Black Crow

Heresy 199 Once upon a Time in the West

464 posts in this topic

12 hours ago, ReturnOfCaponBreath said:

If i understand the premise Of The OP correctly its:

Tower of joy was just a watch tower

KG were just there for a fight, not guarding anyone, or..

If they were there it was part of some secret mission that we don't yet understand.

That the memory of it as recounted by the ned is flawed and potentially confusing 2 separate memories, one of a fight and one of Lyanna.

Collectively all Of The above cast significant doubt over R+L=J

How did I do?

If I'm on the right lines I think that requires a number of questions to be answered.

1 if it's just a watch tower Why Was it called the tower of joy, even once?

2 why are the KG there at all? Eg what is the secret mission

3 what is the narrative purpose Of The tower of Joy scene if it isn't to create the belief in R+L=J? (Lets not forget that R+L =J whilst widely discussed on this forum would be a revelation to 99.9% of global reader/viewership.)

Now it doesn't matter whether we believe in R+L=J or not, to me the tower of Joy scene is clearly designed to plant some sort of seed and that is the most likely seed given the rest of the hints and "evidence" in the text.  I think this is the backdrop to the stilted conversation. 

"We thought you would be here"... "We weren't."

"Well then we thought you would be here"..."we weren't there either". Etc it's the authors way of spelling out all if the most likely duties if the KG for simple readers like myself so that they can then start to wonder why they were there and look for their own answers.

There is little or nothing in the exchange or the rest Of The books to suggest that 2 memories might be confused and there seems to be little to no evidence that we shoukd accept the full exchange at the tower of joy between Ned and the KG but then Challenge the Lyanna memory as false.

I think given the rest Of The hints in the books about R+L=J the burden of proof needs to rest with another superior theory about why the KG were there and it's not enough to say there is a bit of doubt about R+L=J so there must be some other secret mission.

 

In terms of Rhaegars orders, we know he was a believer in the 3 heads if the dragon prophecy so his orders could be linked to that more than to the line of succession.

 

 

 

I will take a crack at answering your questions,but by first asking why do they need to be answered? Their reason for being there may have nothing to do with Lyanna or Jon at all.I get the feeling sometimes that if the alternatives have nothing to do with Lyanna or Jon people shoot it down.So,with that said...

1.It was said Rhaegar called this place the toj.It was in Dorne.His wife is from Dorne.His kids are part Dornish.He spent alot of time there.Maybe he conceived his kids there.Maybe he got a lot of inspirations there.

Point being many explanations as to why he,if he did call it toj.If he did,he could have called it toj before the events that led to rebellion.

2.I think the OP answered this.Honorable end...Last blow against the Usurpers dogs.No secret mission just some men not willing to bend the knee to Robert making their last stand.

I can't see these men as guarding anyone when they don't have clairvoyance.Let's not talk about what Ned does or doesn't know.Let's look at the Kgs choice if a royal baby was there.Why look for a fight when you were outnumbered.Why take the chance when you have no clue who is coming up this main way to Dorne and how many?Why not have one kg take the baby?If you all die which was likely then the child may die anyway?

3.I would ask what is the context of this? We know its an old dream.We do not know when and how many times Ned had it before.What just happened that may have triggered this dream.

I think it also important to mention that it was a dream.Filled with symbolic and actual events whose relation with eachother may not have happened in the same place or time in real life as they seam to occur in the dream.

As to narrative purpose....Good people and people he loved and admired always seem to die needlessly.This includes Lyanna and that could have nothing to do with Rlj and work.Lyanna could have died in battle fighting for one.In almost every single case where birthing bed was synonymous with battle it was as an example to  a woman who chose to fight wars like a man.That is the most common denominator.

4.Yes,there actually is evidence that Ned's dream is conflating two events.His waking recollections do not correspond to the dream.They negate important aspects that should be there or they just don't make sense.

Lastly,the toj doesn't prove who Jon's parents are.If Lyanna did end up there it could have nothing to do with who impregnated her if she was really preggers.It just tells us that's where she ended up.

Some of us went further with what "we think" are clues.

1.Rhaegar the dashing princevgave Lyanna flowers

2.Rhaegar supposedly kidnapped or ran of with her.

3.She dies,Rhaegar dies.

3.A baby shows up in WF who the honorable Ned Stark says is his.

Conclusion:Lyanna and Rhaegar eloped and had a secret baby.

This was correct and would be correct in every fairytale and Disney story.Except this isn't Disney.The clues are more and less subtle in my opnion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Nym says she doesn’t need a mighty host, only her sweet sister Tyene. She says Tyene is so sweet that no one would suspect her. She also mentions a Ser Daemon who informed her of the poison Oberyn used on the spear that tickled Gregor. This too might parallel that Ashara knew Elia was slowly poisoning Aerys, but that no one would ever expect Elia because she was a princess. I will point out though that even though Elia was Dornish doesn't mean she actually used poison, but rather she may have been the one that was feeding Aerys "poisonous" lies.

Interesting parallels, and since GRRM himself has raised the spectre of Ashara Dayne's whereabouts, and her closeness to Elia, we might reasonably speculate about what they were doing during Robert's Rebellion. Personally, with GRRM's references to Ashara not being pinned down, and Starfall having boats, I was thinking of the (proposed) swap of Aegon VI--that Ashara may have been a fundamental part of pulling off that conspiracy, assuming Varys isn't lying.

Obviously, there are other things Starfall and House Dayne could have been a part of--Lyanna's disappearance, or perhaps something involving Dany, if one is inclined to believe the house with the red door is in Dorne.

To bring it back to the thread topic, the significance to me is that, especially with Eddard's horror at what had happened to Elia and her children, and the fact that Eddard and Ashara may have been more than a little friendly before the realm fell apart, it may be that Eddard was seen as trustworthy, and this is how he found himself in Dorne. 

I suppose it's always possible that Eddard was told that he had a bastard that was about to be born at Starfall - either to Ashara or Wylla - but it seems notable that he mentally associated the duel with Lyanna's death, and seems to have found himself living with lies since the end of the Rebellion.

Edited by Matthew.

Share this post


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

In this interpretation what happens to the actual 3 members Of The Kings guard if they aren't at TOJ? I don't believe there is any dispute anywhere in the books that they are all dead.

I don't know if you're familiar with my inversion theory or not, but each Kingsguard would have a current story parallel character. Ser Arthur Dayne's parallel is Sandor Clegane, and Ser Gerold Hightower is likely paralleled now by Gerold Dayne aka Darkstar, but I have not delved into Ser Whent to determine his modern day parallel.

Whatever happened to Arthur would be similar to Sandor, who some readers suspect did not die, but is rather living on the Quiet Isle digging graves for the Elder Brother. In a similar fashion it's my current belief that Arthur is not dead, but living a secret life under another identity, and I even wonder if he's actually Lem Lemoncloak now. 

I expect Gerold Hightower's fate to follow Darkstar's. After injuring Myrcella he gets away, but he is currently being hunted by Ser Balon and Obara Sand. In similar fashion it's my opinion that Hightower injured Lyanna, and then rode away, only to be hunted by parallels to Ser Balon and Obara...who are as yet undetermined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Conclusion:Lyanna and Rhaegar eloped and had a secret baby.

This was correct and would be correct in every fairytale and Disney story.

This is simultaneously true, yet unreliable, in terms of what it actually tells us about what GRRM will write.

The problem here is that it's too late--the author has given Jon a "secret parentage." He has already written a genre cliche, a worn-out trope that has been explored from many angles. 

Many of the RLJ alternatives are just variations of the same cliche--he's Robert's son (so he's still a hidden successor), he's Arthur's son (he's the hidden Sword of the Morning), he's Ashara's son (he's the hidden Sword of the Morning, again), he's Howland's son (he has a magical connection to the Isle of Faces), he's Mance's son (he's the son of the 'enemy,' he has more of the north in him), etc. etc.

The only subversive answer is to make him Wylla's son, and play it straight faced. "What? Central mystery? What are you talking about? The text told you who his mother was right from the beginning--didn't you see that awkward conversation between Ned and Robert about Ned's 'common girl?'"

In addition, I don't see why "that sounds like something out of a fairy tale" has become a derisive sentiment in discussing fantasy fiction, a genre that is rooted in the fairy tale. All the more odd given that this is Heresy, a thread which has explored the influences of Celtic mythology (literal fairy tales!) on ASOAIF in depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matthew. said:

This is simultaneously true, yet unreliable, in terms of what it actually tells us about what GRRM will write.

The problem here is that it's too late--the author has given Jon a "secret parentage." He has already written a genre cliche, a worn-out trope that has been explored from many angles. 

Many of the RLJ alternatives are just variations of the same cliche--he's Robert's son (so he's still a hidden successor), he's Arthur's son (he's the hidden Sword of the Morning), he's Ashara's son (he's the hidden Sword of the Morning, again), he's Howland's son (he has a magical connection to the Isle of Faces), he's Mance's son (he's the son of the 'enemy,' he has more of the north in him), etc. etc.

The only subversive answer is to make him Wylla's son, and play it straight faced. "What? Central mystery? What are you talking about? The text told you who his mother was right from the beginning--didn't you see that awkward conversation between Ned and Robert about Ned's 'common girl?'"

In addition, I don't see why "that sounds like something out of a fairy tale" has become a derisive sentiment in discussing fantasy fiction, a genre that is rooted in the fairy tale. All the more odd given that this is Heresy, a thread which has explored the influences of Celtic mythology (literal fairy tales!) on ASOAIF in depth.

What he "will" write? As you yourself said GRRM has already written who Jon's parents are.From a fan perspective it comes down to:

What were the clues and who got them.

In the broad of Jon being a "hidden someone" you are correct.Even if he's Ned's he is an heir.But a look closer its a bit complicated.

If he's Robert he is a bastard among many other bastards.I've heard this as a con for Robert being his father because it doesn't make him special enough.That is the point.Anything he does and doesn't become will be on him.He isn't soul successor because Robert has a couple of sons in the wind who could fill that role.

If he's Dayne's well its a bit easier to see that cliche  because ( Dune voice) The prophecy another SOTM must arise etc etc.

Rhaegar same thing TPTWP yada yada.

With Howland not seeing it.He's no different than Meera or Jojen having the same qualities and legacy as they do.As far as we know.

Mance's son....The Free Folk already gave Jon loyalty and he was a Crow.They follow the man not a line.

So the need for Jon to be special isn't consistent across the theories.

Why is the fairy tale angle such an aversion? Because GRRM said its been done to death.

I don't know who posted that quote and interview.I'm on my phone so i can't find it.

In the end there are fairy tales and then there are fairy tales.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

 

Lastly,the toj doesn't prove who Jon's parents are.If Lyanna did end up there it could have nothing to do with who impregnated her if she was really preggers.It just tells us that's where she ended up.

Some of us went further with what "we think" are clues.

1.Rhaegar the dashing princevgave Lyanna flowers

2.Rhaegar supposedly kidnapped or ran of with her.

3.She dies,Rhaegar dies.

3.A baby shows up in WF who the honorable Ned Stark says is his.

Conclusion:Lyanna and Rhaegar eloped and had a secret baby.

This was correct and would be correct in every fairytale and Disney story.Except this isn't Disney.The clues are more and less subtle in my opnion.

Well it's certainly not Disney!

What's your view on Jons parentage in that case?

Thanks for the rest of the answers, I think the staged conversation that spells out all of the KG duties and their response that they aren't there is the single biggest challenge to the last stand thought.  It's seems too contrived to draw attention to all Of The foresworn duties and thus plant the seed of some special reason to be there if the real answer is.

"Well we're a stubborn lot and we all fancied a bit of a brawl so we went to some remote outpost in the middle if nowhere on the off chance that a powerful Lord Of The rebellion might rock up with a bunch of his mates."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I don't know if you're familiar with my inversion theory or not, 

Not in detail, I have picked up the vague sense from occasional reading that there is some support for a "wheel of time" type theory in which characters and events repeatedly play themselves out. Im guessing it's along those lines with the twist being that roles are inverted in someway.  Could you point me to a past post that summarises it so I can read about it?

For what it's worth I think there is certainly some merit at looking at some Of the clear parallels between legendary and modern day characters in the books.

Lann the clever and tyrion

Brandon the builder and Bean etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're straying away from the who said what and why outside the tower into the wider metaphysical question, a number of points need to be noted:

First, no matter how it has changed, the 1993 synopsis clearly painted the resolution of the mystery as facilitating a relationship between Jon and Arya. This, as we've discussed before, may no longer be on the cards, but, in terms of cliche, this outcome, albeit more likely to feature Sansa than Arya comes way below the lost Prince trope and I really can't see GRRM exchanging such a reasonable outcome for such a tired cliche.

Secondly we're presented with the Bael story which features a bard, a blue rose and an abduction of the Lord Stark's daughter, before she turns up again after a year and a day, with a bouncing baby. That baby then becomes Lord of Winterfell.

Robb Stark is dead, Bran the tree won't be Lord of Winterfell and in terms of the story Rickon is a nonentity who will come to a sticky end; leaving Bael's son, Jon, to become Lord of Winterfell.

Overall this story is and always has been about the children of Winterfell, everything else, ultimately is a side issue.

Share this post


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

 

"Well we're a stubborn lot and we all fancied a bit of a brawl so we went to some remote outpost in the middle if nowhere on the off chance that a powerful Lord Of The rebellion might rock up with a bunch of his mates."

 

Ah, well as I said to Brad Stark above, I don't see them as being at a remote outpost at all. Its just the agreed meeting point for their rencounter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

First, no matter how it has changed, the 1993 synopsis clearly painted the resolution of the mystery as facilitating a relationship between Jon and Arya. This, as we've discussed before, may no longer be on the cards, but, in terms of cliche, this outcome, albeit more likely to feature Sansa than Arya comes way below the lost Prince trope and I really can't see GRRM exchanging such a reasonable outcome for such a tired cliche.

Beyond perplexing.  <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ReturnOfCaponBreath said:

Not in detail, I have picked up the vague sense from occasional reading that there is some support for a "wheel of time" type theory in which characters and events repeatedly play themselves out. Im guessing it's along those lines with the twist being that roles are inverted in someway.  Could you point me to a past post that summarises it so I can read about it?

For what it's worth I think there is certainly some merit at looking at some Of the clear parallels between legendary and modern day characters in the books.

Lann the clever and tyrion

Brandon the builder and Bean etc.

There are links in my signature on the bottom of my posts to some of my theories, but if you've been following the Heresy thread I penned the OP for Heresy 192 The Wheel of Time. As detailed as that thread was, it is always evolving. BC's post upthread that it is his belief that the series is primarily about the Starks and how Jon or "Bael's son" becomes Lord of Winterfell. I think that is a big part, but I think Bran's position as greenseer is actually even over all that. I see the Children and the greenseers as caretakers of planetos, manipulators of nature, operators of the wheel of time, and connected to the old gods with Bran now in a god-like position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/06/2017 at 11:47 AM, Feather Crystal said:

    They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it had been in life. Yet these were no ordinary three. They waited before the round tower, the red mountains of Dorne at their backs, their white cloaks blowing in the wind. And these were no shadows; their faces burned clear, even now. Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, had a sad smile on his lips. The hilt of the greatsword Dawn poked up over his right shoulder. Ser Oswell Whent was on one knee, sharpening his blade with a whetstone. Across his white-enameled helm, the black bat of his House spread its wings. Between them stood fierce old Ser Gerold Hightower, the White Bull, Lord Commander of the Kingsguard.

 

I think you're really reaching here. 'Yet' simply refers to the fact that 'these' were not ordinary foes. Why read something ino it that isn't there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, Black Crow said:

First, no matter how it has changed, the 1993 synopsis clearly painted the resolution of the mystery as facilitating a relationship between Jon and Arya. This, as we've discussed before, may no longer be on the cards, but, in terms of cliche, this outcome, albeit more likely to feature Sansa than Arya comes way below the lost Prince trope and I really can't see GRRM exchanging such a reasonable outcome for such a tired cliche.

This is not accurate. The 1993 synopsis does not say that Jon and Arya getting together is the "resolution" to the mystery, it says that eventually we will learn something about Jon's parents that 'allows' Jon and Arya to be together--which could easily mean "Jon and Arya can finally be together when it's revealed that he's not a son of Ned Stark, but the rightful king of Westeros." 
 

12 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Why is the fairy tale angle such an aversion? Because GRRM said its been done to death.

I would need to see the actual quote for context, and what specifically GRRM was referring to, but as I said, it's already "too late;" GRRM has written his work with a respect for many of the conventions and traditions of the fairy tale, despite the occasional subversion for surprise (eg, Eddard 'feels' like the protagonist, but doesn't have plot armor), which isn't necessarily a bad thing. A story that strives purely for surprise and the defiance of storytelling conventions can easily become a string of anticlimaxes--to some degree, reader expectations are based on what they think would be satisfying.

For example, nearly every reader seems to hold to an expectation that the Wall will eventually fall, and that there will be a war with the Others; the climactic final battle is as much a genre cliche as the hidden heir (perhaps more so), yet people will rarely advocate for the idea the that it would be good for GRRM to subvert expectations and never have the people south of the Wall interact with the army of the dead.

Similarly, it would be more "reasonable" or realistic for Walder Frey to die of old age than suffer some sort of comeuppance, some sort of karmic fate--but do we want that to be Walder Frey's resolution? Do we want the Boltons and Littlefinger to escape justice? Do we hope Tyrion never finds Tysha, because that would be a little too 'fairy tale?' 

In any case, I find the Disney comparisons to RLJ not entirely apt--if RLJ is true, Rhaegar is not a sympathetic figure, but someone who brought ruin to the realm and his family in favor of pursuing his heart's desire, a theme that GRRM has visited on more than one occasion already.

Edited by Matthew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, Black Crow said:

If we're straying away from the who said what and why outside the tower into the wider metaphysical question, a number of points need to be noted:

First, no matter how it has changed, the 1993 synopsis clearly painted the resolution of the mystery as facilitating a relationship between Jon and Arya. This, as we've discussed before, may no longer be on the cards, but, in terms of cliche, this outcome, albeit more likely to feature Sansa than Arya comes way below the lost Prince trope and I really can't see GRRM exchanging such a reasonable outcome for such a tired cliche.

Secondly we're presented with the Bael story which features a bard, a blue rose and an abduction of the Lord Stark's daughter, before she turns up again after a year and a day, with a bouncing baby. That baby then becomes Lord of Winterfell.

Robb Stark is dead, Bran the tree won't be Lord of Winterfell and in terms of the story Rickon is a nonentity who will come to a sticky end; leaving Bael's son, Jon, to become Lord of Winterfell.

Overall this story is and always has been about the children of Winterfell, everything else, ultimately is a side issue.

What I would suggest is that we consider the possibility that Lyanna's death bed scene and the confrontation at the tower of joy deal with two seperate mysteries.

Years ago, GRRM responded to a fan's question (a question assuming RLJ) about the tower of joy by cautioning her not to read too literally into Ned's fever dream about the event.  Which is unusual considering that Ned's conscious and non-fevered memories of the tower of joy line up with his dream, and his conscious non-fevered memories of Lyanna's death bed scene also line up with Ned's dream.  So why shouldn't we take the dream literally?

I think the answer is that the only thing connecting the two events in time and place and sequence, is Ned's fevered dream.  The fact that these events took place at the same location and during the same time is never established anywhere else.

Edited by Frey family reunion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yohn said:

I think you're really reaching here. 'Yet' simply refers to the fact that 'these' were not ordinary foes. Why read something ino it that isn't there?

I agree, the text says they were not ordinary men and immediately goes on to explain why they were not ordinary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matthew. said:

This is not accurate. The 1993 synopsis does not say that Jon and Arya getting together is the "resolution" to the mystery, it says that eventually we will learn something about Jon's parents that 'allows' Jon and Arya to be together--which could easily mean "Jon and Arya can finally be together when it's revealed that he's not a son of Ned Stark, but the rightful king of Westeros." 
 

Up to a point, and that point remains that the mystery is only mentioned in relation to this putative relationship. Otherwise its not mentioned at all far less being a mystery which the story revolves around. While my mind remains open to other candidates I'm comfortable with a son of Rhaegar possibility, but still seeing Jon, like Bael's son, becoming Lord of Winterfell rather than a Targaryen king

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

What I would suggest is that we consider the possibility that Lyanna's death bed scene and the confrontation at the tower of joy deal with two seperate mysteries.

Years ago, GRRM responded to a fan's question (a question assuming RLJ) about the tower of joy by cautioning her not to read too literally into Ned's fever dream about the event.  Which is unusual considering that Ned's conscious and non-fevered memories of the tower of joy line up with his dream, and his conscious non-fevered memories of Lyanna's death bed scene also line up with Ned's dream.  So why shouldn't we take the dream literally?

I think the answer is that the only thing connecting the two events in time and place and sequence, is Ned's fevered dream.  The fact that these events took place at the same location and during the same time is never established anywhere else.

Absolutely :commie:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2017 at 9:32 PM, PrettyPig said:

"I looked for you on the Trident," 1 Ned said to them.

"We were not there," Ser Gerold answered.

"Woe to the Usurper if we had been," said Ser Oswell.

"When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were." 2

"Far away," Ser Gerold said, "or Aerys would yet sit on the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells."

"I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege," Ned told them, "and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them."

"Our knees do not bend easily," said Ser Arthur Dayne.

Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your Queen and Prince Viserys. 4 I thought you might have sailed with him.”

“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

 

While constructing a related theory some time ago, I caught some things about this passage that struck me as interesting.   

First, note the bolded, and the order of Ned's passive aggressive "where were you" statements:   1) Trident, 2) Sack,  3) Siege, 4) Dragonstone. 

Dream Ned is mentioning these in sequence...and in this sequence, the legendary flight to Dragonstone is actually LAST.   This totally goes against the established narrative that Rhaella and Viserys hightailed it to the Targaryen stronghold with Willem Darry immediately after learning of Rhaegar's death at the Trident (something that always struck me as odd anyway, given that Willem Darry was the Master-at-Arms of the Red Keep - and he's bailing before the city risks being sacked?  Come on.).      There's something going on here....and Neddard was in on it.      I suspect this may have something to do with a little baby holed up at Dragonstone.

Good stuff. Might this change/augment the timeline you had for RR?

 

On 6/7/2017 at 9:32 PM, PrettyPig said:

Second, note the underlined.   Two people in the entire series refer to Jaime killing Aerys with a golden sword:   Viserys, as he told it to Dany as a child, and Ned, in this fever dream.   Jaime wasn't wielding a golden sword, however:
 

Odd that only two people  - Ned, and by proxy somehow, Viserys  - certainly DO remember Jaime sporting something gold that day, and even odder that these two people both misidentify the gold as the same wrong item.

To be fair, Jaime's account doesn't describe the appearance of his sword. It might have been gilded, and Viserys and Ned might still be correct.

What I always found funny about Ned's account, was his awe at Jaime upon the throne:

"I cannot answer for the gods, Your Grace … only for what I found when I rode into the throne room that day," Ned said. "Aerys was dead on the floor, drowned in his own blood. His dragon skulls stared down from the walls. Lannister's men were everywhere. Jaime wore the white cloak of the Kingsguard over his golden armor. I can see him still. Even his sword was gilded. He was seated on the Iron Throne, high above his knights, wearing a helm fashioned in the shape of a lion's head. How he glittered!"

 

 

On 6/8/2017 at 3:38 AM, Feather Crystal said:

I think it's notable that Theon's vision is of a dead Lyanna, thus a second connection between "blue" and the crown of roses. It's symbolic, but not necessarily proof that the crown was blue roses. Just playing devil's advocate here...

Sure. And I don't really have a dog in that fight. My point is that we've seen men prepare for tourneys and win them, and in those preparations, we've never seen a victor gather flowers and make a crown for the qolab.

Thus, I find it more likely that such crowns are made by the tourney's hosts, rather than the knights who enter the lists. And at Harrenhal, I think Lord Walter Whent's daughter makes more sense as the crown's maker than these knights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

What I would suggest is that we consider the possibility that Lyanna's death bed scene and the confrontation at the tower of joy deal with two seperate mysteries.

Eminently within the realm of the possible!

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

Years ago, GRRM responded to a fan's question (a question assuming RLJ) about the tower of joy by cautioning her not to read too literally into Ned's fever dream about the event.  Which is unusual considering that Ned's conscious and non-fevered memories of the tower of joy line up with his dream, and his conscious non-fevered memories of Lyanna's death bed scene also line up with Ned's dream.  So why shouldn't we take the dream literally?

Because GRRM is a tricksy bird and his wife says he doesn't do obvious..? ;)

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think the answer is that the only thing connecting the two events in time and place and sequence, is Ned's fevered dream.  The fact that these events took place at the same location and during the same time is never established anywhere else.

Very true.

Quote

A Dance with Dragons - Bran III

Old Nan had told him the same story once, Bran remembered, but when he asked Robb if it was true, his brother laughed and asked him if he believed in grumkins too. He wished Robb were with them now. I'd tell him I could fly, but he wouldn't believe, so I'd have to show him. I bet that he could learn to fly too, him and Arya and Sansa, even baby Rickon and Jon Snow. We could all be ravens and live in Maester Luwin's rookery.

That was just another silly dream, though. Some days Bran wondered if all of this wasn't just some dream. Maybe he had fallen asleep out in the snows and dreamed himself a safe, warm place. You have to wake, he would tell himself, you have to wake right now, or you'll go dreaming into death. Once or twice he pinched his arm with his fingers, really hard, but the only thing that did was make his arm hurt. In the beginning he had tried to count the days by making note of when he woke and slept, but down here sleeping and waking had a way of melting into one another. Dreams became lessons, lessons became dreams, things happened all at once or not at all. Had he done that or only dreamed it?

Never trust a dream...

Dreams become lessons; lessons dreams -- but dreams do not become canon!

38 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

I agree, the text says they were not ordinary men and immediately goes on to explain why they were not ordinary

Which begs the question, what were such extraordinary men -- and three of them all at once -- doing in the middle of nowhere playing 'I spy' and arguing about who should fetch/brew the covfefe?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Voice said:

Good stuff. Might this change/augment the timeline you had for RR?

On phone so no long reply, but nutshell, no.   (Will have to look at the original timeline later, it may need slight revision in some areas)

Ned went to Dorne at the end of the war...afaik that isn't in dispute.  Question is when.   If I recall correctly I had Ned at the TOJ close to the end of 283, a couple of months after trident and sack.  Still think that.  

That being said, as you may remember I don't believe Rhaella / Viserys went to Dragonstone (at least together) after Rhaegar's death, either.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.