Not our men," Ned said patiently. "Lannister men. The lion of Lannister flew over the ramparts, not the crowned stag. And they had taken the city by treachery."

 

It's quite an incredible thing that Robert somehow blurred history, in his mind, so as to forget who sacked King's Landing! 

But he did... and I think from the word "patiently" above, we can infer that Ned is not at all surprised.  He knows Robert is not exactly all about facts.

[PrettyPig]

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

My main point is that I don't think it's impossible for Lyanna to have conceived Jon (or whoever) before she disappeared.  Especially if we move Jon's birth up to the battle of the Trident. 

FWIW, I think the timeline-whichever one you prefer, I suppose-more supports Jon being born around the time of the Trident and not the Sack or TOJ.   It works with many ideas regardless of who you believe Jon's parents to be.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

27 minutes ago, JNR said:

The idea that they were together thus only exists in some readers' imaginations.  Not in citable text.

Well, it first exists in Robert's imagination:

Quote

"Nonetheless," Ned said, "the murder of children... it would be vile... unspeakable..."

"Unspeakable?" the king roared. "What Aerys did to your brother Brandon was unspeakable. The way your lord father died, that was unspeakable. And Rhaegar... how many times do you think he raped your sister? How many hundreds of times?" His voice had grown so loud that his horse whinnied nervously beneath him. The king jerked the reins hard, quieting the animal, and pointed an angry finger at Ned. "I will kill every Targaryen I can get my hands on, until they are as dead as their dragons, and then I will piss on their graves."

Best I can tell, this is where the idea of R+L sexual contact originally comes from in the text... before we readers adopt it, build on it, and re-characterize the relationship to our satisfaction.

The motive, clearly, was lust. The opportunity was... erm, sustained. Longer than a day or two, one would presume.  At least, according to Robert Baratheon. Fourteen years later.

History is written by the victors, etc.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

2 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I'm not arguing against R+L=J but rather examining why GRRM cautioned against interpreting the dream literally

Might be interesting to consider the three instances where Martin uses the phrase "dreamed an old dream."  Not sure there's anything in common between them, necessarily. But there might be. 

Actually, dreams in general might provide better material across these books. I don't know.

[PrettyPig]

3 hours ago, Matthew. said:

When ADWD introduces the notion of the fisherman's daughter as Jon's mother, we don't take it seriously, because it's about as on-the-nose as the author can be without having a character literally declare "I heard that Lord Eddard jumped into the ocean and fucked a red herring during Robert's Rebellion!"

Ohhhh, Them's fightin' words, my friend.   Not only are there enough subtle clues to point to this story being anything BUT a red herring, there are compelling ( imo) textual hints that the Fisherman's Daughter is 'somebody'.

dont make me fight you!!!

[Frey family reunion]

13 minutes ago, PrettyPig said:

FWIW, I think the timeline-whichever one you prefer, I suppose-more supports Jon being born around the time of the Trident and not the Sack or TOJ.   It works with many ideas regardless of who you believe Jon's parents to be.

I'm inclined to agree with you.  I think he was born shortly before the Trident.  Which may be why Ned comes late to the Ruby Ford. 

The biggest argument against that theory is this line:

Quote

Eddard Stark had ridden out that very day in a cold rage, to fight the last battles of the war alone in the south.  It had taken another death to reconcile them; Lyanna's death, and the grief they had shared over her passing.

I think a very understandable reaction to this quote, is that Lyanna did not die until after the Sack, after Ned rode off in a cold rage.

And perhaps I'm overthinking this a bit, but note how convuled that last line is.  George could have simply said that it took Lyanna's death to reconcile them, but he seemingly unnecessarily compounds the sentence.  It wasn't just Lyanna's death that reconciled them, it was

1. Her death and

2.  The grief that both Eddard and Robert shared over her passing.

This implied to me that Eddard and Robert may have learned of her passing at seperate times.  Ned was there when Lyanna died, so he knew of her passing when it occurred.  Robert perhaps learned of it some time later, some time after the Sack.  It was his grief shared by Ned that brought them back together.

[Melifeather]

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I'm inclined to agree with you.  I think he was born shortly before the Trident.  Which may be why Ned comes late to the Ruby Ford. 

The biggest argument against that theory is this line:

I think a very understandable reaction to this quote, is that Lyanna did not die until after the Sack, after Ned rode off in a cold rage.

And perhaps I'm overthinking this a bit, but note how convuled that last line is.  George could have simply said that it took Lyanna's death to reconcile them, but he seemingly unnecessarily compounds the sentence.  It wasn't just Lyanna's death that reconciled them, it was

1. Her death and

2.  The grief that both Eddard and Robert shared over her passing.

This implied to me that Eddard and Robert may have learned of her passing at seperate times.  Ned was there when Lyanna died, so he knew of her passing when it occurred.  Robert perhaps learned of it some time later, some time after the Sack.  It was his grief shared by Ned that brought them back together.

I can understand how most people interpret that, but I think there's enough wiggle room for Lyanna to die before the Trident and having an instance where Ned and Robert "make up" over their grief about her death. They had the argument over the murder's of Rhaegar's children and presumably didn't see each other for awhile. One of the times that they do they could have gotten to talking and then when the subject turned to Lyanna they both realized how much they each were grieving and found comfort with the shared bond. Added to this is Ned's words to Robert that he "avenged Lyanna at the Trident". How do you avenge someone before they're even dead?

[JNR]

2 hours ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Well, it first exists in Robert's imagination

That's true, but even if we assume he knew what he was talking about in this area (a difficult thing to assume with confidence), King Bob still doesn't specify when the ostensible raping happened.

The Bran reference is similarly vague:

Quote

"Robert was betrothed to marry her, but Prince Rhaegar carried her off and raped her," Bran explained. "Robert fought a war to win her back. He killed Rhaegar on the Trident with his hammer, but Lyanna died and he never got her back at all."

This makes it sound like Bran thinks the raping happened first, and then the war, which would mean Bran isn't really saying they were together during the Rebellion either.  (And you also have to wonder if Robert, who is visiting Winterfell, is the one who put this idea in Bran's head.)

3 hours ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Best I can tell, this is where the idea of R+L sexual contact originally comes from in the text... before we readers adopt it, build on it, and re-characterize the relationship to our satisfaction.

That's true.  However, for most RLJ true believers, I'd guess the idea originally comes from... here.  The Internet.  Meaning ASOIAF sites and other fans and their comments.   And if they went about it that way, the sequence of info in the books was not really relevant to how the theory got into their heads at all. 

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

1 hour ago, JNR said:

even if we assume he knew what he was talking about in this area (a difficult thing to assume with confidence)

Nah. I think the Bobert is pretty blind when it comes to sexual mores, or varying shades of male sexuality. There's no third person perspective-taking going on there. Thus he asks no questions when Ned claims a bastard. He seems not to recognize Loras Tyrell's interest in his own brother. And he imagines Rhaegar raping a woman "hundreds of times." 

He's got no clue.

[JNR]

And now for something completely different.

Quote

“And now it begins,” said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

I think we can guess confidently that Dawn was not normally "alive with light."  So this is part of the surrealism of the dream.

How did Ned's dreaming mind come to assign that appearance to Dawn... given that he never actually saw Dawn looking that way?

Similarly:

Quote

A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.

Setting aside for the moment whether the petals are supposed to be blue, or the sky is supposed to be blue... "the eyes of death" are clearly described as blue. 

And we know how accurate that is. 

But Ned didn't.  How, again, did Ned's dreaming mind know the color of the eyes of death?  ...given that he never actually saw any wights or Popsicles in his life?

Is GRRM dropping a subtle clue, by surreally showing us life and death in quick symbolic succession this way?  And does that connect to the definite death, and possible new life, that were part of this scene when it played out some fourteen years before this chapter?