Heresy 199 Once upon a Time in the West

[Black Crow]

5 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

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?

I think that the easiest way to reconcile this is that Lyanna was abducted and then heard of no more. She was therefore assumed to be dead; we hear nothing of her during the war and no attempts are made to find her. Hence avenging her at the Trident and afterwards Lord Eddard goes south not to look for her but to fight the last battles of the war and it's only then he discovers that she is still alive - only to find her too late.

[WeKnowNothing]

6 hours ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

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.

You forget the Jaime-Cersei incest, which happens right before him. Like c'mon, he must be very dim (I don't mean to question his intelligence) to not realise that your wife and her brother have eyes for each other. And he doesn't once doubt that all three blonde kids are his? 

In regards to Rhagar and Lyanna, he would assume that Lyanna would never have sex willingly with another man that was not him, and anything else would must have been rape. What I really want to know though, is why would he assume Rhaegar had sex with Lyanna? I mean, he wasn't in Dorne with them to personally see if they had sex or not. I really doubt Ned would tell him anything related to them having sex, as that does not help his plan to hide Jon.

[Brad Stark]

1 hour ago, WeKnowNothing said:

You forget the Jaime-Cersei incest, which happens right before him. Like c'mon, he must be very dim (I don't mean to question his intelligence) to not realise that your wife and her brother have eyes for each other. And he doesn't once doubt that all three blonde kids are his? 

In regards to Rhagar and Lyanna, he would assume that Lyanna would never have sex willingly with another man that was not him, and anything else would must have been rape. What I really want to know though, is why would he assume Rhaegar had sex with Lyanna? I mean, he wasn't in Dorne with them to personally see if they had sex or not. I really doubt Ned would tell him anything related to them having sex, as that does not help his plan to hide Jon.

If a man rides off with a women,  it is a good bet they are having sex, consensual or not.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

2 hours ago, WeKnowNothing said:

You forget the Jaime-Cersei incest, which happens right before him.

Good point. That one too. The man is rather oblivious.  

 

8 hours ago, JNR said:

And now for something completely different.

Nice pivot. 

And interesting questions. Gonna have to think that over some.  Pale milkglass blade, alive with light... blue eyes of death... if I didn't know we were talking about Ned's dream, those images would take me straight back to AGOT prologue. Or Sam's encounter with the Other in ASOS. 

Though there are other lighted dream-swords in these books, too...  

 

[Matthew.]

15 hours ago, JNR said:

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?

I believe GRRM could have been answering inaccurately--not intentionally, but because it wouldn't be the first time he has made such mistakes when it comes to timelines. Emphasis on "could", not "is," as I'm open to generous timelines if it suits other people's theories (eg, that Lyanna is abducted while already pregnant), while personally believing that she was impregnated weeks or months after her disappearance.

15 hours ago, JNR said:

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

This is just not accurate, as Snowfyre already addressed--even from the point of view of RLJ skepticism, good faith discussion of the text will acknowledge that Lyanna is to be understood by the reader as Rhaegar's hostage (with his motivations for taking her hostage elaborated on by Robert and Bran) during Robert's Rebellion.

This doesn't mean that's what is actually true, but you seem to want to present "Lyanna was with Rhaegar during Robert's Rebellion" as a premise that is just as speculative as "Lyanna was at Casterly Rock," or "Lyanna was on the Isle of Faces," or any number of other locations she could have been, but these premises are not equally rooted in the text; Lyanna as Rhaegar's hostage is not fan theory, it is text, in the same way that "Eddard is Jon Snow's father" is text.

The author can obviously use the text to mislead, but it is not somehow a mistake of imagination on the part of the reader to place Rhaegar and Lyanna together during their absence--that's the story the author is telling, either as a diversion, or because it's true.

 

11 hours ago, JNR said:

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.

"Prince Rhaegar carried her off and raped her. Robert fought a war to win her back." If she's not to be understood, from Bran's point of view, as Rhaegar's hostage, then why does she need to be "won back?" Again, the history here could be false, but its meaning is crystal clear; these are not ambiguous statements that are being misconstrued by a certain subset of readers. Similarly, the sentiments expressed by Viserys, Cersei, and Barristan that reinforce R+L is text, not Internet speculation.
 

 

15 hours ago, PrettyPig said:

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!!!

My apologies to the fisherman's daughter!

Do you have a thread that has explored this idea?

[Matthew.]

21 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Pale milkglass blade, alive with light... blue eyes of death... if I didn't know we were talking about Ned's dream, those images would take me straight back to AGOT prologue. Or Sam's encounter with the Other in ASOS. 

I agree that the language GRRM is using is evocative of the two times we've encountered the Others--we might throw Jamie's dream of encountering a spectral KG beneath Casterly Rock in that mix as well.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

19 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

we might throw Jamie's dream of encountering a spectral KG beneath Casterly Rock in that mix as well.

That was the main one I had in mind, as well.

 

 

[The Hidden Dragon]

11 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

15 hours ago, JNR said:

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

This is just not accurate, as Snowfyre already addressed--even from the point of view of RLJ skepticism, good faith discussion of the text will acknowledge that Lyanna is to be understood by the reader as Rhaegar's hostage (with his motivations for taking her hostage elaborated on by Robert and Bran) during Robert's Rebellion.

I think you just proved JNR's point.  "...Lyanna is to be understood by the reader..." does not mean those understandings are true, which I think is the point JNR is making.  My apologies to JNR if I am misrepresenting your point.

Lyanna may have been Rhaegar's hostage, depending upon the reliability of statements made by certain characters, but other characters describe Rhaegar's love for Lyanna, which may be evidence against that. 

As an example - Sansa remembers the Hound kissing her.  That is a fact (i.e. that she remembers this).  Of course, it is not a fact that the Hound actually kissed her.  So the fact that she remembers is actually not true, but we, as readers, only know this because we saw the event as it actually played out. 

We, as readers, did not see Rhaegar carry away Lyanna, so we don't know what actually happened.  We are left to imagine what occurred and compose our understandings based upon intentionally incomplete information.  Likewise, we, as readers, do not see what actually transpires at the TOJ.  We don't know who arrived when, what they did, when they left, or if at all.  We, again, are left to our imaginations to compose our understandings based upon intentionally incomplete information.

 

[wolfmaid7]

18 hours ago, Black Crow said:

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

I don't think its about rlj validity  but more about the arguments that make up an important tenet. As i said before, if Lyanna was at the tower that doesn't say who impregnated her.We don't even know how long they were there ,when they acquired Lyanna if they did.Or if Rhaegar did take her he didn't just say...Make sure she doesn't leave and went about his business.Lastly,if she was pregnant when they acquired her.

My point was no matter the need to condense those who found Ned with Lyanna didn't expect to find that scene.So the "they"  were most likely who was with Ned.If  i were to imagine Lyanna was being cared for by midwives or the brothers on the Quiet Isle they would know her condition thus no surprise.Nor would Ned assume that seeing as they cared for her.

But i do see how it could have been to economize the scene,so that would work to.

However, i can't help think If it was at toj,the only building then their would be no need for anyone with Ned or already there with Lyanna to have come upon Ned unexpectedly.Him and Howland could have walked into the room together. Howland standing outside and then walking in wouldn't even constitute a coming on him with Lyanna unexpectedly.

11 hours ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

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.

True dat.

3 hours ago, WeKnowNothing said:

 

In regards to Rhagar and Lyanna, he would assume that Lyanna would never have sex willingly with another man that was not him, and anything else would must have been rape. What I really want to know though, is why would he assume Rhaegar had sex with Lyanna? I mean, he wasn't in Dorne with them to personally see if they had sex or not. I really doubt Ned would tell him anything related to them having sex, as that does not help his plan to hide Jon.

He didn't he believed Rhaegar raped her, why else would a man abduct a woman? He isn't going to think of a third option.

2 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

If a man rides off with a women,  it is a good bet they are having sex, consensual or not.

Yep that's the same point i made.It was only natural that Robert would think either or.In his case the most horrific happened.Why he would think that in itself is a clue.Did he reject that because he was such a catch that Lyanna could never cheat on him  or did he know that was not in Lyanna's nature?

Motives,why people do the things they do and think the way they think. 

[Frey family reunion]

2 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

 

He didn't he believed Rhaegar raped her, why else would a man abduct a woman? He isn't going to think of a third option.

Yep that's the same point i made.It was only natural that Robert would think either or.In his case the most horrific happened.Why he would think that in itself is a clue.Did he reject that because he was such a catch that Lyanna could never cheat on him  or did he know that was not in Lyanna's nature?

Motives,why people do the things they do and think the way they think. 

This all does raise an interesting point.  Do we know how Robert thinks Lyanna died?  Did he think she died in childbirth, perhaps also resulting in the death of the child?  Does he simply think Rhaegar raped her to death?  Does he think she was outright murdered?  I may be wrong but I don't think it's ever addressed in the story.

[Frey family reunion]

7 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I think that the easiest way to reconcile this is that Lyanna was abducted and then heard of no more. She was therefore assumed to be dead; we hear nothing of her during the war and no attempts are made to find her. Hence avenging her at the Trident and afterwards Lord Eddard goes south not to look for her but to fight the last battles of the war and it's only then he discovers that she is still alive - only to find her too late.

But this would be outside the norm.  Back in the day, it wasn't unusual to take high born hostages, but it would have been unusual to have murdered them for no apparent reason.

[wolfmaid7]

9 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

This all does raise an interesting point.  Do we know how Robert thinks Lyanna died?  Did he think she died in childbirth, perhaps also resulting in the death of the child?  Does he simply think Rhaegar raped her to death?  Does he think she was outright murdered?  I may be wrong but I don't think it's ever addressed in the story.

We don't know exactly how.But i assume he thinks the rape directly or indirectly was the cause of her death.I guess form injuries because of it.It was war he probably thought Rhaegar did kill her or have her killed.That's what happens.It happened to Elia and her kids.

[Prof. Cecily]

44 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

This all does raise an interesting point.  Do we know how Robert thinks Lyanna died?  Did he think she died in childbirth, perhaps also resulting in the death of the child?  Does he simply think Rhaegar raped her to death?  Does he think she was outright murdered?  I may be wrong but I don't think it's ever addressed in the story.

Ooh. Those are very good questions!

[Black Crow]

38 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

But this would be outside the norm.  Back in the day, it wasn't unusual to take high born hostages, but it would have been unusual to have murdered them for no apparent reason.

Yes and no, the point of taking a hostage is that once in possession you can utter threats to play ball or the kid gets it. In this case, however, so far as we can tell from the text she was abducted and vanished off the face of the earth - just as that earlier Lord Stark's daughter disappeared.

[Black Crow]

45 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

This all does raise an interesting point.  Do we know how Robert thinks Lyanna died?  Did he think she died in childbirth, perhaps also resulting in the death of the child?  Does he simply think Rhaegar raped her to death?  Does he think she was outright murdered?  I may be wrong but I don't think it's ever addressed in the story.

Again we know nothing, but while Trouserless Bob Baratheon doesn't come over as a thinking man even he could join up the dots if Ned told him that she died in childbirth and by the way this is my bastard son.

That she died of a fever is both truthful and sufficient

That's not to say Bob didn't imagine wore in the meantime

[Frey family reunion]

37 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Yes and no, the point of taking a hostage is that once in possession you can utter threats to play ball or the kid gets it. In this case, however, so far as we can tell from the text she was abducted and vanished off the face of the earth - just as that earlier Lord Stark's daughter disappeared.

And considering what Aerys did to the subsequent hostages he took in King's Landing, it wouldn't be a stretch that Lyanna may have met a similar fate.

[ReturnOfCaponBreath]

Ranndom thought based in some of the discussion so apologies for not quoting people.

If Lyanna wasn't with Rhaegar (willingly or kidnapped) don't we need an alternative place for her to be for 12months + to account for her absence.

If she had been kidnapped is it an automatic assumption that sex is involved ? We have Cat kidnap Tyrion and no one assumes there is any raping or sex involved. (I understand the circumstances are very different but you get my point) I think in a feudal system with hostages etc hostages/wards/prisoners are afforded comfort befitting their station and so I'm not sure it's an automatic assumption that a kidnap = sex. 

Isn't dawn made of meteor iron? (EDIT no it isn't, it's made from the heart of a meteor which is different and it's consistently described as white so nothing unusual in the description.)

Finally, If lack of a citable location for Lyanna casts doubt on Rhaegars ability to impregnate her, does it do the same for some or all Of The other contenders? Does that logic point you in a direction that Jon must be Neds?

 

[wolfmaid7]

31 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Trouserless Bob Baratheon doesn't come over as a thinking man even he could join up the dots if Ned told him that she died in childbirth and by the way this is my bastard son.

 

Even Robert ain't that dim.

3 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

And considering what Aerys did to the subsequent hostages he took in King's Landing, it wouldn't be a stretch that Lyanna may have met a similar fate.

Very true...Hostages haven't faired well in this series.And I don't think Robert would have differentiate one Targ from the other in what they could potentially do.

 

[Brad Stark]

23 minutes ago, ReturnOfCaponBreath said:

Ranndom thought based in some of the discussion so apologies for not quoting people.

If Lyanna wasn't with Rhaegar (willingly or kidnapped) don't we need an alternative place for her to be for 12months + to account for her absence.

If she had been kidnapped is it an automatic assumption that sex is involved ? We have Cat kidnap Tyrion and no one assumes there is any raping or sex involved. (I understand the circumstances are very different but you get my point) I think in a feudal system with hostages etc hostages/wards/prisoners are afforded comfort befitting their station and so I'm not sure it's an automatic assumption that a kidnap = sex. 

Isn't dawn made of meteor iron? Doesn't sound pale as milkglass.

Finally, If lack of a citable location for Lyanna casts doubt on Rhaegars ability to impregnate her, does it do the same for some or all Of The other contenders? Does that logic point you in a direction that Jon must be Neds?

 

I remember GRRM discussing merchandise.   Someone sells an official Dawn painted white, he said he is generally against painting swords, but in this case it is the closest people can make with real world technology.   Dawn is definitely not meteoric iron, even though real weapons were and were probably the inspiration. 

[WeKnowNothing]

2 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

He didn't he believed Rhaegar raped her, why else would a man abduct a woman? He isn't going to think of a third option.

Rape is still sex. I wasn't talking in the context of willing or unwilling, but about why he would assume Rhaegar abducted her with the intention to have sex with her. And your right about Robert not thinking any other reason as to why Rhaegar and Lyanna disappeared together. But strangely, when you remember all the other instances Rhaegar-Lyanna are mentioned by other characters (who are not Robert) they seem to assume he abducted her because of either lust or love, and NOT because he desires to rape her.

3 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Yep that's the same point i made.It was only natural that Robert would think either or.In his case the most horrific happened.Why he would think that in itself is a clue.Did he reject that because he was such a catch that Lyanna could never cheat on him  or did he know that was not in Lyanna's nature?

Motives,why people do the things they do and think the way they think. 

His most delusional thoughts are of Lyanna. In his mind, Lyanna loved him as much as he (thought) loved her. His ego wouldn't have let him believe that Lyanna could have not wanted him as a marriage prospect, and she would have come into the marriage and even into his bed willingly. I always feel his intellegence must be low for him to not realise that the woman he 'loved' did not love him back. And also the fact that for him personally, going to war was because he felt he loved her and he wanted to kill Rhaegar for the abduction. 

He had the most motive to think that Lyanna was raped, along with most probably Brandon. No other character in the books ever thinks that Rhaegr raped Lyanna, maybe abducted, yes - but not rape.