Red Herrings

[Bormon]

An offshoot of the 998th Commander thread. I have been arguing that Jon being the 998th Commander has some significance. But it has been suggested that the number will have no other meaning to us the reader than just to make us think about it a bit.

It got me to thinking what other "Red Herrings" may or may not be out there.

The definition of a "Red Herring" that I am using is something that GRRM put into the story with no other purpose but to get us the reader to think that it is something more that it is. I am not talking literary subterfuge (like the theories put forth about the dagger before we finally knew the truth) but bits of information that are not going to be used in the story in any way but look like they will.

Now, I personally don't believe that GRRM uses these "Red Herrings" at all, but just hasn't finished the books and will unfold the meanings of these things by stories end. But others have argued quite vigorously that these things are nothing more than background of the story, made just to fill in details and get us the reader talking about it.

Some examples that I have heard so far:

1. Jon being the 998th Commander. 998 is just a number, the fact that its close to 1000 has no meaning.

2. Jon's parentage: Who care's who is parents are. He was raised a Stark, so he is a Stark. If he is the Ice or Blue Rose in the Wall....its because of how he was raised not who his parents were.

3. The Gravedigger: Is just a large man. He is not the Hound, the Hound is dead. The Horse is just foul tempered.


Anyone think of any others?

[JoannaL]

When I first read about Darkstar I thought that GRRM could have included him in the story to confuse the R+L trail.
He is a Dayne (and the Daynes knew a lot of what was going on with R +L) and he looks like a Targ (or a Dayne) so he could be a Targ : Aegon or a child of R + L.

[Ned Sand]

[quote name='Bormon' post='1300712' date='Apr 4 2008, 10.42']1. Jon being the 998th Commander. . . .

2. Jon's parentage . . .

3. The Gravedigger . . .[/quote]We could add to that list all the unproven speculation targets:[list]
[*]the Sailor's Wife
[*]baby Aegon
[*]the horn Jon found near the fist with the arrowheads
[*][i]"Since I can't prove you're not mine."[/i]
[*]Mel's 'Lightbringer'
[*]the three heads/riders of the dragons
[/list]All of those things could turn out to be insignificant.

What we really want to look for, though, it the things that looked important, but have already turned out to be meaningless. Is [b]the Valyrian steel and dragonbone knife[/b] one of those?

[JoannaL]

Yes, perhaps we should only look for past red herrings not for ongoing speculations...



what about the 'stallion who mounts the world'

haven't we all thought him to be of future significance before his death? On the other hand if this qualifies as red herring than I want a lot of it in the story since I think it is GRRMs strength that we do not know which twist the story takes

[Black Wizard]

The stallion who mounts the world could be a dragon.

[vlada]

[quote name='JoannaL' post='1300737' date='Apr 4 2008, 17.01']When I first read about Darkstar I thought that GRRM could have included him in the story to confuse the R+L trail.
He is a Dayne (and the Daynes knew a lot of what was going on with R +L) and he looks like a Targ (or a Dayne) so he could be a Targ : Aegon or a child of R + L.[/quote]

That's just stupid.Besides he's to old to fit the role.

[JoannaL]

[quote name='vlada' post='1300774' date='Apr 4 2008, 17.29']That's just stupid.Besides he's to old to fit the role.[/quote]
Look I do not think that he is a Targ I merely argued that perhaps GRRM wanted to make us think so .... and I have no idea how old he is

[alguien]

[quote name='Bormon' post='1300712' date='Apr 4 2008, 10.42']3. The Gravedigger: Is just a large man. He is not the Hound, the Hound is dead. The Horse is just foul tempered.[/quote]

Do people actually still believe that this was just a gravedigger and not Sandor? Wow. From the most recent report of latest Jon chapter at Technicon, they mentioned George saying that the Hound was not dead, and that his story would be interesting to complete.

I'm all for healthy skepticism but c'mon people, that ones obvious.

As for other possible red herrings (I keep thinking of the cartoon A Pup Named Scooby Doo):

Tyrion's dreaming of riding dragons

Edric Dayne having light hair and violet eyes

[JoannaL]

[quote name='Black Wizard' post='1300773' date='Apr 4 2008, 17.28']The stallion who mounts the world could be a dragon.[/quote]
Well, a dragon is a dragon and not a horse. You could perhaps argue that it is Dany... but Dany is no stallion

No, IMHO 'the stallion that mounts the world' died unborn and is out of the story

[Bormon]

The stallion the mounts the world is an excellent example. Is it a dead part of the story? Was the vision in the House of the Undying a "Red Herring"?

I don't think that Mel's 'Lightbringer' qualifies though. regardless if its really the true Lightbringer or not, it has already contributed to the story and Stannis acts like it the true sword.

[Bormon]

I just realized that one of my favorite topics "The Knight of the Laughing Tree" could also be considered a red herring. Other than relating the events of the tournament that started the war, it hasn't had any other implications in the story. YET, it has caused quite the debate on the identity of the KotLT. I have heard everything from Howland Reed to Lyanna to Jamie (my personal favorite crackpot theory).

[Greywolf2375]

[quote name='JoannaL' post='1300798' date='Apr 4 2008, 10.39']Well, a dragon is a dragon and not a horse. You could perhaps argue that it is Dany... but Dany is no stallion

No, IMHO 'the stallion that mounts the world' died unborn and is out of the story[/quote]
if you're using that as an argument, then even Dany's child would not have met the requirements - he would have been a boy, not a horse.

[Black Wizard]

[i]Reducio ad Absurdum.[/i]

[JoannaL]

[quote name='Greywolf2375' post='1300873' date='Apr 4 2008, 18.40']if you're using that as an argument, then even Dany's child would not have met the requirements - he would have been a boy, not a horse.[/quote]
You know exactly what I meant. For a Dothraki to be described as a horse is ok they are the horselords, or Dany as a dragon (they are blood of the dragon and all that), but why would you characterise an animal which is not a horse as a horse?

[Marsala]

GRRM definitely has used red herrings. I can think of a couple: Jon Arryn's former squire Ser Hugh(? name) was said by Varys to have poisoned Lord Arryn and he later died in suspicious circumstances (killed by the Mountain, a Lannister underling). Also, Illyrio implied that Varys had a hand in Jon Arryn's death. "If one Hand can die, why not another? You have played the game before." Both of these were later disproven when it was revealed that Lysa poisoned Jon Arryn at the bequest of Littlefinger.

The Ser Hugh plotline seems to have been a total red herring with no significance. Varys was presumably either lying or merely mistaken about his guilt, and his death was a coincidence. Illyrio's implication of Varys being involved in the death of a Hand is a little stranger; perhaps Illyrio was referring to Jon Connington's "death"?

[Black Wizard]

[quote name='JoannaL' post='1300885' date='Apr 4 2008, 17.50']You know exactly what I meant. For a Dothraki to be described as a horse is ok they are the horselords, or Dany as a dragon (they are blood of the dragon and all that), but why would you characterise an animal which is not a horse as a horse?[/quote]
Misinterpretation? The Dothraki revere horses, but that doesn't make their belief right. The Dothraki idea of a "stallion who mounts the world" could be a different version of a common myth. The God that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship is the same God (they just don't like to admit it), so the "stallion who mounts the world" could easily be a dragon, the Dothraki just don't know it.

Note that Dany is known as the "Mother of Dragons".

[alguien]

[quote name='Marsala' post='1300890' date='Apr 4 2008, 11.55']GRRM definitely has used red herrings. I can think of a couple: Jon Arryn's former squire Ser Hugh(? name) was said by Varys to have poisoned Lord Arryn and he later died in suspicious circumstances (killed by the Mountain, a Lannister underling). Also, Illyrio implied that Varys had a hand in Jon Arryn's death. "If one Hand can die, why not another? You have played the game before." Both of these were later disproven when it was revealed that Lysa poisoned Jon Arryn at the bequest of Littlefinger.

The Ser Hugh plotline seems to have been a total red herring with no significance. Varys was presumably either lying or merely mistaken about his guilt, and his death was a coincidence. Illyrio's implication of Varys being involved in the death of a Hand is a little stranger; perhaps Illyrio was referring to Jon Connington's "death"?[/quote]

It seems like such a lot of people were suspected for having a hand in Jon Arryn's death: Ser Hugh, Cersei, Pycelle, Lisa.

We know that Pycelle's treatment allowed the poison to finish the job, and he was acting what he thought was on Cersei's orders. Lisa was the one who poisoned him first, right? So Hugh had nothing to do with it? I don't know. I still think he had done something. What were Lisa's exact words? Could she have used Hugh to poison Jon?

[Shewoman]

Bormon--if Jon is legitimate and one of his parents was Rhaegar Targaryen, that makes Jon the Targeryen heir. He would inherit before Dany because Rhaegar was Aerys' heir; since Rhaegar is dead, that would have made Aegon the heir; since [i]he[/i] is dead, if Rhaegar has another legitimate son, he's the heir. Viserys and Dany wouldn't inherit until Rhaegar's line gave out. IMHO, that makes the issue of Jon's parentage pretty important.

[Black Wizard]

Jon is illegitimate whether his father is Eddard or Rhaegar.

[Bormon]

[quote name='Shewoman' post='1300942' date='Apr 4 2008, 13.26']Bormon--if Jon is legitimate and one of his parents was Rhaegar Targaryen, that makes Jon the Targeryen heir. He would inherit before Dany because Rhaegar was Aerys' heir; since Rhaegar is dead, that would have made Aegon the heir; since [i]he[/i] is dead, if Rhaegar has another legitimate son, he's the heir. Viserys and Dany wouldn't inherit until Rhaegar's line gave out. IMHO, that makes the issue of Jon's parentage pretty important.[/quote]


Hey no arguments from me, I was just restating what arguments I have heard.

My oringinal 3 examples to me were all examples that IMO will be sorted out by story end.

But I do have to say that Ser Hugh, The Stallion who Mounts the World, and The Knight of the Laughing Tree may not be resolved and might be true Red Herrings.