Was Eddard a hostage in the vale?

[cpg2016]

On 7/27/2017 at 4:13 AM, St Daga said:

I understand that you and I look at the text in different manners, but it's possible that GRRM is giving us information a bit at a time to toy with our perceptions of the story. For instance, we don't get information on the fisherman's daughter until the fifth book in the series

Who is the fisherman's daughter?  The one Ned Stark supposedly slept with?  Because... we're definitely given hints about this as early as the beginning of A Game of Thrones, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.  Deliberate misinformation, mind you.

 

On 7/27/2017 at 4:13 AM, St Daga said:

Same goes for all the information on Aegon/Young Griff, since this information isn't given to us until the fifth book as well.

Well there are two ways of looking at this, no?  Because we're told a great deal about Prince Aegon... enough to have reasonable doubts about his true identity.  Which is exactly the point of Young Griff's story.... he's hijacking the narrative halfway through, he's everything GRRM is against.  He's been bred to be a perfect prince, but he isn't, in part because he "knows" who he is.  He's a mummers dragon, a show, a farce.  He isn't Daenerys's nephew, he's a fraud, and when he's introduced into the story, we've had more than enough foreshadowing of this that we're meant to pick up on it right away.

On 7/27/2017 at 4:13 AM, St Daga said:

I agree that what happened to Ned's family has probably had an impact on his personality, but we hear in the very first book, that Ned was always staid and not prone to goofing off. Robert tells us when talking to Ned "You are too hard on yourself Ned. You always were." and "You were never the boy you were", both implying that  Ned was probably always sober and responsible, so much that Robert only relates on one time that Ned cut loose, and Robert attributes that moment to Ned fathering Jon. I don't know that the Ned of the beginning of our story is a much different Ned than prior to the rebellion and his families turmoil. 

You are asking why Ned is hanging around in the Vale.  Well, I gave you the reason.  He's closer to Jon Arryn and Robert than he is to his own father and brothers, because he spends 8 years with them, as opposed to 8 years as a baby or tiny child (I don't remember much from when I was 6, but I remember a lot from being 14, for example).  And as a grown man who isn't yet married, he's free to go where he pleases.  Given that I think his father is eager to cement relationships/alliances with the Baratheons and Arryns, hence the fostering in the first place, he's probably thrilled to have Ned staying close to those families.

On 7/27/2017 at 4:13 AM, St Daga said:

So then why isn't he in Winterfell, both at the times of the Tourney of Harrenhal and the death of Rickard and Brandon? I think it's odd, you don't need to.

Because he isn't yet needed?  His brother isn't Lord of Winterfell, his father is.  And he'll be learning a lot of art of ruling from the Arryns, one of the few families in Westeros as old, as storied, as respected as the Starks.  There are tons of plausible reasons he might be in the Vale, first and foremost because in the absence of a married family life, that's as much of a home as he's ever known, and since his whole reason for being there in the first place was to make friends/family of Robert and Jon, it's not only plausible but likely that his father is encouraging him to spend time down there while he tries to arrange a suitable marriage.

 

On 7/27/2017 at 4:13 AM, St Daga said:

More absurd than time traveling fetus's? I'm just curious.

Absolutely.  It's hypothetically possible that time travel is invented at some point.  Or rather, that it becomes safely and practically navigable (since time travel is already possible under a broad definition of what constitutes time travel).  Under that condition, a fetus has no problem time traveling.  Whereas, the idea that a human being can either manipulate others into doing almost anything, or can't manipulate someone into doing anything at all, is not creditable at all.  There are people who can't talk others into anything.  There are people who could talk the devil out of his last dollar.  But the conceit that it has to be one or the other is far less probable than a time traveling fetus. 

On 7/27/2017 at 4:13 AM, St Daga said:

Of course Robert was made king because he helped conquer the previous monarchy. If there was no war, do you think the lords of the country would have just said, "Gee, Aerys is a dick, Rhaegar is too emo, and his children smell dornish. Maybe we can bypass them all and name a cousin from the storm lands king".

As with the previous point, you seem to have this issue with nuance.  Robert is named king before the rebels topple the monarchy.  And the question isn't why he becomes king, which is obviously intimately bound up in the Rebellion.  The question, and note the emphasis here, is why he becomes king.  Of all the major actors, Ned is the most wronged party (his sister is kidnapped, his father and brother murdered), and Jon Arryn is the man who sits at the center of the political web of alliances, and who actually ends up defying the Crown (remember, Robert has no marriage alliances now, unlike Ned and Jon).  So why is Robert, arguably the least important player here, the one who is acclaimed?  It is specifically because he has a Targaryen bloodline.

On 7/27/2017 at 4:13 AM, St Daga said:

If none of the leaders from the rebel army had Targaryen blood, how do you suppose they would have decided who should be king? They would have named somebody.  And Robert might have Targaryen blood, but he is a Baratheon; a stag, not a dragon.

My guess is the Seven Kingdoms would have dissipated into their independent regions again.  And as Robert makes clear when he ascends the throne, yes, he considers himself a Baratheon, and his new dynasty is surnamed Baratheon.  But you are still skipping the point that he's acclaimed king because he's a Targaryen.

On 7/27/2017 at 4:13 AM, St Daga said:

I am. Sorry my grammar is so embarrassing for you. 

It's not grammar - it's an internet forum, who cares about grammar or typos.  It's about reading comprehension, and knowing what words mean.

If we're presupposing that prophecy exists and it's possible to see future (or past) events, which we obviously are, then whether it's a dream or a vision is of extreme importance.  All the true prophecy or insight that characters have gained (that we know of) come as a result of some external stimuli.  We do not see anyone dream of something on their own - even Bran is being led through his dreams by the three eyed crow.

On 7/27/2017 at 4:13 AM, St Daga said:

Dreams and visions are very similar. As a matter of fact, a vision is defined as an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition. Do you consider Jon's wolf dreams to not be important because he didn't drop some acid before having them? What defines if a dream is prophetic or not, in your opinion? Does it have to come true? Can only certain people have them?

Well if you look at the context, it's pretty obvious that you need to be awake to have a vision.  One can be awake and in a dreamlike state (a.k.a. a trance), without actually being dreaming... the point is, you resemble someone who is asleep.

Jon's wolf dreams are important, but they aren't prophetic - he's slipping inside Ghost and seeing from his point of view.  He's dreaming, but the images are real life.  So they aren't prophetic, and they aren't dreams.  The one exception to this that I can remember is when Bran invades his dreams - again, an external force.

And what makes a dream or a vision prophetic is obvious - it has to come true.  Otherwise it's not prophecy.  This is... basically the definition of prophecy versus fantasy.  Otherwise, everything is prophecy, if you want it to be.

And the strong implication is that anyone can have them.  Drink shade of the evening.  (Maybe) eat weirwood paste.  Have your dreams invaded by a greenseer.  Again, all of these things are in response to someone or something else's agency.

On 7/27/2017 at 4:13 AM, St Daga said:

So, based on this comment, you must feel that the only dreams that Dany has that are clairvoyant are her visions in the house of the undying, because she drank some shade of the evening? Not any of her dragon dreams, or the times she dreams of Quaith.

I will grant you, that I had forgotten about her dragon dreams.  The dreams of Quaith are Quaith invading her dreams.

That being said, the initial argument being made (and not by you, I will note), was that "having dreams that drive you insane" is just another way of saying "having prophetic dreams" which is utter and absolute nonsense.  Plenty of folks in the real world are driven insane by nightmares or PTSD - it's called mental illness, and it's a real problem.  Thus far, no confirmed cases of prophetic dreams, though.  Same goes for Westeros.  There are certainly people giving accurate prophecies, and I was wrong, in that there are people who dream them - but that doesn't mean Aerys had prophetic dreams, at all.  It's obviously impossible to prove a negative, but this is something we'd get wind of, I think.

On 7/27/2017 at 4:13 AM, St Daga said:

Well, I don't think the Stark's are Valyrian, but it is interesting that the Stark's hold one of the two castles in Westeros that have tower's decorated with gargoyles, the other castle being Dragonstone, which is indeed associated with people descended from Valyria. GRRM might still have a reveal in the story related to that fun fact!

I had not noticed that.  However, GRRM is a storyteller, unlike Mssrs. Benioff and Weiss.  He isn't out to shock us for the sake of it, his "surprises" are meant to convey a lesson or deconstruct a trope.  Jon Stark is the hero because of his actions and his attitudes; he earns his heroism, not for his ancestry but because he's one of the few people who puts aside his prejudices to see the bigger threat.  Young Griff/fAegon isn't the hero, even though his story is the typical fantasy heroes story - hidden prince, grows up with the commoners, overthrows a corrupt regime, etc.  And even though we, the readers, are savvy enough to suss out all these identities, the characters themselves aren't.  Ageon is almost certainly not Rhaegar's son (the most convincing theory I've heard is he's Illyrio's son by Serra, herself a female-line Blackfyre), but he believes ruling to be his birthright and accepts his extremely implausible life story whole hog.  His whole character arc is meant to be a hijacking of the story, it's very easy an implicit condemnation of the fantasy trope where everything falls into place for the hero with barely a hiccup.  He's Aragorn (not to pick on Lord of the Rings, since it basically started all these tropes) - hidden descendant of kings, just waiting to reclaim his birthright, skilled not only in war but in peace and healing, bursting out of the wild to claim a throne.  He's Rand al'Thor (and also not to insult Robert Jordan, who is a brilliant author and whose worldbuilding is second to none), hidden as a shepherd among the common people, whose destiny it is to rule over and then save the world.  And because Aegon himself has bought into that mythos, he'll fail.  He doesn't earn his heroism, he has no hard choices, he just crops up halfway through and expects the universe to bend to his perfect prince story.  That's his role; his introduction in the text is (a) made plausible right off the bat by the impossible identification of baby Aegon's body, and thus the (extraordinarily remote) chance he's alive, and (b) deliberately timed to underline the exact trope Martin is deconstructing with Tyrion, Jon, Daenerys, Arya, Sansa, and Bran.

What I'm getting at, is that when GRRM drops this stuff on us, it is for a purpose.  For him to come out of the blue and drop a bombshell about Ned having been Jon Arryn's captive, despite all the evidence that all the relevant characters give to the contrary, wouldn't serve any purpose.

Look at Theon.  He is in the exact situation which you hypothesize Ned might have been.  And Theon is shown resenting his status, resenting his absurdly kind treatment at the hands of the Starks despite the impossibility of him belonging.  If it wasn't clear in the early books when he betrays them, it's lampshaded later on by Lady Dustin.  If Ned were in that position, even if he isn't such a little shit as Theon, we would expect some mention of it.  It's too important to not be mentioned.  It's why we can't get a Varys or Littlefinger POV; it's not credible that they wouldn't be revealing huge chunks of the plot if we were in their head.

No, this is an instance where we are given a story which makes sense, in which all the actions and all the actors point to the story being true.  It's only when we see deliberate misinformation or conflicting information that we need to start digging.  And here... well, Jon Arryn raises his banners for his foster sons at great personal risk to protect them.  By contrast, Ned, who makes Theon feel welcome, is immediately willing to do his duty to the realm should Balon start acting up.

[St Daga]

On 7/31/2017 at 9:16 PM, cpg2016 said:

Deliberate misinformation, mind you.

Well, GRRM is both thorough and thoughtful, and he gives is a plethora of information.  We need to sift through it to find out what we think is important. I think the GRRM leads the reader a lot. I refer to him often as the King of Misdirection! As to knowing what is misinformation or not, we honestly won't know until the last book is published, if that ever happens. 

On 7/31/2017 at 9:16 PM, cpg2016 said:

Because we're told a great deal about Prince Aegon... enough to have reasonable doubts about his true identity.  Which is exactly the point of Young Griff's story.... he's hijacking the narrative halfway through

My initial read of Young Griff's character is that he is a fraud, but not by his fault, but because he is what he is told he is. That is all he knows, he thinks he is who he is because it was what he was told and taught. But I think this idea could work for Dany as well. She only knows who she is because that is what she has been told. There is just as much a chance that Dany is not a child of Aerys and Rhaella's, as there is that Young Griff is not the child of Rhaegar and Elia. Some of her backstory and memories are suspect. Now, I am not saying that Dany isn't exactly who she thinks she is, but it's possible. Same goes for Young Griff's character. I just think the text leaves things open and it's worth exploring the ideas. My gut feeling tells me Young Griff is a fake. My first read and reread of Dance  had me convinced he was Illyrio's son, but each reread since then has made me question my initial idea. Time will tell. 

 

On 7/31/2017 at 9:16 PM, cpg2016 said:

What I'm getting at, is that when GRRM drops this stuff on us, it is for a purpose.  For him to come out of the blue and drop a bombshell about Ned having been Jon Arryn's captive, despite all the evidence that all the relevant characters give to the contrary, wouldn't serve any purpose.

I have admitted my theory/idea is very tinfoily, but I see wording in the text that is unusual. And I think it's worth questioning. I never expected to change anyone's mind, but so far no one has been able to change my mind either. I am more than likely wrong, but I try to look at the text from different perspectives to see what I might have missed. You interpret the text differently and have stated why you think Ned was still in the Vale. I see what you are saying, but I am not convinced that your interpretation is more correct than mine. Time will tell. And if nothing more ever comes of it, and I am wrong, I certainly won't be upset for having at least explored the idea.

 

On 7/31/2017 at 9:16 PM, cpg2016 said:

 By contrast, Ned, who makes Theon feel welcome, is immediately willing to do his duty to the realm should Balon start acting up.

It is an assumption that Ned would have taken Theon's head if Robert demanded, but since Robert never demanded such a thing, we can't really know how Ned would have responded. I happen to think Ned might not have taken Theon's head off. Part of what we are meant to see is that children should not be punished for the mistakes of their parents,  or that is how I see the text. We know that Ned has no problem executing people for their own misdeeds, but not sure about the people who didn't actually commit a misdeed.

 

On 7/31/2017 at 9:16 PM, cpg2016 said:

Look at Theon.  He is in the exact situation which you hypothesize Ned might have been.  And Theon is shown resenting his status, resenting his absurdly kind treatment at the hands of the Starks despite the impossibility of him belonging.  If it wasn't clear in the early books when he betrays them, it's lampshaded later on by Lady Dustin.  

Yes, but how might Theon look at Ned and the Stark's if Robert had demanded Theon's head, but Ned refused? Would Theon love Ned unconditionally then, be grateful to him, support him into a war, think if him as a second father 15 years later? Maybe! It didn't happen, so we will never know. Just like we will never know if Ned would have taken Theon's head off if Robert had demanded. 

 

On 7/31/2017 at 9:16 PM, cpg2016 said:

Absolutely.  It's hypothetically possible that time travel is invented at some point.

If you truly think time traveling fetus' are more plausible than Ned being a hostage, than I support your belief. As I said before, I am not trying to sway anyone's mind, I am just exploring the text. And if Tyrion turns out to be Dany and Drogo's sacrificed Rhaego, then I think only someone like GRRM could pull it off, because almost anything is possible in the world that GRRM has created.  It's certainly worth exploring the idea in discussion.

 

On 7/31/2017 at 9:16 PM, cpg2016 said:

GRRM is a storyteller, unlike Mssrs. Benioff and Weiss.  He isn't out to shock us for the sake of it, his "surprises" are meant to convey a lesson or deconstruct a trope.

GRRM is an amazing story teller. And he layers his text with hints and details and ideas, some more subtle than others. Certainly, he isn't a "shock jock" type of writer, but he is capable of saying, much later, after all the reveals are done, that he laid clues through out the text. And he does. It's our interpretation of the text that alters with rereads, greater insight, discussion, etc. Much like history of our world, the actual history doesn't change, but what we know about it can change and certainly our interpretation of it can change. And while history is completed, GRRM's story is still being written. I see him capable of carrying off almost any twist imaginable. While he want's people to follow his clues, I don't think he necessarily wants people to figure everything out.

As a matter of fact, he has said before that years ago, his mother's ability to always figure out the plot reveal of book she was reading, inspired him as a writer to make plots more difficult to figure out. But not to lie about it, or come out of left field with information we have never seen before, but confuse and misdirect the reader with the text. GRRM is smart and subtle and imaginative, and his text is wonderfully layered, and I really hope he has written stuff that will yet surprise the reader.

Sorry for the delay in responding @cpg2016 as I do respect that you are responding, even if you think my pot is entirely cracked, but I had a problem accessing the web site for several weeks.