Sly Wren

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

We don't know if CH's ever left his body, nor do we know if CH was a warg or a skinchanger.  He is a mystery.

Right--but if "they killed him"--doesn't that innately imply he left his body?

Beric and Stoneheart are "brought back" without warning, but are less. 

So--I guess it's fair to argue that maybe the soul sticks around in the body until it's "fully" dead. Or--we don't know for sure where souls go.

But we do know he was "dead." Like Cat. Like Beric. So--really seems like we are being shown that Jon can "come back" into his dead body somehow or other. Without becoming an Other--in body or in vicious spirit.

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

Very good question, however, Othor and Jafer and others were sworn men of the NW and they came back as wights looking to kill their NW Brothers.

Right--but Jon seems to be the one who had the epiphany about the watch. Takes his brothers to task on who they are protecting. Seems like his take on the Oath is rather different.

That's what I'm wondering about that Oath--does understanding it "properly" make a difference?

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

Haggon died when Varamyr pushed him out of One Eye.  "No second life for you, old man!"  If Jon left Ghost he may not be able to ride the winds or anything else as he has resisted warging and has not learned, like Varamyr how to use his warg powers.  If Jon did warg Ghost, a dangerous move, the endpoint does not seem to be becoming an Other.

Agreed. And, I'd reiterate: Jon is a Stark. They seem different when it comes to the dead. And not just because of that crypt (though I think that's a key part of it."

6 hours ago, Black Crow said:

His death actually comes against the background of a major mystery and I suggest is part of the key to learning the truth behind that mystery. 
And the mystery? Who are the Others ? Supposedly they are the big bad and are on the point of sweeping south to kill all living things etc. They have been a looming threat since the very first page, but thus far all we’ve actually seen are the group of six [6] individuals who killed Ser Waymar Royce and one who was more or less accidentally pinked by Sam in the retreat from the Fist – and for all we know he may have been one of the first six. Apart from that we only have second and third hand stories and legends. So yes they exist and yes they are hostile, but otherwise we really know nothing.

Agreed--this is one of the key, if not THE key, mysteries. (I think the source of the dragons and the Doom are key, too, but the North seems like the "magic" focus from the Game Prologue on).

That said--I'm not convinced Jon must become Other for us to understand the Others.

6 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Enter Jon
Stabbed multiple times, he falls and the last conscious thought recorded is a call to Ghost [his direwolf]. This is widely and pretty plausibly interpreted as his soul taking refuge in Ghost. But there’s a problem, a big problem. As is customary ADWD started off with a prologue relevant to something about to happen in the book. In this case it was the story of an unpleasant character called Varamyr, who told us about how warging works. He could switch bodies, but when his original body died his soul was first cut free and then drawn into his most powerful familiar. At first sight that seems straightforward. Jon dies, but his soul is cut free and ends up as a guest in Ghost. But what next? Varamyr is pretty clear that once the original body is dead the warg can neither return nor switch to another host. So Jon is stuck.
Or is he?

Stuck and not--yes. Like Coldhands. Coldhands seems to occupy the space between Other and human.

The Others, so very, very hostile to life. Who play with Waymar. Who enjoy killing him.

Vs. Jon--with his realization via Ghost that the Wildlings are all men, just like him. Because they all smell the same (that moment he has seeing/smelling/hearing them as Ghost does). And then Jon asserts that his Oath covers all men.

Then Coldhands: Othered but not cruel to humans. Still guarding the realms of men to protect Bran.

If Jon is to take a new form (very very likely)--my money's on Coldhands.

6 hours ago, Black Crow said:

We’ve looked at the Others very carefully. GRRM has described them as 'The Others are not dead. They are strange, beautiful… think, oh… the Sidhe made of ice, something like that… a different sort of life… inhuman, elegant, dangerous.” The description that they are “made of ice” is exactly how Stannis references them as “made of snow and ice” and the turning back to GRRM, he confirmed that when Sam pinked Ser Puddles "he broke the spell holding him together." So in short, the Others seen in the books supposedly ride the cold winds and then appear in human form but are made of snow and ice held together by magic.
Can Jon [being a Stark] therefore leave Ghost to ride the cold winds as Varamyr did, but then, unable to enter another living host, form himself a new body of snow and ice, thus confirming GRRM’s gnomic remark that he’s not dead [“the Others are not dead”] and so continuing as a major character and revealing the true nature of the Otherrs.  

If humans cannot re-enter their dead/dying bodies ever ever ever--how account for Coldhands? ETA: "They killed him long ago." Leaf doesn't say "wounded." She says "killed." ETA: Even seems to imply that the Others killed Coldhands.

I'm thinking the difference might be that Oath. The "I am" section--becoming/transforming into weapons/qualities that guard men. By taking that oath, by understanding it better than the rest of the Watch does, Jon "transforms"--at least psychologically and morally.

Coldhands, unlike the Others, seems to maintain that Jon-like morality and focus. 

So--could that oath and morality be the difference here? That Oath that ties at Watchman to the world is a way that Varamyr was not?

Or--it could be Jon's Starkiness: they are the liminal ones. Grey. Twilight. Living in Winterfell, a realm of the living literally built on and protecting a realm of the dead. The dead kings who will come from their tombs when Jon goes down to them. ETA: The Starks seem to be made of different stuff. Maybe from lying with Others before, who knows? But they are different.

I think there's a really, really good chance that Jon's being a Stark may make a big difference in whether or not he becomes a Coldhands or an Other.

2 hours ago, HugorHell said:

Of course.  And if the family tree had ever been meant solely for him, it would obviously have remained solely for him and would not have been shared with anyone at all. 

Does the family tree say that Jon is Ned's bastard? I bet it does.

1 hour ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

That is an excellent question!  The Stark family tree in TWOIAF does show Jon as Ned's bastard, although it lists the mother as Unknown.  I wonder if Ran could comment on whether the family tree he saw lists Jon as Ned's bastard and the name of Jon's mother.  I suspect not.

I asked a while ago, but the answer I got back--didn't say one way or another. No hint at all.

That said, my question was wordy, so he may not have known exactly what I was asking. I decided not to pester him.

But given all the rest of the stuff in the app, I'd be very surprised if the family tree he saw wasn't like all the other trees: in-world, not objective, reality.

2 hours ago, HugorHell said:

So for instance the app says Jon has five siblings: Robb, Sansa, Arya, Bran, Rickon.  That is what is known to the public. 

But of course, all five of those statements are false if R+L=J.  The app and R+L=J thus contradict each other, and those among us who believe R+L=J are already dismissing what the app says, because there is no other logical choice if we are going to believe R+L=J. 

So we cannot then say that different information in the app is evidence in support of our fan theories.  We have already, in dismissing Jon's sibling info, admitted that app information is only evidence in support of what people in Westeros "know."  Which isn't the same thing as fan theories at all.

Yup. Martin's making it clear: we have to wait for the next books (grumble).

47 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I guess my main issue with using the app or even the SSM as evidence of events that have no been addressed in the books is that it seems to go against the fundamental nature of George’s story.  There is no omniscient narrator.  Everything we learn is through the lens of a POV character.  And with this the reader is given the limitations of what the character actually knows as opposed to what the character has been told, and we even have to be concerned with the character’s own biases and blind spots.  Is the character always truthful with themselves?  

The app serves as an omniscient narrator in a way, setting forth some things as unassailable fact when the story itself intentionally fails to do so.

Agreed--though I'd add the app only serves this way if we (the readers) let ourselves forget how Martin sets up his world. When we remember that, the omniscience goes away.

23 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

If Lyanna was at Starfall, I think the sequence is:

1.  Ned learns from some source that Lyanna gave birth at Starfall, and that Lyanna's child was taken from her to the tower of joy. 

2.  Ned travels with a guide who knows the location of the tower of joy.  I would guess Howland.

3.  Ned rescues Jon from the tower of joy and brings Jon back to Starfall to be reunited with Lyanna.  Returning Dawn was a cover story for the reason for his trip to Starfall.

4.  The death bed scene with Lyanna occurred after Ned arrived at Starfall with Jon.

Maybe--are you thinking this goes along with the "Jon was intended to be a sacrifice/second Summerhall" theory?

23 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

No extra step, no double travel, and it explains why Ned would take such a dangerous trip through enemy territory with a baby in tow, as opposed to getting the babe to safety and then sending Dawn back to Starfall via ship.  

It also does away with the very ackward scenario of Ned travelling a great distance through the mountains carrying his dead sister.

Really the "return of Dawn" makes no sense.  It doesn't rise to a level of importance for Ned to travel through the Mountains with a baby and with a dead sister.  Dawn could have always been sent with a formal peace party at a later date.

On this--yes. Though I'd add that if all Ned has is Dawn, the trip still makes sense: he'd going to Starfall for his sister.

4 minutes ago, lehutin said:

I don't get this Lyanna-was-at-Starfall thing. From what I got out of page 23,

1. Lyanna gave birth to Jon at Starfall,
2. the loyalist Kingsguard took Jon to the Tower of Joy,
3. Ned met and consoled a dying Lyanna at Starfall,
4. Ned traveled to the Tower of Joy with his companions and killed the loyalist Kingsguard,
5. Ned went back to Starfall to return Dawn.

Yeah--that seems kinda wacky to me, too.

If Lyanna and Jon were at Starfall, pretty sure they stayed at Starfall. Instead, the KG rode out to meet Ned and Co. at a neutral location (the toj) away from the people they were actually defending. Like Jon, like Duncan, etc. Because they can't fight Ned's whole army, so they lure him to a parlay with a smaller force.

Ned wins. Then goes to Starfall with Dawn, finding Lyanna and Jon there.

4 minutes ago, lehutin said:

If so, it seems like an unnecessary complication to this:

1. Lyanna gave birth to Jon at the Tower of Joy,
2. Ned traveled to the Tower of Joy with his companions and killed the loyalist Kingsguard,
3. Ned met and consoled a dying Lyanna,
4. Ned went to Starfall to return Dawn.

There's an extra step and a double travel that has no purpose. Do some people just want the Daynes to be more involved in the story?

I agree that the scenario you cited seems . . . excessive.

But are there hints that Lyanna was at Starfall? That the Daynes are important and know something about Jon? Yes.

We need to next book to sort it out.

13 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Of course, but no one is saying what is in the books or the app or from the author's own mouth cannot be wrong. What information from those sources are is evidence. What isn't evidence is stuff made up by fans. Guessing can be fun. Those guesses just need to have some real evidence to back them up, or they are just wild speculation. It is just another form of fan fiction, or substituting a fan's story for the author's.

Agreed. But until it's confirmed in the books, things like the locale of Lyanna's death are all being guessed at by readers filling in blanks in ways that may or may not correct. We don't have direct evidence on the locale of her death. Like all reading, we are all anticipating potential outcomes and filling in blanks--exactly what we're supposed to do. Exactly what makes reading fun (sorry for sounding like a literacy promo). But none of it is direct evidence or confirmation until we get it in the novels.

13 hours ago, SFDanny said:

If you have any real evidence to back up the idea that Lyanna died elsewhere, then I would love to see it.  A lemon tree in Braavos isn't a reason to question where Lyanna died. It is a reason to question how that lemon tree got to Braavos, and if the incongruity of a lemon tree in Braavos points to some important part of the story. It does, but that has nothing to do with where Lyanna dies, or whether or not Dany's memories of Braavos are real.

Agreed on the tree--no idea why that would be tied to her locale of death.

But, for now, we don't have direct evidence that Lyanna died at the toj--we have readers filling in blanks (as we're supposed to) in ways that may or may not be right. So evidence for where she dies--toj, Starfall, any other place that might be posited--is still educated guesses and anticipation. Unless someone has presented direct evidence on any of those locales that I've missed.

We need the books to settle it. That's the only "real" evidence that won't be readers filling in blanks.

6 hours ago, SerTarod said:

What is the evidence (your emphasis) that Lyanna died at the Tower of Joy? My reading of the story is that Lyanna is placed there because Ned, in his fever dream, thinks/dreams of Lyanna after the battle against the Kings Guard.

Yup.

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

We do need the novel since Ran adds the caveat that until the book is published, this is semi-canon and things could change.  I'd say they have changed if Lyanna's bones were boiled.  I don't think that happened at the ToJ. 

Yup.

46 minutes ago, LynnS said:

I can imagine that Ned would not want to implicate Ashara Dayne in any way. 

Absolutely--especially given how he reacts to finding out her name is gossiped about at Winterfell.

55 minutes ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

Except for a few things

1) the in-world Stark family tree found in ASOIAF does not show when or where anybody died,

2) Ran's description of the Stark family tree he saw sounds like that family tree is reference for George only, i.e. NOT in-world

Agreed--though other trees of other families do give the local and even basic manner of death for people. So, putting Lyanna's place of death on a tree wouldn't be out of character generally for how Martin constructs the trees.

And I have a very, very hard time believing Martin needed any kind of reminder on where Lyanna died. Eye colors of minor and semi-minor characters? Sure. Where Lyanna died? No way.

Until we get confirmation in the books, those trees/records aren't "truth" yet--but, as you said above, that doesn't stop their being "canon."

Just now, The Hidden Dragon said:

Actually, the appendix to ADWD lists Joffrey, Tommen and Mrycella as children of Robert and Cersie.  I just checked.

Yup! So far, the appendices and family trees GRRM writes and publishes reflect the "official" record, not always conducive to actual reality.

7 minutes ago, The Hidden Dragon said:

I think I found where Ran talked about the Stark family tree showing that Lyanna died at the TOJ.  See the attached link.  I hope I did it right, i'm crappy at linking. it's entry 985.

 

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/34958-the-asoiaf-wiki-thread/?p=7061843

Precisely--an in-world family tree presenting in-world knowledge (what Ned told people), which may or may not be actually true once the full backstory of Lyanna comes out.

3 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

As Ran once revealed, the location of Lyanna's death in the app is based on a Stark family tree by George that included dates of birth and death and stuff.

2 hours ago, LynnS said:

The family tree.  Do you have a link for it?

But the family tree Ran cites about Lyanna at the tower of joy is like all the other family trees in the novels and appendices, right? It still shows Jon as Ned's son, right?

So, it shows what Ned told people about Lyanna's death, like what he told them about Jon.

So, maybe it's telling actual reality. Or maybe it's just saying what Ned told people--and, like other things Ned has told on this subject, it's a lie.

So--we really need the novels to confirm.

2 minutes ago, Ilissa said:

Of course it's about love. It has always been obvious.

How? Not trying to be difficult--I'm really curious.

GRRM establishes exactly who Dany's attracted to. It's not someone like Jon.

2 minutes ago, Ilissa said:

Read about bride of fire prophecy. And the show confirmed it. Now he will kill her, as Azor killed Nyssa.

I do think they are retrofitting Nissa Nissa into the story.

Though what Jon's supposed to do with it . . . not sure. I have theories, but they'd all be really crappy if true.

2 minutes ago, Ilissa said:

It is absolutely far-fetched argument.

But. . . how so if it's based on who Dany's attracted to? Martin's been showing us this from the beginning. And being consistent throughout the novels.

Why bother with all of that?

9 minutes ago, Ilissa said:

No.

“When we were shooting Season 1 and no one had seen the show yet, we were in Malta. Back then, there was not a lot of secrecy because nobody was paying attention, and George R.R. Martin came to visit and he was being quite open about his plans,” Taylor told the New York Times.

“He said something: That it really is all about Dany and Jon. I was surprised because at the time, you know, I thought, well Robb Stark’s going to be king next, probably,” he continued. “And who knows where this story’s going? But it was absolutely clear to him that within this sprawling scale the whole story was coming down to this partnership.”

Right--but that doesn't mean Dany and Jon are romantic and like this.

Dany and Jon in the books are attracted to VERY different people: Dany likes violent sociiopaths who kill and conquer. Jon's really not that guy.

And the story can be about the two of them without a lot of the stuff the show had them do.

Rather like Book Sansa can go save the North with the Vale without becoming Jeyne Poole.

4 minutes ago, TNTW said:

I'm ma d we never found out what Varys heard in the flames. That's irritating.

There's still an hour and 20 minutes next time.

Fingers crossed the true mysteries are solved!

11 minutes ago, Bran Snow said:

I want Jon to have pretty, pretty babies with Val from the books.

Well--given that the show melded Val with Dany and Jon with fAegon, seems at least possible that Jon and Val will have sex.

I do think he will reject her, though--he's breaking what we hear about the Night's King from Nan, making different choices.

But she may reject him first when he reanimates.

22 minutes ago, Ilissa said:

Absolutely disagree. If you execute enemies who did not agree to surrender, this does not mean that you will destroy the city that surrender.

Of course not--I completely agree with this.

My point was just that we've been shown that Dany's capable of monstrous things.

This was much worse--and not inevitable.

But it had at least some set up.

1 minute ago, Adam_Up_Bxtch said:

Now for the whole Daenerys debacle.....I always thought this is how she would end....in the books. I didn't think the show was gonna do it but when the "previous" came on and it showed Dany and they had the voice over of people talking about how she isn't like her father I knew it was happening but a little part of me still thought they wouldn't......then they did it and she started burning everyone. I gotta say it was definitely Tywin's sack of King's Landing 2.0 

In the books it's clear.

In the show, I've been afraid they'd have Dany and Jon have pretty, pretty babies and lots of dragons and wolves.

Very grateful they didn't do that.

Just now, Danelle said:

So it was her the things i do for love momemt? Robert B also craved love. 

That might be more layered that D&D generally do--but might be an interesting parallel.

But Dany's needy--for her dragons and for her lovers.

4 minutes ago, Sonoftheharpie said:

Methinks Arya just updated her list.

Very good point--wondering if Bran sent the horse for that reason.

Though if Bran really is all seeing, why in the name of all that's holy didn't he warn Jon before this???

Makes me think book-Bran is not comign back to Winterfell.

Bringing him back has been ridiculous--he's an incredibly unreliable data file. And that's about it.

1 minute ago, DebL66 said:

I feel like Dany’s arc has been consistent.  She has made plenty of bad decisions, became increasingly full of herself, and is really nothing without her dragons.  

2 minutes ago, of man and wolf said:

Yup anyone who thinks that isnt Dany....well you haven't been paying attention. That's mostly just show noobs I hope.

Yup--it's clearer in the books. But we've see this for a while--from her consent to Viserys' death and MMD onward.

1 minute ago, of man and wolf said:

westeros doent love her....so she is saying fuck it.

Exactly. The Dothraki loved her--so she fought for them. Then killed in Vaes Dothrak when they stopped loving her.

Dany, like Viserys, is desperate to be loved.

And like Viserys, will commit atrocities to get it.

3 minutes ago, FeastForCrows said:

This episode moved me, Lena Headey was the star.  

Lena Headey is always a star--not quite to the level of Olenna.

But yes--even I felt sorry for her at the end. Not enough to wish her well, but to mourn what could have been.

Lena's really, really good.

1 minute ago, 420faceless said:

Her previous solutions came when she burned everything

Yup.

It makes her feel powerful and thus "better"--it's clearer in the books, but still: they've shown how much Dany likes power. She's been choosing between them for a while.

Here's the final choice--a long time coming.

Just now, DebL66 said:

He isn’t.  And what is the whole point of Jon’s secret parentage if he doesn’t sit the throne?  I can’t imagine he does, though.  He has the better claim and let Dany guilt him into not revealing it.  Pathetic.

Yup--

Yet another reason I fear D&D will pull a crappy switch of Jon's parentage.

Oy.

1 minute ago, Christi84 said:

Right?! And her dad is Jon’s grandad. Wouldn’t he go crazy too possibly? But let’s ignore that

I'm worried more and more that they are going to pull a switcheroo with Jon's parentage right at the end.

Which would be really cheap and crappy.

1 minute ago, Ilissa said:

And what's the point in the Dany's story? Genes it is destiny? If your father is a mad king, then you will become a mad queen?

They did this a LOT better in the books. Showed from the first that she had a choice between "Home" and the dragon.

And that the dragon meant power and the world in ashes.

Here--they rushed it.

But they did show her monstrous side last season with the field of fire and the Tarlys' execution.

Dany's not innately a monster--but she's made some monstrous choices.

On June 5, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Ran said:

Back in May 2008, we (that's Linda and I, and George's editor Anne Groell) received from George's assistant family tree files concerning the Targaryens and Starks, for use in the course of working on the world book (remember, at the time the world book contained a Who's Who, which was the basis for the app). Some of the details in those trees changed once George worked on the World of Ice and Fire (the Stark tree expanded, mainly, and the Targaryen tree got some substantial changes as he sorted out things like the Dance of the Dragons). The program used contains stuff like date of death, location of death, etc.

In the case of Lyanna Stark, she's on that Stark tree, and there her death location is given as the tower of joy.

Again, things are always mutable until directly published in the books (and sometimes even after that point, depending). But in mid-2008, that's what George had in place.

Ran--

A quick question re: this post to @WeaselPie for clarification. I'm not sure if this is a question that's appropriate for me to ask. If I'm out of line, just tell me. 

On the Stark tree in the files you all received, by any chance do you remember if was Jon still listed as Ned's bastard son? In other words, was the family tree similar to the ones published in the back of the novels? IE: since you received it in 2008, did it still list Bran and Rickon as "believed dead" like it does In Dance?

Thanks!