Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lehutin

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The "broken promises" in Eddard XV may be mundane and have nothing to do with Jon. They could simply be referring to a broken promise from Littlefinger: or promises Ned made to Barra's mother and now couldn't keep:
  2. No, that wasn't my argument (that I already said I would agree to disagree with you, but whatever). My argument was that if you wanted to claim that the loyalist Kingsguard had absconded with Lyanna's newborn child and were about to sacrifice the child and "speed was of the essence," then Ned "For a start, I do not kill children" Stark wouldn't be wasting any time with roundabout speeches. Remember, you claimed that Ned being in a rush was why he didn't speak to his sister at Starfall first. If he's in that much of a hurry, why is he beating around the bush? But if there is no knowledge on Ned's part about an imminent child sacrifice, then while Ned may still be anxious to rescue his sister, he's not so anxious that he can't even speak to a family member he's spent around a year looking for. He can try to more calmly negotiate for this family member's release. Like I said, if you don't see a distinction, fine. Agree to disagree. But that also means I don't agree with your claim that Ned would be equally straight-to-the-point under the "Lyanna is here, and that's all Ned knows" scenario. If you think there's no subtext, or no need for one, and it's as simple as "Ned was looking for them," then why was Ned's final statement, "I thought you might have sailed with [Darry]"? Ned has been looking for these guys all this time, and now that he finds them, he wants to know why they're not somewhere else? I concur with that subtext in the context of Ned's final statement about Dragonstone. If they know that Rhaegar, Aerys II, and presumably also Aegon are all dead, then doesn't their Kingsguard duty demand that they be with Viserys? Despite that, they all adamantly insist that staying there is what their Kingsguard duty demands. It is still a puzzle as to why they stood there. Your Jon-was-to-be-sacrificed explanation implies that Gerold Hightower, Oswell Whent, and Arthur Dayne weren't the Kingsguard. They were the Prince'sfanboysclubguard. Instead of going to defend King Viserys III Targaryen, they decided to obey Prince Rhaegar's final, insane order to sacrifice a child. If so, it really strains credulity that Ned "For a start, I do not kill children" would hold these three in the level of regard that he does. But I suppose we'll (hopefully) find out in TWOW.
  3. Agree to disagree then. He never explicitly asks them to surrender. But what was the point of stating that he has been looking for them? If they were at the Trident, they would've either died, surrendered, or (as their bravado claims) turned the tide and won the battle. If they were at King's Landing, they would've either died, surrendered, or (as their bravado claims) still be serving King Aerys II. If they were at Storm's End, they would've either surrendered or (as their bravado claims) still be serving the Kings of House Targaryen. And if they weren't going to surrender, so be it, but shouldn't they "have sailed with" Ser Willem Darry to Dragonstone? This last part stands out because at that point, Ned is no longer on-the-surface saying that he has just been "looking for them."
  4. Not really. If Ned is coming to rescue Lyanna and has no idea that she's given birth to a child OR that there's some imminent plot to sacrifice her child, then while he's obviously anxious to rescue his sister, it makes sense for him to try to handle the situation as calmly as possible: Rhaegar is dead. Surrender to me peacefully. Aerys II is dead. Surrender to me peacefully. The Houses Tyrell and Redwyne have abandoned you. Surrender to me peacefully. If you won't surrender to me, then shouldn't you be with Viserys right now? But if Ned is aware that the newborn child of his beloved sister is about to be sacrificed, why would he not just get straight to the point?
  5. If this is the case, it seems strange that in Ned's fever (but also old) dream, he spoke in such a roundabout way: "I looked for you on the Trident." "When King’s Landing fell,..." "I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege,..." "Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone,..." instead of just getting straight to the point:
  6. Why did the loyalist Kingsguard separate Jon from his mother? Upon learning that Lyanna was at Starfall, why would Ned proceed directly to the Tower of Joy instead of first speaking with his sister, whom he's spent close to a year looking for? Did Lyanna give birth to Jon and die at Starfall? Maybe, but it just seems like an unnecessary complication. Either there's double travel, or Ned bizarrely doesn't speak to his sister before recovering her child.
  7. I don't get this Lyanna-was-at-Starfall thing. From what I got out of page 23, Lyanna gave birth to Jon at Starfall, the loyalist Kingsguard took Jon to the Tower of Joy, Ned met and consoled a dying Lyanna at Starfall, Ned traveled to the Tower of Joy with his companions and killed the loyalist Kingsguard, Ned went back to Starfall to return Dawn. If so, it seems like an unnecessary complication to this: Lyanna gave birth to Jon at the Tower of Joy, Ned traveled to the Tower of Joy with his companions and killed the loyalist Kingsguard, Ned met and consoled a dying Lyanna, 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?
  8. Sorry, I don't understand your thought process here. What does your question have to do with Ned not listing Jon together with "Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon" when Cersei asks Ned, "you love your children, do you not?" In any case, Jaime attempted to murder Bran to prevent the possibility that Bran would reveal the Jaime/Cersei incest.
  9. lehutin


    Well, he did have a sister. Stannis bitterly complains in the ACOK Prologue that Robert blamed him for "letting Willem Darry steal away Viserys and the babe." Because Viserys and "the babe" left before Stannis arrived, the only way Stannis could have gotten that information is through the Dragonstone garrison, and they have no reason to lie to Stannis. So if we go with your Water Gardens story, then Doran Martell knowingly sent his eldest son on a "a long and perilous voyage, with an uncertain welcome at its end" to bring back not Fire and Blood, but...a random Dornish girl that he (Doran) himself gave away years ago.
  10. I don't think its "certain" that more careful readers will (independently) come to the R+L=J conclusion. If you don't ever check any fan community (online or offline), then independently reaching the conclusion is not trivial. You first need to recognize that Jon's Stark looks don't come from Ned. That's quite a challenge if you're thinking just by yourself. The books bombard you over and over with the idea that Jon has to be Ned's son because goshdarnit, Jon is Ned's spitting image; and no character in the books ever suspects or mentions otherwise. I just fundamentally disagree with any idea or insinuation that R+L=J is some sort of red herring for "more careful but not the most careful" readers. It gets us into really meta territory with thinking like The superficial reader won't pick up on the R+L=J clues and will reach the wrong conclusion (N+A=J, N+W=J, N+FD=J). The more careful reader will pick up on the R+L=J clues but will still reach the wrong conclusion (R+L=J). The most careful reader will pick up that R+L=J is a red herring and that actually, the "superficial" answer is the right one. Expectations subverted!
  11. lehutin


    I'd like to give @SFDanny a shout-out by linking this older thread: I am totally cool with the idea that the secret marriage pact might not be the big Lemongate reveal, and that there are important parts of Dany's past that we have yet to learn. But if you actually assess the fDany theory point-by-point, it quickly becomes clear that most of the supposed problems aren't problems at all.
  12. lehutin


    If the author acknowledges something as tinfoil, I leave it alone. If the author acknowledges something as fanfic, I leave it alone. But if the author actually claims that the theory is serious and is "supported" by the text, and further claims that R+L=J is just a circlejerk with scant evidence to back it up, well...then the author foregoes the tinfoil/fanfic excuse.
  13. lehutin


    That is one of the worst theories in the fandom because unlike straight tinfoil, it pretends to be well-documented with book "evidence." But if you actually fact check the author's claims, you see that he's wrong about so many things, and if you discuss with him on reddit, he never, ever, ever admits to any of his countless mistakes. For example, he claims that "promise me, Ned" is strongly associated with Dany; and that Ned resigned as Hand to uphold the "promise" to protect his niece. But if you fact check that, you'll find out that The word "promise" does not occur anywhere in Eddard VIII, the chapter when Ned resigns as Hand. Ned never associates the "promise" with Dany. Most Ned chapters that mention "promise" don't mention Dany, and vice versa. The ones that mention both never put them in the same context. In Eddard XV, Ned's final chapter, Ned thinks of "broken promises" and has the opportunity to ask Varys about his "niece." He doesn't. Instead, he asks Varys about his daughters (unsurprisingly), doesn't think of Dany or the "Targaryen girl/princess" at all, and painfully rues that he can't speak to...Jon. tl;dr His "evidence" for this point is all quotes taken grossly out-of-context. I actually tried to read the theory with an open mind and stopped after I found out that he was arguing that there are two Willem Darry's: The real one that Viserys knew and who signed the secret marriage pact with Oberyn Martell, witnessed by the Sealord of Braavos. The fake one that Dany remembers. Conveniently, both are dead!!! Look, if you find the theory plausible, that's your right, but for the record, R+L=J does not require even 1% of the level of tinfoil and headcanon that author routinely abuses.
  14. IMO, I don't believe any reasonable person would say this. There aren't any substantive objections to R+L=J. They're basically all "meta" in nature: It's too obvious! It's too tropey! It doesn't explain what happened to Ashara! Excluding confirmation outside the books, R+L=J is the simplest, most straightforward theory of Jon's parentage. Unlike the truly crackpot theories, R+L=J does not require a secret marriage that has no textual support (N+A=J, B+A=J) a baby swap that has no purpose except to ferry a character from Westeros to Essos (Greenhand N+A=J) brother-sister incest that has no textual support (N+L=J, B+L=J) a minor background character having multiple identities, as in Ashara Dayne is Wylla, the Fisherman's Daughter, and Septa Lemore bad random parents soap opera writing (Arthur+L=J) etc. the list sadly goes on.
  15. I think you missed the context to @SFDanny's answer. They're taking as given @Megorova's argument that Jon "was conceived during the time period Lord Godric tells Davos of," and then asking why Ned would lie about that if it were true. Your alternative parentage theory makes the same mistake as nearly every other alternative parentage theory, which is whenever a character has a simple, straightforward, and safe option versus a complex, convoluted, and risky option; your theory has the character choosing the latter, every single time.
  • Create New...