Heresy 199 Once upon a Time in the West

[Melifeather]

3 hours ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

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.

 

Since  you've brought up Sansa and the Hound, you could use them as an example. Sandor seemed to have an attraction for the little "bird", and he offered to take her with him when leaving Kings Landing. Was his intentions honorable or did he view her as a potential hostage? Sansa on the other hand viewed him as a protector. At one time she was also engaged to Joffrey. All was sweetness and light until her father's showdown with Jaime when leaving the brothel. After that they were still engaged and to the outside world would seem a perfect romance, but insiders would know that he loved to torture her physically and mentally. My point is to the majority of the outside world both relationships could be romanticized, but it doesn't mean they were in real life.

[WeKnowNothing]

1 hour ago, wolfmaid7 said:

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.

Rhaegar couldn't have killed or even ordered Lyanna to be killed since he was dead for a month before she died herself. So the only people with Lyanna for about a few weeks at least, would have been the three kingsguard. And the kingsguard (especially those three) were regarded as the best and most honourable, so I'm having a hard time assuming everyone in Westeros would just think the kingsguard killed her even if they were ordered to. Since we are on the topic of Lyana dying, I've always found it very weird that no one ever wonders the cause for Lyanna's death. They really took Neds word of a fever to be true?

[ravenous reader]

 

THE COLLECTIVE CONSOLATIONS OF NOT KNOWING... 

 

23 hours 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.

 

Quote

Black Crow said:

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.

 

23 hours ago, Black Crow said:

... the latter rests on a dodgy dream which puts the fight and Lyanna in the same place at the same time.

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

 

22 hours ago, Matthew. said:

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.

 

3 hours ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

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.

 

3 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

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.

 

On 6/12/2017 at 2:44 PM, JNR said:

So there's a connection in Theon's dreaming mind between the crown of roses, the gown, Lyanna, and her being spattered with gore -- but what sort of connection, we don't yet know.

 

On 6/13/2017 at 6:45 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

One just doesn't know what traits we will inherit.You can't say Stark traits are recessive in general.When in a gene pool with the Tullys that's how it expressed. 

 

On 6/13/2017 at 0:57 PM, Matthew. said:

Maybe, but we don't really know what Rhaegar was capable of, because we're at the mercy of biased POVs.

 

On 6/15/2017 at 11:27 AM, JNR said:

However, I can also very easily see why GRRM would have left the World book text unchanged, if indeed that is the case.

If Yandel thought the truth about that timeframe was a story King Robert would dislike, he might simply fudge the truth.

And if GRRM had that idea in mind, such an error in the World book text would go uncorrected, because if it were corrected, it would no longer reflect what the character Maester Yandel had actually written (knowing it to be wrong) to please Robert.

 

On 4/8/2017 at 11:34 PM, Voice said:

...there are many incongruities that tend to be glossed over. I'm all for parallels (hence this thread, lol), but rebuttals are far more meaningful and constructive when they are based on objective canon rather than subjective interpretations of canon.

To each his own...

... the tower of joy is a Rorschach upon which people often cast their own pet theories.

 

On 4/9/2017 at 5:55 AM, Voice said:

But you were arguing against Starfall based on 1:1 comparison of selective interpretations. I.e., there was a fight occurring outside of the tent of joy, so therefore there had to have been a fight occurring outside Lyanna's maternity room.

But, if we apply that 1:1 scale, it leaves many loose ends unaccounted. Some feel like square pegs, others like round holes. 

I'm not saying there isn't a strong parallel. If it is ever canon that Lyanna gave birth at the tower of joy, I will certainly be all for it. But parallels and inverses tend to muddy the text, rather than clarify it.

Again, I truly do appreciate the comparisons. I have made it myself, and will again. I have also compared Dany's descent into the HotU to Jon's descent into the crypts. There are an infinite amount of such parallels and inverses that can be drawn.

Too many, to be used as evidence in debate, in my opinion. And that is solely my opinion.

 

On 6/9/2017 at 5:59 PM, Matthew. said:

I think this gets to the heart of why the approach of arguing against is inherently less convincing. The conceit of RLJ believers is to begin with the premise "RLJ is true," and then look at incomplete information and ascribe meaning; "3 KG are at the ToJ--now we have meaning for their presence. Eddard has been living lies, and now we know why he believes that. It's noted that Rhaegar renamed the location the Tower of Joy, and now that name has a meaning."

Of course, that doesn't mean any of that is correct, but the above assumptions offer the reader meaning, while the argument against offers only the absence of meaning: "Why are the 3 KG there? To die. Why name it the ToJ? Who knows, Rhaegar was eccentric. Why does Ned associate the location with Lyanna's death? He doesn't, that's just the mind hopping between unrelated fever dreams. Why the winter roses? Hollow gesture, same as what Loras does at the Hand's Tourney. Why do characters believe Rhaegar was infatuated with Lyanna? Uneducated guesses. "

The best argument against RLJ is not disbelief, but belief in an even better narrative, an even better connection of the dots.

 

On 4/9/2017 at 5:55 AM, Voice said:

... too many non-canonical arguments made based upon interpretations that began rooted in the text, but wound up on an entirely subjective inverse echo of a very far away limb. Does that make sense?

 

2 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Again we know nothing...

 

Quote

@wolfmaid7

...With a Baratheon we don't know.

 

Quote

@Voice said:

A Rorschach isn't a fallacy, nor would an interpretation of one be false. I am only pointing out that we do not know, and that our author is well-practiced in using our expectations against us.

 

On 6/9/2017 at 9:23 PM, JNR said:

Which I previously described as "scraps."  You're right. 

But I'll say something else about this.  Since we all agree that there are only scraps from that standpoint... that means that any successful theory of Jon's parents is only going to have scraps to start with. Which means no theory at all is going to look convincing to a completely literal eye. 

 

Quote

@Matthew. said:

...endlessly observing that something might not be true and all of the various ways in which seemingly significant lines of text are actually insignificant...

 

On 6/11/2017 at 2:29 PM, ravenous reader said:

...how will we ever know anything ..?

 

Quote

 @JNR said: 

 It's impossible to know...

 

Quote

@JNR said:

...yet. 

 

[PrettyPig]

4 hours ago, Matthew. said:

My apologies to the fisherman's daughter!

Do you have a thread that has explored this idea?

Indeed I do!  I will probably just PM you a link though (unless others here are interested as well).  I have posted it on this forum/on Heresy a few times now so people may be sick of it.   

It also tends to be pooh-poohed because it doesn't make nice with some preexisting head canon- and not just RLJ-based either, I might add- but that's to be expected I suppose.  However, when you really look at the Davos passage, imo it becomes clear that this is more than misdirecting filler.

[ReturnOfCaponBreath]

4 minutes ago, PrettyPig said:

Indeed I do!  I will probably just PM you a link though (unless others here are interested as well).  I have posted it on this forum/on Heresy a few times now so people may be sick of it.   

It also tends to be pooh-poohed because it doesn't make nice with some preexisting head canon- and not just RLJ-based either, I might add- but that's to be expected I suppose.  However, when you really look at the Davos passage, imo it becomes clear that this is more than misdirecting filler.

I'd be interested in seeing it.

[LynnS]

2 hours ago, ReturnOfCaponBreath said:

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.)

Yah, I'm going to go with dragonbone or dragontooth on this one.  Specifically an albino dragon with blue eyes, like the ice dragon in the sky with it's blue eye - a fallen star in other words.

[Black Crow]

3 hours ago, ReturnOfCaponBreath said:

Random 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.

I think that Rhaegar has to be involved in some capacity and three major alternatives present themselves.

First; Rhaegar fell in love and eloped

Second; Rhaegar snatched her for political reasons but then the Stockholm syndrome kicked in and they fell in love

Third; is a variation on the second scenario in which someone other than Rhaegar was involved

On balance, and looking where GRRM appears to be pointing, R+L=J is probably true, but Ned's dream is conflating different episodes. Lyanna wasn't at the tower and although Rhaegar may have been Jon's father, there was no fantasy marriage, he's still a bastard and in terms of outcomes its far more important that he's the son of Lyanna Stark

[The Hidden Dragon]

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

Since  you've brought up Sansa and the Hound, you could use them as an example. Sandor seemed to have an attraction for the little "bird", and he offered to take her with him when leaving Kings Landing. Was his intentions honorable or did he view her as a potential hostage? Sansa on the other hand viewed him as a protector. At one time she was also engaged to Joffrey. All was sweetness and light until her father's showdown with Jaime when leaving the brothel. After that they were still engaged and to the outside world would seem a perfect romance, but insiders would know that he loved to torture her physically and mentally. My point is to the majority of the outside world both relationships could be romanticized, but it doesn't mean they were in real life.

I think Sandor plays the role of a hound perfectly in that he obeys his masters commands until he reaches his breaking point.  Were his intentions towards Sansa honourable or did he see her as a potential hostage?  I think some of both actually.  I don't think he would have forced himself on her or rape her, based upon his past interactions with her and based upon his interactions with Arya, who he could have done whatever he wanted to.  But if he left KL he would need some money and probably wouldn't mind trading Sansa back to the Starks for some good gold coin.  If he wanted Sansa strictly for a hostage though he could have just taken her from KL, which leads me to conclude his intentions were honourable than not.

I like the point about how the outside world could see the Joffrey-Sansa relationship in a much different light than what it was, how it could have been romanticized, because we, as readers, have been exposed to the true goings on.  I'd like to know the true goings on re: Rhaegar and Lyanna.  I'm afraid we may not get all that we want to see.

Going back to the original OP, how much of Ned's TOJ dream can be relied upon? When the author himself tells us to not take the dream at its face, then we're left trying to decipher (or guess) at what really happened.  I have a feeling (or a guess) that the true dialogue will be much different than what Ned dreams.  I believe that Ned arrived at the TOJ with his 6 friends.  I believe the KG were there.  I believe there was a fight of some kind. I don't believe that Ned and HR, alone, pulled down that tower.  But that dialogue in the dream seems too precise to be a true replay of what was actually said.  I think GRRM was sending us, the readers, a message in those words; a message that I am currently too dense to decipher... maybe another day.

 

[Black Crow]

30 minutes ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

 

Going back to the original OP, how much of Ned's TOJ dream can be relied upon? When the author himself tells us to not take the dream at its face, then we're left trying to decipher (or guess) at what really happened.  I have a feeling (or a guess) that the true dialogue will be much different than what Ned dreams.  I believe that Ned arrived at the TOJ with his 6 friends.  I believe the KG were there.  I believe there was a fight of some kind. I don't believe that Ned and HR, alone, pulled down that tower.  But that dialogue in the dream seems too precise to be a true replay of what was actually said.  I think GRRM was sending us, the readers, a message in those words; a message that I am currently too dense to decipher... maybe another day.

 

I think that what we can take away from the conversation is that Lord Eddard was sick of the futility. There was no reason for Jory Cassel to die and no reason for his father to die. There was no reason for the Kings Guard to die either for the war was over, but they refused to stop and so they died and Lord Eddard's friends died for nothing.

What's also important about the speech is that it is not about Lyanna

[Matthew.]

6 hours ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

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. 

I didn't say otherwise, the post you're quoting acknowledges exactly this fact...literally the next paragraph begins with "This doesn't mean that's what is actually true..."

In case my opinion on Jon's parentage hasn't already been clarified in tedious, tooth-pulling detail, this is the way I see it: I think Eddard + X is the most plausible (as distinct from what I personally believe the author is going to write) explanation for Jon's parentage within the five books written, with an edge toward Wylla because of Eddard's conversation with Robert; of all of the Lyanna + X combinations - of which I've read many, several of them quite good - I still think RLJ has the most plausible, text-based case.

I am responding specifically to criticisms of RLJ that are meant to demonstrate flaws, but I think fall short of that actual standard, and a somewhat questionable attempt to present R+L (without the J) as though it's implausible, or based purely on imagining a context that does not exist within the text--the latter being demonstrably fallacious.

The quote I responded to was that "the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna were together exists only in some reader's imaginations," which is false--it exists within the imaginations of several in-world characters, which is why readers arrive at that conclusion. It's something that could be false or could be true, with some people being a little too inclined to insist that "could be wrong" is the same thing as "is wrong" or even "is probably wrong."

To imply that something is a red herring is to still acknowledge that the red herring is something that the author wants the reader to believe--what I'm arguing against is this rather bizarre idea that the reason RLJ proponents have concluded that Rhaegar and Lyanna may have had intercourse was because readers were introduced to that idea by the Internet, rather than the text, as though R+L is some leap in logic, or a fan theory. The "=J" is the fan theory, R+L as a possibility is the text.

[wolfmaid7]

2 hours ago, WeKnowNothing said:

Rhaegar couldn't have killed or even ordered Lyanna to be killed since he was dead for a month before she died herself. So the only people with Lyanna for about a few weeks at least, would have been the three kingsguard. And the kingsguard (especially those three) were regarded as the best and most honourable, so I'm having a hard time assuming everyone in Westeros would just think the kingsguard killed her even if they were ordered to. Since we are on the topic of Lyana dying, I've always found it very weird that no one ever wonders the cause for Lyanna's death. They really took Neds word of a fever to be true?

I am not saying that.I am saying given that it is war time it is not unbelievable that Robert may have thought Rhaegar gave an order or someone on behalf of him made the call.

I actually think he had nothing to do with her disappearance at all.He died never knowing that he would have been fingered in the end for her death.

2 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

 

THE COLLECTIVE CONSOLATIONS OF NOT KNOWING... 

Har!!!

[wolfmaid7]

4 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

I didn't say otherwise, the post you're quoting acknowledges exactly this fact...literally the next paragraph begins with "This doesn't mean that's what is actually true..."

In case my opinion on Jon's parentage hasn't already been clarified in tedious, tooth-pulling detail, this is the way I see it: I think Eddard + X is the most plausible (as distinct from what I personally believe the author is going to write) explanation for Jon's parentage within the five books written, with an edge toward Wylla because of Eddard's conversation with Robert; of all of the Lyanna + X combinations - of which I've read many, several of them quite good - I still think RLJ has the most plausible, text-based case.

I am responding specifically to criticisms of RLJ that are meant to demonstrate flaws, but I think fall short of that actual standard, and a somewhat questionable attempt to present R+L (without the J) as though it's implausible, or based purely on imagining a context that does not exist within the text--the latter being demonstrably fallacious.

The quote I responded to was that "the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna were together exists only in some reader's imaginations," which is false--it exists within the imaginations of several in-world characters, which is why readers arrive at that conclusion. It's something that could be false or could be true, with some people being a little too inclined to insist that "could be wrong" is the same thing as "is wrong" or even "is probably wrong."

To imply that something is a red herring is to still acknowledge that the red herring is something that the author wants the reader to believe--what I'm arguing against is this rather bizarre idea that the reason RLJ proponents have concluded that Rhaegar and Lyanna may have had intercourse was because readers were introduced to that idea by the Internet, rather than the text, as though R+L is some leap in logic, or a fan theory. The "=J" is the fan theory, R+L as a possibility is the text.

R+L together like all other theories proposed here is an interpretation of the text right? Is that what you meant to say?

[Matthew.]

2 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

 

THE COLLECTIVE CONSOLATIONS OF NOT KNOWING... 

Ah, so the author is speaking to the reader through Ygritte
 

 

2 hours ago, PrettyPig said:

Indeed I do!  I will probably just PM you a link though (unless others here are interested as well).  I have posted it on this forum/on Heresy a few times now so people may be sick of it.   

It also tends to be pooh-poohed because it doesn't make nice with some preexisting head canon- and not just RLJ-based either, I might add- but that's to be expected I suppose.  However, when you really look at the Davos passage, imo it becomes clear that this is more than misdirecting filler.

I'm sure other people would like to read it too!

Edit:

7 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

R+L together like all other theories proposed here is an interpretation of the text right? Is that what you meant to say?

Not quite. The truth of R+L is an unresolved matter, open to debate, but I wouldn't call it a fan theory; when Robert suggests that Rhaegar raped Lyanna, whether Robert knows what he's talking about is a matter of interpretation, what he means is not a matter of interpretation. The reader does not make a leap in linking R+L--the story explicitly links them.

[ravenous reader]

10 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

Ah, so the author is speaking to the reader through Ygritte

Despite your 'ignorance', Matthew (said 'unknowingness' knowingfully carried off with much laudable panache, it must be said...), your comment is 'on the nose' -- or should I say 'on the snows'; oh, who knows..?!

[ReturnOfCaponBreath]

13 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

I didn't say otherwise, the post you're quoting acknowledges exactly this fact...literally the next paragraph begins with "This doesn't mean that's what is actually true..."

In case my opinion on Jon's parentage hasn't already been clarified in tedious, tooth-pulling detail, this is the way I see it: I think Eddard + X is the most plausible (as distinct from what I personally believe the author is going to write) explanation for Jon's parentage within the five books written, with an edge toward Wylla because of Eddard's conversation with Robert; of all of the Lyanna + X combinations - of which I've read many, several of them quite good - I still think RLJ has the most plausible, text-based case.

I am responding specifically to criticisms of RLJ that are meant to demonstrate flaws, but I think fall short of that actual standard, and a somewhat questionable attempt to present R+L (without the J) as though it's implausible, or based purely on imagining a context that does not exist within the text--the latter being demonstrably fallacious.

The quote I responded to was that "the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna were together exists only in some reader's imaginations," which is false--it exists within the imaginations of several in-world characters, which is why readers arrive at that conclusion. It's something that could be false or could be true, with some people being a little too inclined to insist that "could be wrong" is the same thing as "is wrong" or even "is probably wrong."

To imply that something is a red herring is to still acknowledge that the red herring is something that the author wants the reader to believe--what I'm arguing against is this rather bizarre idea that the reason RLJ proponents have concluded that Rhaegar and Lyanna may have had intercourse was because readers were introduced to that idea by the Internet, rather than the text, as though R+L is some leap in logic, or a fan theory. The "=J" is the fan theory, R+L as a possibility is the text.

Totally agree.

Ned + Wylla requires the least things to be true.

R+L answers the most plot questions.

In spite of the paucity of reliable facts both are many times of magnitude more plausible than any other explanation. The other explanations seeming to rely as much on the fact that there are undoubted holes in both Of The mainstream options rather than any particularly strong evidence to support their own case on their own merits.

[wolfmaid7]

34 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

Not quite. The truth of R+L is an unresolved matter, open to debate, but I wouldn't call it a fan theory; when Robert suggests that Rhaegar raped Lyanna, whether Robert knows what he's talking about is a matter of interpretation, what he means is not a matter of interpretation. The reader does not make a leap in linking R+L--the story explicitly links them.

I kind of disagree with this.I get why they used it, but i don't get why they used it..There is no interpretation to be had here.Robert has nothing to base this on, and i know this because there is no Westrosi CSI forensic team.

Robert is talking out of his arse. There are somethings you just know given the circumstances and environment that a character wouldn't know.This is one of them, and because of that, interpretation is not an option.What we have here is the worse possible outcome of what could have happened in Robert's mind.Not an interpretation.

So imo using the irrational opinions of Robert is a leap.There is nothing but the rantings of a semi mad man whereby which anyone can look at and debate IF rape or consensual sex happened.

Same thing concerning what characters know about this.They got nothing to be interpreted or debated.

Rhaegar crowned Lyanna QOLAB that is a fact not up for interpretation.It is something we can look at AND THEN argue about what him doing that might have meant.

[JNR]

7 hours ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

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.

Well said.

At the same time, I would just reiterate that I don't think these puzzles are hopeless.  GRRM clearly intends for them to be solvable, judging from his many comments in interviews in which he

• Disparages Lost (which failed to provide either solvable puzzles or good solutions to its puzzles, but was instead more aptly described as "a bag of turds someone had dropped on his doorstep")

• Praises his mother (who was very good at solving such puzzles in advance)

• Expresses his goal of defeating even her Holmesian talents, had she read his work

• Cites the "subtle and ambiguous clues" he had already dropped in the 90s

• Notes that "one or two" fans were "thinking in the right way" even back then -- without the benefit of the books we've read, that they hadn't

So unless he is always lying when he says things along these lines, it seems we should in theory be able to solve his puzzles in at least some cases.

And while I can't agree with ravenous reader when RR suggests it's not possible... I also cheerfully respect, and would even defend, RR's right to say that. 

[wolfmaid7]

As as aside, just to reiterate the kind of story we are dealing with...

"It is a fact" that Arya is currently in Winterfell married to Ramsey Bolton.Just saying

[Black Crow]

I'm rather of the opinion that R+L=J is the most likely scenario, while remaining alive to the possibility of misdirection. The problem, I fear, is one of over-analysis, Where GRRM speaks of a small number of subtle clues, we are assailed by purported clues and clever allusions by the wagon-load "discovered" through textual analysis, which by their desperation discredit rather than reinforce the theory.

In the end we have to ask cui bono?

[Matthew.]

39 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Robert has nothing to base this on, and i know this because there is no Westrosi CSI forensic team.

Our information is incomplete, so it's not yet clear what Robert's conclusion was based on--obviously, Harrenhal, and the widely held belief that Lyanna had been abducted, but Robert's conclusions still fall under a context umbrella of "R+L." So, Robert could be wrong, but is he wrong to link them at all, or only wrong in concluding that there was no consent on Lyanna's part? Thus far, the text is not attempting to contradict "R+L," only to provide differing interpretations from the characters of that perceived relationship.

The distinction I'm making, and perhaps it is just semantic, is that R+L is not just an interpretation of the text, or a fan theory, but a story "within the world," which goes toward credibility--one can use the text to demonstrate the idea that R+L is meant to be "credible" (which is not the same thing as a proven fact!), in a way that, to use a harmless example, Lyanna + Bronze Yohn is not credible. It's possible, but it's not credible.
____

Lets look at a different premise that has been presented in world: the idea that Aegon VI was swapped before the Sack, and has been living under the false identity of Young Griff. A reader that has come away from ADWD believing that Aegon VI is alive has not misinterpreted the story or developed a fan theory--"Aegon VI lives" is text. It may be false, it may be true, but it is the story we are being told, just as "R+L" is a part of the story we are being told.