Black Crow

Heresy 199 Once upon a Time in the West

464 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

Well given that only Ned and the Knight of the Laughing Tree lived to ride away, they didn't do too badly, especially if pore Jesse was shot in the back

The conversation which preceded the fight suggests they didn't care whether they lived or died. Their lord was dead and they were going to take down as many of his enemies as they could before they followed him.

True,true..

Share this post


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

 

I don't think Rheagar expected to win.  We have a quote about him dying for the woman he loved.  Whether or not that is Lyanna,  it implies he expected to lose.

On the contrary, he didn't expect to lose at all, he was going to do great things when he got back from dealing with the rebels.

That wasn't something he said, rather it was the balladeers saying he went to war for love and the consequence ewas his death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....okay, dumb question time.

is it possible Ned was hunting these three down from various battle to various battle, ending in a planned encounter, because they were involved not in Lyanna's abduction, but her death?  Makes a sense of the repetition of a Dayne flailing at a girl with a sword, and then running away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, SeaWitch said:

....okay, dumb question time.

is it possible Ned was hunting these three down from various battle to various battle, ending in a planned encounter, because they were involved not in Lyanna's abduction, but her death?  Makes a sense of the repetition of a Dayne flailing at a girl with a sword, and then running away.

I doubt it. That whole conversation can be condensed down into;

The war is over. Pack it in, Please... 

Up yours. The Guard doesn't surrender.

There's no hint of vengeance on Ned's part. 

That's not to say that something hasn't happened, with or without their knowledge back at the ranch, but the encounter below the tower is all about honour and duty, which compels them to keep on fighting even their master is dead.

 

And with that, to bed. Good night all.

Edited by Black Crow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, JNR said:

The most cliched possible version, as far as I'm concerned, would be:

(1) Jon was born the true heir to the throne

(2) This will one day be revealed and broadly believed, and so

(3) Jon will be king of alllll Westeros, First of His Name

Well, for my part, I don't think that's what GRRM is doing with Jon either, though I don't think it's nearly as unlikely as some try to argue--as briefly explored in the prior thread, Jon doesn't even need to be a son of Rhaegar to find his way to the Iron Throne.
 

3 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Is it fairy tale or is our proclivity for such a thing coloring how and why the clues around Jon's parentage is missed? 

Ok this goes to what people see as clues

To me, what's compelling about the bits of text that some might call 'clues' is the fact that so many of them can fit into a connected narrative; if one looks at the idea of Rhaegar renaming the outpost to the "Tower of Joy," this has a context in the RLJ scenario, a context that can be related to the presence of the KG, of Ned associating Lyanna's death with the location, a relationship to the events at Harrenhal. If RLJ is untrue, then what is the relationship between, say, the winter roses, and the naming of the ToJ? Nothing in particular.

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.

Edit: The above is not targeted at you Wolfmaid, as I know you're one of many people who has an alternative theory--it's a general condemnation of the cynical approach to discussion of shaping interpretations first and foremost as a refutation of RLJ.

Edited by Matthew.

Share this post


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

Ah... I don't use tht, can't get it to work.   Will post a comparison later though between Viserys' / Dany's description of Aerys' death and Jaime/ Ned's thoughts on it.... nearly identical, which is weird considering V was supposedly holed up on Dragonstone.  

Now that is a thought... reminds me of Jaime's remark about Hightower being "a better man than me, all agree"--which imo is very heavy but very subtle sarcasm.

I had forgotten Jaime's thoughts on Hightower. Perhaps he really is Darkstar's parallel and responsible for Lyanna's wounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the passage where Jaime recalls when he slew Aerys: 

The golden armor, not the white, but no one ever remembers that. Would that I had taken off that damned cloak as well .

Share this post


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

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

I am still waiting for that...;)  

 

1 hour ago, Matthew. said:

it's a general condemnation of the cynical approach to discussion of shaping interpretations first and foremost as a refutation of RLJ.

By the 'discussion of shaping interpretations' you mean a critical perspective on the methodological process via which we are prepared to admit information to 'the canon'?

I find the dismissal of all symbolic and circumstantial evidence problematic.  Without that, one is left with very little to go by to decipher the mysteries... On the other hand, maybe these grande mysteries are only meant by GRRM to be unlocked by a very select, elite few, who will be 'saved' in contrast to the massively deluded masses who are content with the obvious, dooming them to wallow in blissfully oblivious damnation!

Share this post


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

Rhaegar wouldn't necessarily make guarding first in line to the throne his first priority.

That's true.  I was responding to the very common idea that the KG could only have been at the ToJ if King Jon were there, because otherwise they'd be at Dragonstone as required by their oath. 

If we imagine (as I think you have done) that Rhaegar issued his orders to the KG to protect a baby bump, that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

4 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

I don't think Rheagar expected to win.

The usual citation to show he did expect to win is this:

Quote

Rhaegar had put his hand on Jaime's shoulder. "When this battle's done I mean to call a council. Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago, but . . . well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken. We shall talk when I return."

Those were the last words Rhaegar Targaryen ever spoke to him. Outside the gates an army had assembled, whilst another descended on the Trident.

Clearly he couldn't have called any councils and made changes if he expected to lose (and most likely die).

4 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

We have a quote about him dying for the woman he loved.

Well, that came from Viserys, who was about six years old and not likely to have been twentysomething Rhaegar's confidant in matters of the heart. 

And I doubt even Viserys' version had Rhaegar saying he expected to die for her... only that he did die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the Kingsguard have been in Dorne with Viserys and Daenerys?  If you believe in Lemongate and not RLJ, this makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

By the 'discussion of shaping interpretations' you mean a critical perspective on the methodological process via which we are prepared to admit information to 'the canon'?

I find the dismissal of all symbolic and circumstantial evidence problematic.  Without that, one is left with very little to go by to decipher the mysteries... On the other hand, maybe these grande mysteries are only meant by GRRM to be unlocked by a very select, elite few, who will be 'saved' in contrast to the massively deluded masses who are content with the obvious, dooming them to wallow in blissfully oblivious damnation!

I specifically mean that I question the approach of reading the text from the perspective of "how can I interpret this as an argument against someone else's ideas." It approaches discussion in obvious bad faith, and fails to achieve its desired result (to persuade others); it attempts to understand an artist's work with negation as its unifying theme, a venture that is doomed from the outset.

As to the latter paragraph, I don't know if this is referencing me specifically, but I don't outright dismiss symbolic evidence. However, because discussion of symbolism can be more subjective, I often find myself reading someone's symbolic evidence, and thinking "I took something totally different away from that passage--I don't think it says that at all!"

Edit: to remove excessive rambling

 

Edited by Matthew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Brad Stark said:

Could the Kingsguard have been in Dorne with Viserys and Daenerys?  If you believe in Lemongate and not RLJ, this makes a lot of sense.

As JNR states, there's no reason the KG necessarily have to be guarding a member of the royal family, but I think the possibility that there might be something odd about those memories of the House with the Red Door shouldn't be entirely dismissed.

More significantly, ADWD introduces the notion that Aegon VI was swapped with another baby, and smuggled out of Westeros. So, assuming he isn't a fake, we might also conclude that Rhaegar had ordered the KG to be there because this was Rhaegar's conspiracy to protect his son (TPTWP, mind you!) from potential disaster if the rebellion went poorly, and from Aerys.

Reasonably, House Dayne could have been involved in that conspiracy, but there are also theories out there that go into detail about House Hightower's role in the conspiracy, and how they'll aide Aegon VI's invasion--lots of stuff about how Septa Lemore is Melora Hightower, and House Hightower's marriage alliances, which would be too tedious to detail here.

Share this post


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

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

:agree:

Though I think there's a flipside of your coin.  RLJ has numerous logical problems not so far discussed in this thread.  All of those evaporate and vanish, never to return, if RLJ is not the case. 

And that's logically appealing too, just the option to construct a narrative that connects winter roses and the ToJ through Ned's dreams is logically appealing to RLJ true believers.

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

I find the dismissal of all symbolic and circumstantial evidence problematic.  Without that, one is left with very little to go by to decipher the mysteries.

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. 

Still, it's very likely that just like RLJ, an alternate theory is also going to have its own questionable, could-mean-other-things symbolic and circumstantial evidence that then becomes apparent if you know the theory.  I'm talking about things that would be, to those theories, what this is to RLJ:

Quote

 

Jon fell to his knees. He found the dagger's hilt and wrenched it free. In the cold night air the wound was smoking. (Jon XIII, ADWD 69)

She remembered the dragon twisting beneath her, shuddering at the impacts, as she tried desperately to cling to his scaled back. The wounds were smoking. (Daenerys X, ADWD 71)

 

So Jon = a dragon = a Targ.  OK, but if you don't already know RLJ, you don't notice that at all. 

I sure haven't gone through the canon deliberately looking for that sort of thing, for every possible theory of Jon's parents, so I really have no idea what the canon might offer all of them.  I doubt any other fan in the world has either.

Share this post


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

As JNR states, there's no reason the KG necessarily have to be guarding a member of the royal family, but I think the possibility that there might be something odd about those memories of the House with the Red Door shouldn't be entirely dismissed.

The only problem I have with the Kingsguard not being there for a member of the royal family or Lyanna is I can't come up with any other ideas.  Maybe it was a secret mission to assassinate Ashara Dayne.  Maybe Rhaegar set them for thousands of lemons for lemonade to celebrate winning the war.  Maybe those are better than anything else I can think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

21 hours ago, Matthew. said:



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

I agree entirely, hence my argument against GRRM ditching the Jon + Arya/Sansa outcome in favour of such a cliche.

I'm not wedded [pun intended] to the Jon+Arya/Sansa scenario, but its better than R+L=J especially when we're agreed that Jon doesn't need that leg-up. Or to put it another way, I'm comfortable with R+L=J if the outcome is Jon Stark rather than Jon [or whatever] Targaryen

Edited by Black Crow

Share this post


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

 

Still, it's very likely that just like RLJ, an alternate theory is also going to have its own questionable, could-mean-other-things symbolic and circumstantial evidence that then becomes apparent if you know the theory.  I'm talking about things that would be, to those theories, what this is to RLJ:

Quote

 

Jon fell to his knees. He found the dagger's hilt and wrenched it free. In the cold night air the wound was smoking. (Jon XIII, ADWD 69)

She remembered the dragon twisting beneath her, shuddering at the impacts, as she tried desperately to cling to his scaled back. The wounds were smoking. (Daenerys X, ADWD 71)

So Jon = a dragon = a Targ.  OK, but if you don't already know RLJ, you don't notice that at all. 

 

What's more, although I don't have time to look it up right now, GRRM does use the term "smoking" wounds elsewhere, when hot blood is spilling out into cold air

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

22 hours ago, Matthew. said:

Well, for my part, I don't think that's what GRRM is doing with Jon either, though I don't think it's nearly as unlikely as some try to argue--as briefly explored in the prior thread, Jon doesn't even need to be a son of Rhaegar to find his way to the Iron Throne.
 

To me, what's compelling about the bits of text that some might call 'clues' is the fact that so many of them can fit into a connected narrative; if one looks at the idea of Rhaegar renaming the outpost to the "Tower of Joy," this has a context in the RLJ scenario, a context that can be related to the presence of the KG, of Ned associating Lyanna's death with the location, a relationship to the events at Harrenhal. If RLJ is untrue, then what is the relationship between, say, the winter roses, and the naming of the ToJ? Nothing in particular.

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.

Edit: The above is not targeted at you Wolfmaid, as I know you're one of many people who has an alternative theory--it's a general condemnation of the cynical approach to discussion of shaping interpretations first and foremost as a refutation of RLJ.

Oh i don't think its unlikely,no more or less than the other alternatives.But for me the narrative,themes of misdirection,perspective,and human behavior makes it not compelling.

Let's look at the toj scence and the winter rose theme.Core tenents of rlj.I see the dots don't see why they go together..All they tell me is Rhaegar gave Lyanna them at Harrenhal.We have a fact there that can't be disputed.

When i look at the places they occur and tie them another narrative forms more compelling.I want you to note its sequential as if the story is being told beneath.

We get a scene at Chataya's brothal with Tyrion.

Quote

 

Not Joffrey. Robert. This house was a great favorite of his." Although Joffrey may indeed be old enough. An interesting notion, that. "If you and the Black Ears care to amuse yourselves, feel free, but Chataya's girls are costly. You'll find cheaper houses all along the street. Leave one man here who'll know where to find the others when I wish to return."........<snip.>

Two other girls sat playing at tiles before a leaded glass window. The freckled one wore a chain of blue flowers in her honeyed hair.(Tyrion ACOK,pg).

 

We have when Ned meets Barra's mom now at Chataya's:

Quote

The girl had been so young Ned had not dared to ask her age. No doubt she’d been a virgin; the better brothels could always find a virgin, if the purse was fat enough. She had light red hair and a powdering of freckles across the bridge of her nose, and when she slipped free a breast to give her nipple to the babe, he saw that her bosom was freckled as well.

I surmise that based on the freckling description Barra's mom was the girl with the blue flowers in her hair when Tyrion visited Robert's favorite  brothel.The similarity to Lyanna doesn't end there.

Quote

 

“Tell him that when you see him, milord, as it . . . as it please you. Tell him how beautiful she is.” “I will,” Ned had promised her. That was his curse. Robert would swear undying love and forget them before evenfall, but Ned Stark kept his vows. He thought of the promises he’d made Lyanna as she lay dying, and the price he’d paid to keep them.<Snip>

Good to you, Ned thought hollowly. “I will tell him, child, and I promise you, Barra shall not go wanting.” She had smiled then, a smile so tremulous and sweet that it cut the heart out of him. Riding through the rainy night, Ned saw Jon Snow’s face in front of him, so like a younger version of his own.

 

We have the reoccurring promise me....On  a girl who evoked Lyanna in Ned's memory down to the smile that tore his heart.A girl with blue flowers in her hair at one point who had Robert's bastard.

We get this characterization of Robert 

Quote

"A brothel?" Ned said. "The Lord of the Eyrie and Hand of the King visited a brothel with Stannis Baratheon?" He shook his head, incredulous, wondering what Lord Renly would make of this tidbit. Robert's lusts were the subject of ribald drinking songs throughout the realm, but Stannis was a different sort of man; a bare year younger than the king, yet utterly unlike him, stern, humorless, unforgiving, grim in his sense of duty.


We then have Ned seeing Jon Snow's face who looked so much like Ned( Misdirection) the point is after that encounter that scene Jon was brought to mind then...

Quote

If the gods frowned so on bastards, he thought dully, why did they fill men with such lusts? “Lord Baelish, what do you know of Robert’s bastards?

 Back to blue roses:

Quote

“Her {Cersei’s} eyes burned, green fire in the dusk, <snip>. “The night of our wedding feast, the first time we shared a bed, he called me by your sister’s name. He was on top of me, in me, stinking of wine, and he whispered Lyanna.”Ned thought of pale blue roses, and for a moment he wanted to weep.—Ned,GoT, pg. 480.------

This act of Robert having sex wit a pseudo Lyanna is what prompts Ned to think of blue roses and wanting to weep.

If you ask me to follow the breadcrumbs of blue roses as a clue for Ray Ray. All i get is he gave them to Lyanna.That is the only connection.Just as Loras gave Sansa a rose at a tourney and that was that.

I follow them another route where,frequency and 'how' they occur i get more connections and  punch.

It tells me Robert took her maiden head and got her preggers.To me more compelling.The author recreated a scene,put in stand in's for Lyanna made it sexual with a baby.But what do i know.

The toj in the narrative i see,has nothing to do with Jon's parentage.Or who they could be.Imo 

Edited by wolfmaid7

Share this post


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

Oh i don't think its unlikely,no more or less than the other alternatives.But for me the narrative,themes of misdirection,perspective,and human behavior makes it not compelling.

....snip...

It tells me Robert took her maiden head and got her preggers.To me more compelling.The author recreated a scene,put in stand in's for Lyanna made it sexual with a baby.But what do i know.

Got to be honest, Robert being Jon's father is one of the least compelling theories I've seen. No offense Wolfmaid, but all of King Robert's children have black hair and blue eyes, and that's definitely not Jon. "Trouserless Bob" is a great name for Robert and he left us plenty of evidence that his children have a certain look. Whereas Jon looks so uniquely Stark that even crazy old Craster noted him for a Stark at one glance.

FWIW, I'm on board for R+L=J until something more convincing is put forth in the text. I just haven't seen anything more convincing so far.

 

PS... who is the aspiring bard who coined the nickname "Trouserless Bob"? I love the descriptiveness of that epithet. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Muttering Ed said:

Got to be honest, Robert being Jon's father is one of the least compelling theories I've seen. No offense Wolfmaid, but all of King Robert's children have black hair and blue eyes, and that's definitely not Jon. "Trouserless Bob" is a great name for Robert and he left us plenty of evidence that his children have a certain look. Whereas Jon looks so uniquely Stark that even crazy old Craster noted him for a Stark at one glance.

FWIW, I'm on board for R+L=J until something more convincing is put forth in the text. I just haven't seen anything more convincing so far.

 

PS... who is the aspiring bard who coined the nickname "Trouserless Bob"? I love the descriptiveness of that epithet. :cheers:

If your con is the only kids Robert is capable of having is black haired kids with blue eyes that there is no genetic diversity at all where he's then sorry to say that you would be incorrect.

I will post more on this later,but heading out at the moment.

This here again is another example of misdirection.

Edited by wolfmaid7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, wolfmaid7 said:

If your con is the only kids Robert is capable of having is black haired kids with blue eyes that there is no genetic diversity at all where he's then sorry to say that you would be incorrect.

I will post more on this later,but heading out at the moment.

This here again is another example of misdirection.

Do tell! :)

Share this post


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