The Order of the Greenhand: N+A=J

[cgrav]

1 minute ago, King Maegor said:

they make a very compelling argument that it is the struggle for balance in the world between Light and Dark, fire and ice, life and death, etc that is the Song of Ice and Fire. 

Well duh, no "case" needs to be made for restating the fundamental thematic strain of all myth and literature for the last 3000 years. The issue is that we rightly expect that theme to show up in characters, not just plots.

It would be a bit nihilist and unsatisfying to write a huge series about characters who are merely pawns of the forces of good/evil, light/dark, etc and can do no more than imitate or appease one side. The struggle for good/evil needs to take place not only within a character's thoughts, but in their identity and essentiality. In terms of literature, it's not enough for the Hero archetype only to ponder an abstract struggle. That struggle needs to be internal, and expressed on the level of blood, loyalties, thoughts, decisions, and actions. The Hero needs to be internally conflicted, motivated, and ultimately transformed to self-realization through either internal victory or reconciliation. 

RLJ works not just because we know R and L were screwing in a tower and it might mean Jon is the rightful King, but because that conflicted identity and tumultuous personal history place him at the center of the books' thematic material. We very much expect Jon to fulfill the Hero's Journey arc, and that can't really be done in modern literature if he is simply an motivated observer of the universal struggle of good over evil.

[King Maegor]

6 minutes ago, cgrav said:

1) We're given this expectation by Rhaegar in Dany's HotU vision: "His the song of ice and fire"
2) Ice and Fire already came together when Rhaegar and Lyanna hooked up, so whoever their kid is, is the child of Ice and Fire
3) The theme is pervasive enough that it's completely reasonable for it to be personified, just like most other important themes

Ultimately, characters express the themes at the foundation of any work of literature. I think we expect the story's primary over-arching theme to show up strongly in specific characters, and for those characters to come together in meaningful ways. Basic thematic development isn't like an option in fiction, it's the basis of it. 

As for Jon becoming an official Sword of the Morning... why is that necessary for him to use Dawn? The next time we'll see Jon, he'll have conquered death. I think he's at a point that titles and honors simply do not matter. If he gets Dawn, it won't be on the basis of some officiality but through circumstance. He'll pick it off Darkstar's dead body for all we know. I'm also curious just which Dayne would be bestow him with that honor, seeing as the present Lord of Starfall is a 12 year old boy roaming the Riverlands with some outlaws.

I really feel like N+A comes out of a readership that isn't looking past the action on the page. There's a ridiculous amount of subtext and symbolic storytelling in Ice and Fire, and RLJ is a puzzle piece that actually fits. NAJ doesn't work on that level at all. It barely even works on the timeline, which is the absolute minimum for a theory to be credible.

1) Rhaegar was talking about an actual song.  Elia asked him if he was going to write him a song and he told her he already had one

2) Why does that child have to be Jon?  Aegon makes more sense.  Are you familiar with Varys' monologue about Aegon in the epilogue of ADWD?  He describes Aegon exactly like George describes a perfect ruler, and Aegon's whole plot almost perfectly mirrors Egg's 

3) Aegon is a better personification of Ice and Fire. Go back and look at Tyrion's chapters with him again.  He is like a perfect blend of Rhaegar and Lyanna.  He looks like Rhaegar, is good at everything, like Rhaegar, but has an impulsive side to him like Lyanna.  He also says he dies his hair blue to honor his mother (Lyanna is obviously linked with the color blue)

N+A=J makes the story bigger and definitely makes sense in the story. R+L=J narrows the story into being all about who has a claim to the Iron Throne. The Iron Throne doesn't matter anymore.  Its all about the war to come and the war to come seems larger than a simple North vs South war with the White Walkers/Others.  Their argument that it will be more like WWII and be a global struggle seems more in line with the fact that he took the time to create a whole world

[RhaegoTheUnborn]

11 minutes ago, King Maegor said:

It seems like someone has to get their hands on it eventually.  George didn't create a huge one of a kind glowing white sword for no reason.  he was writing an Arthurian book when he came up with the idea for ASOIAF and Dawn and Excalibur seem to have a similar "only can wield it if you're worthy" thing going on

 

Is that what Avalon was? Most other sources just cite it as Science Fiction. And GRRM has told in interviews that ASOIAF was a spontaneous idea, after getting the beheading scene at the beginning into his head, whilst he was still working onAvalon.

[King Maegor]

13 minutes ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said:

I'm VERY FAMILIAR with their videos, and no they aren't the best researched GOT based channel on YT. Everything said about them in this thread is valid, valid criticisms of them as researchers, at least as far as GoT goes, those who holds the answers, and how to be towards those whom share different viewpoints than their own. They can do better in all of those aspects. And you dismissing everyone here who have differing or may have differing opinions or views compared to theirs as those whom have no familiarity to the channel and their videos doesn't exactly help their cause.

It is impossible for you to be VERY FAMILIAR with their videos when you said that you suffered through two of them. I don't know exactly how many they have but it has to be 60-70 videos.  watching 2 out of 60-70 videos makes you almost completely unfamiliar with them and by no stretch of the imagination could that make you VERY FAMILIAR with their videos.  and people disagree with them all over their comment section, and they aren't rude to them so I really have no idea what you are talking about.  I think the guy does most of the answering in the comment section and he might debate the people, but that is different than being rude

[cgrav]

13 minutes ago, King Maegor said:

1) Rhaegar was talking about an actual song.  Elia asked him if he was going to write him a song and he told her he already had one

I find this far too superficial to be satisfying in an otherwise stellar and epic work of literature. Good authors don't waste words, and considering the importance of the scene and the characters in it, I'm not inclined to believe that the only words we ever see come directly out of Rhaegar's mouth are meaningless.

 

13 minutes ago, King Maegor said:

2) Why does that child have to be Jon?  Aegon makes more sense.  Are you familiar with Varys' monologue about Aegon in the epilogue of ADWD?  He describes Aegon exactly like George describes a perfect ruler, and Aegon's whole plot almost perfectly mirrors Egg's

Because it would be terrible writing and reading to introduce the primary thematic expression in the third act, when almost no character development is possible. The big thematic characters have been with us the whole time because they are the POV's that advance the Ice and Fire themes the most, and those themes are far from subtle. It's also pretty damn hard to express internal themes through a non-POV character, so I'm not sure how that inner conflict would be written.

Varys's exposition to Kevan is meant to convey dramatic irony, because he is very clearly, though unwittingly, describing Jon Snow, while fAegon throws hissy fits and requires a dwarf's assistance in defending himself. 

Ultimately what I see in NAJ a lack of consideration for the subtext, symbolism, and thematic material of the series. Nearly any development could work with events and timelines, but those aren't what make a story. The thematic material has to be there, or it's just not a story.

GRRM did not write the Timeline of Ice and Fire. He wrote the Song of Ice and Fire. This is literature, and it has be considered as such.

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

6 minutes ago, King Maegor said:

2) Why does that child have to be Jon?  Aegon makes more sense.  Are you familiar with Varys' monologue about Aegon in the epilogue of ADWD?  He describes Aegon exactly like George describes a perfect ruler, and Aegon's whole plot almost perfectly mirrors Egg's 

3) Aegon is a better personification of Ice and Fire. Go back and look at Tyrion's chapters with him again.  He is like a perfect blend of Rhaegar and Lyanna.  He looks like Rhaegar, is good at everything, like Rhaegar, but has an impulsive side to him like Lyanna.  He also says he dies his hair blue to honor his mother (Lyanna is obviously linked with the color blue)

N+A=J makes the story bigger and definitely makes sense in the story. R+L=J narrows the story into being all about who has a claim to the Iron Throne. The Iron Throne doesn't matter anymore.  Its all about the war to come and the war to come seems larger than a simple North vs South war with the White Walkers/Others.  Their argument that it will be more like WWII and be a global struggle seems more in line with the fact that he took the time to create a whole world

2. It doesn't have to be Jon. It just fits so nicely to complete the puzzle we are given that's it's hard to believe it isn't Jon. I assure you there are many more than "4 or 5 quotes" as evidence for R+L=J. I don't know them all & won't go into the ones I know here because it would derail the thread & there are already 160+ threads on it. Surely you don't believe people continued to talk about the same 4 or 5 quotes for this amount of time, over that many threads? 

3. I actually buy into this a little contrary to what I just wrote on #2. As soon as I read the part that says he dyes his hair blue to honor his mother it made me think of Lyanna. I still believe R+L=J but I do agree this, along with your other points in #3 could be cited as evidence to the contrary. 

 

That's the point I keep trying to make though. N+A=J widens the story in your mind because it allows Jon to wield Dawn. I'm saying N+A does not have to = J for Jon or someone to wield Dawn. 

R+L=J isn't about the throne at all. Yes, it could make him the Targaryen heir, to the Targaryen dynasty that no longer exists. He would still have to take the IT by conquest. It's about him being the union of Ice & Fire. He has lived & died, he has seen the light & dark. Does that person have to be Jon? No but it would be a strange move on GRRM's part to not introduce THE main character to the story until 5 books in (Aegon) or to take so much care to drop all of these subtle hints that when taken in their entirety leave you with the conclusion that Jon is Ice & Fire personified only to come back in the 2nd to last, or last book & say "haha! Tricked ya! It isn't Jon at all! It's this other guy you have barely heard about!" Or to do the same thing only to say "Haha! Tricked ya! Jon actually isn't Ice & Fire, he just needs to wield Dawn!" 

[King Maegor]

2 minutes ago, cgrav said:

Because it would be terrible writing and reading to introduce the primary thematic expression in the third act, when almost no character development is possible. The big thematic characters have been with us the whole time because they are the POV's that advance the Ice and Fire themes the most, and those themes are far from subtle. It's also pretty damn hard to express internal themes through a non-POV character, so I'm not sure how that inner conflict would be written.

Varys's exposition to Kevan is meant to convey dramatic irony, because he is very clearly, though unwittingly, describing Jon Snow, while fAegon throws hissy fits and requires a dwarf's assistance in defending himself. 

Ultimately what I see in NAJ a lack of consideration for the subtext, symbolism, and thematic material of the series. Nearly any development could work with events and timelines, but those aren't what make a story. The thematic material has to be there, or it's just not a story.

GRRM did not write the Timeline of Ice and Fire. He wrote the Song of Ice and Fire. This is literature, and it has be considered as such.

George said TWOW and ADOS are each going to be 1500+ pages.  AFFC and ADWD take place at the same time. that places Aegon's introduction about halfway through the series.  That isn't bad writing.  Like I said, the Iron Throne doesn't matter to the story going forward, so why would it be a travesty for George to introduce a character that has a good claim to it halfway through the series?  You should really go back and look at Aegon again.  He's exactly like Egg from the Dunk and Egg stories. He has a Targaryen temper, but he listens to counsel, is very smart, is very good with a sword, and is the first man in the 8000+ year history of Storm's End to take it by force.  Tyrion even describes him as a perfect prince once.  And Varys was directly describing Aegon.  He wasn't unwittingly describing Jon.  He used Aegon's name.  and if you want to talk symbolism, Jon looks exactly like Ned, has a direwolf from the same litter as the rest of Ned's children, has the same personality as Ned, thinks like Ned, has wolf dreams, has dreams about the the kings of the north calling to him from Winterfell's crypts.  He has no dragon dreams or imagery in his chapters (except when he sees the Ice Dragon Constellation a few times).  he has twice as many dawn references in his chapters than anyone else.  that's all symbolism and it all ties Jon to the Starks and Daynes.  None of his symbolism ties him to the Targaryens

[RhaegoTheUnborn]

18 minutes ago, King Maegor said:

It is impossible for you to be VERY FAMILIAR with their videos when you said that you suffered through two of them. I don't know exactly how many they have but it has to be 60-70 videos.  watching 2 out of 60-70 videos makes you almost completely unfamiliar with them and by no stretch of the imagination could that make you VERY FAMILIAR with their videos.  and people disagree with them all over their comment section, and they aren't rude to them so I really have no idea what you are talking about.  I think the guy does most of the answering in the comment section and he might debate the people, but that is different than being rude

 

Uh, where did I ever say "I suffered through two of them"? I've seen all their videos in relation to this, in relation to Arthur Dayne escaping TOJ only to turn up as Wilding King, Mance Rayder, literally all because they both alluded to not kneeling for their antagonist. The Bloodraven videos were okay though.

[King Maegor]

10 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

2. It doesn't have to be Jon. It just fits so nicely to complete the puzzle we are given that's it's hard to believe it isn't Jon. I assure you there are many more than "4 or 5 quotes" as evidence for R+L=J. I don't know them all & won't go into the ones I know here because it would derail the thread & there are already 160+ threads on it. Surely you don't believe people continued to talk about the same 4 or 5 quotes for this amount of time, over that many threads?

Promise Me Ned from a bed of blood, a blue flower growing from a chink in the ice and filling the air with sweetness, Rhaegar Loved his Lyanna and the realm bled for it, Ned's an honorable guy that wouldn't cheat.  what else? none of that points to Jon.  it simply indicates that Rhaegar and Lyanna could have had a child

[King Maegor]

On 10/14/2017 at 2:25 PM, Faera said:

One thing I have noticed about "altermative Jon-birth" theories obsess over logistics, really. It is something that R+L theorists really don't have to worry about as much. As to why, I tend to attribute more to us having such a better handle on Ned's whereabouts during the war compared to Rhaegar, You don't have to completely pinpoint where Jon's mum and dad were in that scenario because we know where they were throughout most of the war.

I think its more like R+L theorists ignore logistics because they don't work in their favor.  did you see the authors annotation they put in their new timeline video that says Jon was born approximately when KL was being sacked?  Ned was in KL when it was being sacked and had thousands of miles to travel before getting anywhere near the ToJ

[RhaegoTheUnborn]

2 minutes ago, King Maegor said:

Promise Me Ned from a bed of blood, a blue flower growing from a chink in the ice and filling the air with sweetness, Rhaegar Loved his Lyanna and the realm bled for it, Ned's an honorable guy that wouldn't cheat.  what else? none of that points to Jon.  it simply indicates that Rhaegar and Lyanna could have had a child

  And you think they'd make that child a crucial part of the ASOIAF story, if it was just "a child" that Rhaegar and Lyanna had, with little more significance? You're really reaching here man.

[RhaegoTheUnborn]

8 minutes ago, King Maegor said:

I think its more like R+L theorists ignore logistics because they don't work in their favor.  did you see the authors annotation they put in their new timeline video that says Jon was born approximately when KL was being sacked?  Ned was in KL when it was being sacked and had thousands of miles to travel before getting anywhere near the ToJ

 

 

But we know from GRRM that that isn't true. He says himself that Jon was born up to a month afterward, a realistic time would be 2-3 weeks after the sack. But George didn't go all that into it. 

[King Maegor]

7 minutes ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said:

Uh, where did I ever say "I suffered through two of them"? I've seen all their videos in relation to this, in relation to Arthur Dayne escaping TOJ only to turn up as Wilding King, Mance Rayder, literally all because they both alluded to not kneeling for their antagonist. The Bloodraven videos were okay though.

I might have confused you with Ygrain.  Their Mance Rayder theory is much better than them claiming it's obviously him because both Mance and Arthur have the exact same phrase describing their lack of willingness to kneel, although that is a lot more compelling than you represented it as because that phrase is only used to describe them

[King Maegor]

3 minutes ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said:

And you think they'd make that child a crucial part of the ASOIAF story, if it was just "a child" that Rhaegar and Lyanna had, with little more significance? You're really reaching here man.

I never said Rhaegar and Lyanna's child was the most crucial part of ASOIAF.  I think their child has a role to play moving forward, and a relatively good sized role moving forward, but the story is much larger than one character.  there are going to be several heroes going forward, and I think Jon and Aegon both look like they're going to be heroes.  That isn't reaching

[cgrav]

15 minutes ago, King Maegor said:

Promise Me Ned from a bed of blood, a blue flower growing from a chink in the ice and filling the air with sweetness, Rhaegar Loved his Lyanna and the realm bled for it, Ned's an honorable guy that wouldn't cheat.  what else? none of that points to Jon.  it simply indicates that Rhaegar and Lyanna could have had a child

So... what's the blue rose the Wall, if not Jon? We know Lyanna's not there.

[King Maegor]

10 minutes ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said:

But we know from GRRM that that isn't true.

what do you mean you know from GRRM that that isn't true?  George is the one who puts the AUTHORS ANNOTATIONS in the story

[The Fattest Leech]

4 minutes ago, King Maegor said:

I might have confused you with Ygrain.  Their Mance Rayder theory is much better than them claiming it's obviously him because both Mance and Arthur have the exact same phrase describing their lack of willingness to kneel, although that is a lot more compelling than you represented it as because that phrase is only used to describe them

NONE of the free folk are willing to kneel to anyone they do not chose as their won leader. This is not a Mance only event. And the fact that the free folk do this is purposely to show that the north and Dorne are more alike than any of the other five kingsdoms... as it is said in the World book. This lack of kneeling is ingrained into the history of both regions with multiple book examples. This is another example of how the people in the ootgh video series either do not research all of the text fully, or they purposely omit the parts that poke holes in their theories.

The fact that the north and Dorne are so alike in many ways is very important to the current northern plot line.

And they are very condescending to commenters, whether those commenters are just simply disagreeing with them or bashing them, more of then than not OotGH starts in with the "well, you are just not paying attention", as if they are the only ones smart enough to figure out the author's intent. Radio Westeros is at least humble enough to put forth several ideas on some hard to crack theories, admit when the theory did not originate with them, and even makes it clear when the "conclusion" is still open ended, and for readers to make up their own mind.

The World of Ice and Fire - Dorne

There are no cities in Dorne, though the socalled shadow city that clings to the walls of Sunspear is large enough to be counted as a town (a town built of mud and straw, it must be admitted). Larger and more populous, the Planky Town at the mouth of the river Greenblood is mayhaps the nearest thing the Dornish have to a true city, though a city with planks instead of streets, where the houses and halls and shops are made from poleboats, barges, and merchant ships, lashed together with hempen rope and floating on the tide.

Archmaester Brude, who was born and raised in the shadow city that huddles beneath the crumbling walls of Sunspear, once famously observed that Dorne has more in common with the distant North than either does with the realms that lie between them. "One is hot and one is cold, yet these ancient kingdoms of sand and snow are set apart from the rest of Westeros by history, culture, and tradition. Both are thinly peopled, compared to the lands betwixt. Both cling stubbornly to their own laws and their own traditions. Neither was ever truly conquered by the dragons. The King in the North accepted Aegon Targaryen as his overlord peaceably, whilst Dorne resisted the might of the Targaryens valiantly for almost two hundred years, before finally submitting to the Iron Throne through marriage. Dornishmen and Northmen alike are derided as savages by the ignorant of the five 'civilized' kingdoms, and celebrated for their valor by those who have crossed swords with them."

The Dornishmen boast that theirs is the oldest of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. This is true, after a fashion. Unlike the Andals, who came later, the First Men were not seafarers. They came to Westeros not on longships but afoot, over the land bridge from Essos—the remnants of which exist today only as the Stepstones and the Broken Arm of Dorne. Walking or riding, the eastern shores of Dorne would inevitably have been where they first set foot upon Westerosi soil.

[King Maegor]

2 minutes ago, cgrav said:

So... what's the blue rose the Wall, if not Jon? We know Lyanna's not there.

it's a blue flower, not a rose and it fills the air with sweetness, which is something Jon will never do. You should really check out their Bran the Builder and Bloody Blade videos.  they blew my mind.  They think Rose of Red Lake (which was called blue lake before Brandon of the Bloody Blade, who was Bran the Builder's father, killed so many children of the forest there that they've called it red lake ever since) is Bran the Builder's mother.  She was a skinchanger and shapeshifter, and the flower, represents her magic that Bran the Builder inherited and used to build the wall.  I did a terrible job of explaining it, but their Bloody Blade video explains the blue flower's association with Rose extremely well

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

10 minutes ago, King Maegor said:

George said TWOW and ADOS are each going to be 1500+ pages.  AFFC and ADWD take place at the same time. that places Aegon's introduction about halfway through the series.  That isn't bad writing.  Like I said, the Iron Throne doesn't matter to the story going forward, so why would it be a travesty for George to introduce a character that has a good claim to it halfway through the series?  You should really go back and look at Aegon again.  He's exactly like Egg from the Dunk and Egg stories. He has a Targaryen temper, but he listens to counsel, is very smart, is very good with a sword, and is the first man in the 8000+ year history of Storm's End to take it by force.  Tyrion even describes him as a perfect prince once.  And Varys was directly describing Aegon.  He wasn't unwittingly describing Jon.  He used Aegon's name.  and if you want to talk symbolism, Jon looks exactly like Ned, has a direwolf from the same litter as the rest of Ned's children, has the same personality as Ned, thinks like Ned, has wolf dreams, has dreams about the the kings of the north calling to him from Winterfell's crypts.  He has no dragon dreams or imagery in his chapters (except when he sees the Ice Dragon Constellation a few times).  he has twice as many dawn references in his chapters than anyone else.  that's all symbolism and it all ties Jon to the Starks and Daynes.  None of his symbolism ties him to the Targaryens

First I want to applaud you because I feel like you are getting hacked at from every side & are taking it in stride. Now if I may hack some more 

 Seriously though it is hard to defend something you believe & not get angry when you have multiple people trying to discredit it. 

I think the "travesty" of Aegon just now being introduced was mostly created by George. In letting the readers know the series was originally meant to be much shorter it is hard for us to believe that a crucial character would not have been introduced in the first book, or the first 2 at least. Of course you are right though. That is plenty of page time to give us an in depth look at an character. 

With all the Jon stuff: that all ties him to the Starks. (Other than the Dawn references) Which means, at least IMO, he has Stark blood. Which logically leads us to one of two places - 1. He is Ned's son. Or 2. He is the son of another Stark. We all know it would be very out of character for Eddard Stark to have fathered a bastard. But if he is Ned's son there doesn't seem to be any reason to hide his mother. It also makes the fact that George only agreed to give D&D rights to the show upon their successful answer to the question: "Who are Jon Snow's parents?" very confusing as we are told repeatedly Ned is Jon's father. If he is, why would George have asked the question? I suppose it's possible they answered Ned & Ashara but he asked who are his parents, not who is his mother, implying IMO both his parents are a secret. It is also possible D&D answered Rhaegar & Lyanna & George gave them the rights knowing they were wrong & wouldn't spoil it for the book readers but either of those are highly unlikely IMO. So if Jon isn't Ned's son which Stark is his parent? The logical answer is Lyanna which then leads us to Rhaegar. There is much more in between but that isn't for this thread. It's worth mentioning that when Jon is called to the crypts he says to them & himself "I don't belong here. I'm not a Stark." The symbolism posted may not tie him to Targaryens but there is nothing in tying him to the Starks that negates him being half Targ. 

As far as the Dawn references go, I wasn't aware of that. I would have to read the references to know if I feel like there is any substance to them but I will look it up. Maybe you will make a believer of me yet! 

[cgrav]

22 minutes ago, King Maegor said:

He wasn't unwittingly describing Jon.  He used Aegon's name.  and if you want to talk symbolism, Jon looks exactly like Ned, has a direwolf from the same litter as the rest of Ned's children, has the same personality as Ned, thinks like Ned, has wolf dreams, has dreams about the the kings of the north calling to him from Winterfell's crypts. 

First, using Aegon's name is why it's ironic, in the sense of being a literary device. The books are full  of double entendre and using this kind of cross-POV irony and foreshadowing. 

Second, Jon has all those symbols because he's half Stark, and Lyanna is the person who was said to have "wolf's blood".  But if you look further to the symbols that aren't stated directly, Jon has a whole lot of fire/Targaryen around him, too. His first act of bravery at the Wall is to use fire as a weapon, for which he receives a Valyrian steel sword. Ygritte was "kissed by fire" and kissed Jon. Ghost has the same coloring as Melisandre. The Wall becomes a place of all manner of routine burning during his watch. 

To understand literature you have to be wiling to look past the literal words on the page. Subtext is the stuff of storytelling. You have to be able to draw conclusions that aren't factual in nature. If you want to deal with pure facts, discuss history.