Ned's ToJ Dream: More Than We Thought?

[Tolquius]

No not a fact, an analytical conclusion (and a good one)

The fact that one individual doesn't "buy" the hints that led to the conclusion does not invalidate it.

So, because they there is a conclusion, it is true?

So, I say that Brienne is the Prince Who Was Promised. I say that Maggy the Frog has ties with House Dorne because Quentyn is also nicknamed Frog. I say that Grey Wind is alive. The fact that you can draw a conclusion from similarities does not prove anything.

And just to add something: Maggy is not a wood's witch, since she came from Essos. I do believe that she is the grandmother of House Westerling, because it is said that House Spicer was broke until he married to a maegi from Essos and brought her to the West, and then their daughter married to the present Lord Westerling. But I don't remember if it is explicited, and it can be a coincidence and two different maegi, since I can't see Maggy as a noblewoman. But regardless, there is at least one factual flaw in the OP argument.

[Roddy the Ruin]

I think we all know Ser Arthur is alive :commie:

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

So, because they there is a conclusion, it is true?

So, I say that Brienne is the Prince Who Was Promised. I say that Maggy the Frog has ties with House Dorne because Quentyn is also nicknamed Frog. I say that Grey Wind is alive. The fact that you can draw a conclusion from similarities does not prove anything.

And just to add something: Maggy is not a wood's witch, since she came from Essos. I do believe that she is the grandmother of House Westerling, because it is said that House Spicer was broke until he married to a maegi from Essos and brought her to the West, and then their daughter married to the present Lord Westerling. But I don't remember if it is explicited, and it can be a coincidence and two different maegi, since I can't see Maggy as a noblewoman. But regardless, there is at least one factual flaw in the OP argument.

Nope, there is a conclusion because there is an analysis. You can say whatever the heck you want, but it isn't a conclusion unless you provide an analysis to back it up. Show me a careful analysis to that twins Maggy and Quentyn and I'll consider your conclusion. Btw, I happen to believe that Grey Wind may indeed be alive, not because some troll said so, but because of... textual analysis ;)

Like JS said in the OP-- Maggy is called a woods witch in the text, which is what originally led to his analysis. I'm pretty sure he understands the actual difference between a maegi and a Westerosi woods witch.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

To follow up on comparing dreams in general, in response to another thread I reread Jaime's dream when he is on the weirstump and was struck by certain similarities with dreams Jon has. Both go down to the 'depths' of the citadel they came from, both meet members of the Lannister/Stark dynasty respectively there (Tywin, Cersei, The Kings of Winter). What strikes me most however is the comparisons between these two lines;

I don't know if this link could also be seen as significant - but it does raise the possibility that GRRM has purposefully twinned dreams together before.

That's actually very interesting. It would be nice to see if there's another LH connection there in analysis. Good catch!

[Tolquius]

Like JS said in the OP-- Maggy is called a woods witch in the text, which is what originally led to his analysis. I'm pretty sure he understands the actual difference between a maegi and a Westerosi woods witch.

(I'll answer the rest later)

Well, Maggy is also called a maegi in the text, so what? I'm pretty sure that she is only called wood's witch to create realism: child Cersei would not know what a maegi is. And she had to be called something, because why would Cersei go to her tent? And "Maggy the Frog, the person who can foretell your future for a reasonable price of a drop of blood, and can perform some other kinds of sorcery, but it is not a wood's witch as we know" is too long. Cersei had all the reasons to believe that she was a wood's witch, and so GRRM put in the text, since we are inside Cersei's mind.

And well, about changing the text. I do believe, for example, that Sansa was supposed to kiss the Hound and he changed that. 10 years later, he thought that Sansa kissed him, and put that in the text. When asked how that happened, he created the [lame] excuse of Sansa not being a reliable narrator. It works, but it shows that GRRM is not mistake-free, at least for me.

[briantw]

Not exactly. GRRM has likened his process to driving from the east coast of the US to the west coast. You know your destination, and the route you will take, you just don't know all of the events that will happen along the way. That said, how do you explain foreshadowing of future events in future books if he does not have the story mapped out in advance?

The simple answer to that is that he had certain events mapped out in advance, but allowed others to flow as part of the story.

I think that's an idea that anyone who has ever written creatively can understand. Typically, when you develop a story, particularly one that is going to contain multiple volumes, you start out with a beginning, an ending, and your principle characters, and then you go from there to come up with the key events that get those characters from your beginning to your ending. After that, you fill in the blanks between the major events.

So Martin could easily have plotted out many of the major events in the series (which allows for foreshadowing via dreams and prophesies, as only major events are likely to be important enough to prophesize) and then filled in the rest as he wrote each individual book.

And we do know for a fact that he doesn't, or didn't, have the entire series plotted out, as he ran into a severe case of writer's block when he decided to forego the five-year gap between the third and fourth novel and instead wrote out the events in real time.

[WeaselPie]

Is Cersei's dream a prophecy or a memory?

Is Ned's dream a memory of the prophecy, and not the actual events?

Cersei seems to include a vision of herself in the dream... 3 girls in brown cloaks... while Ned's 3 figures in cloaks are obviously not himself.

There seems a detachment/disassociation to Cersei's dream, as if she is watching from outside the events and actually seeing herself in the dream. But it seems she has had the dream from after the events.. not before. However, the yellow eyes, other than being the color of Maggy's eyes, are the color of, significantly, Nymeria, the direwolf of the girl assassin who has Cersei on her hit list.

Both dreams may be a combination of actual events as well as prophecies.

[Ser Lady Stark Martell]

Oh my God, I love this forum. I never would have thought of that. It makes so much sense, it's brilliant.

[The Mother of The Others]

We need to find and arraign this woods witch, who seems to have singlehandedly steered the world into ruin.

Writer's embellishment:

When her mask is pulled off, will an ancient matronly child of the forest be revealed, who is currently masquerading as Quaithe?

(then overheard to say, "You darn kids and your meddling!" )

[Ser Not Appearing]

... aaaand boom goes the dynamite!

Well done to find these similarities. It's definitely intentional. An author could certainly lift his own styling because it worked well before... but I'd have to agree that this strikes me as more than that.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

The simple answer to that is that he had certain events mapped out in advance, but allowed others to flow as part of the story.

I think that's an idea that anyone who has ever written creatively can understand. Typically, when you develop a story, particularly one that is going to contain multiple volumes, you start out with a beginning, an ending, and your principle characters, and then you go from there to come up with the key events that get those characters from your beginning to your ending. After that, you fill in the blanks between the major events.

So Martin could easily have plotted out many of the major events in the series (which allows for foreshadowing via dreams and prophesies, as only major events are likely to be important enough to prophesize) and then filled in the rest as he wrote each individual book.

And we do know for a fact that he doesn't, or didn't, have the entire series plotted out, as he ran into a severe case of writer's block when he decided to forego the five-year gap between the third and fourth novel and instead wrote out the events in real time.

You're right... I was replying from the perspective of a writer to a poster who seemed to think that GRRM just started "driving" with no knowledge other than the name of the street he started on. My point was that he did have things plotted out: he has likened what happened with the five year gap to a detour. Which is quite different from someone saying that he didn't know his destination.

Most of us know that GRRM uses the device of the in-story parallel with great frequency. Each time we find new examples of this proves what a rich text and talented author we are dealing we are dealing with.

[Ygrain]

So, because they there is a conclusion, it is true?

So, I say that Brienne is the Prince Who Was Promised. I say that Maggy the Frog has ties with House Dorne because Quentyn is also nicknamed Frog. I say that Grey Wind is alive. The fact that you can draw a conclusion from similarities does not prove anything.

And just to add something: Maggy is not a wood's witch, since she came from Essos. I do believe that she is the grandmother of House Westerling, because it is said that House Spicer was broke until he married to a maegi from Essos and brought her to the West, and then their daughter married to the present Lord Westerling. But I don't remember if it is explicited, and it can be a coincidence and two different maegi, since I can't see Maggy as a noblewoman. But regardless, there is at least one factual flaw in the OP argument.

One thing that you fail to perceive: the dreams are not "normal" writing. The whole ToJ sequence is ladden with meanings, veiled under sparse, condensed words. The writing process which produces this is very different from normal narrative; it takes a lot of polishing and deliberation, and becomes very memorable for the author. If he uses its elements again, it definitely points at a similarity beyond mere dream-dream.

And what Lady G says is true: you cannot write a good story without knowing where you are heading and outlining major stops on your way.

[Tolquius]

The simple answer to that is that he had certain events mapped out in advance, but allowed others to flow as part of the story.

I think that's an idea that anyone who has ever written creatively can understand. Typically, when you develop a story, particularly one that is going to contain multiple volumes, you start out with a beginning, an ending, and your principle characters, and then you go from there to come up with the key events that get those characters from your beginning to your ending. After that, you fill in the blanks between the major events.

So Martin could easily have plotted out many of the major events in the series (which allows for foreshadowing via dreams and prophesies, as only major events are likely to be important enough to prophesize) and then filled in the rest as he wrote each individual book.

And we do know for a fact that he doesn't, or didn't, have the entire series plotted out, as he ran into a severe case of writer's block when he decided to forego the five-year gap between the third and fourth novel and instead wrote out the events in real time.

This is very well written, thanks!

I would also add that the plot probably changes because the author changes, especially in a long novel like that. Unless he leads the most boring life ever, he is not the same person who started to write the book, and some of his past ideas became incompatible with him. It is impossible to have all the details of the plot in your mind and follow them through when you are writing the same thing for 20 years.

One example that I can cite is Douglas Adams. In his Salmon of Doubt, he even says that with different words.

You're right... I was replying from the perspective of a writer to a poster who seemed to think that GRRM just started "driving" with no knowledge other than the name of the street he started on. My point was that he did have things plotted out: he has likened what happened with the five year gap to a detour. Which is quite different from someone saying that he didn't know his destination.

Most of us know that GRRM uses the device of the in-story parallel with great frequency. Each time we find new examples of this proves what a rich text and talented author we are dealing we are dealing with.

Yes. Thankfully I've never said he did not know his destination.

Can you give me examples where similar structures were used before to foreshadow something?

One thing that you fail to perceive: the dreams are not "normal" writing. The whole ToJ sequence is ladden with meanings, veiled under sparse, condensed words. The writing process which produces this is very different from normal narrative; it takes a lot of polishing and deliberation, and becomes very memorable for the author. If he uses its elements again, it definitely points at a similarity beyond mere dream-dream.

And what Lady G says is true: you cannot write a good story without knowing where you are heading and outlining major stops on your way.

First: yes, he knows where he is heading and knows some major events. My canvas metaphor was so confusing like that?

What I've said is that, after the third book, he had much more liberty to create new events and to flow with the story, since the first three books are more tied and the third books deals a lot of solving problems of the last two, where the fourth and fifth books creates new problems and events. With some changes and less cliffhangers, the story could easily be about the War of the Five Kings and be told in the first three books (maybe four, one to tell Stannis' defeat), and that is why they are more tied. Now, the fourth book (I'll consider aFfC and aDwD just one book, since that was his intention originally) prepared the ground for more things, and that is why, when I've read them, I got the impression that they were a little different than their predecessors, and less tied to them. The story seems more fresh, let's say that way.

Now, "the whole ToJ is ladden with meanings"... It could be, or could be not and the only important thing is the promise that Ned had made. We don't know for sure. When we are looking for something, probably we will find something, but that something can be anything. I believe, for example, that the OP believed that Jon was the Prince Who Was Promised before he made this theory, so his opinion was biased and he's seen what he would like to see. This is called confirmation bias, and it is a big common thing in Psychology, and that is what I'm seeing happening here.

Besides all that, in criminalistics, I've learned to look at the big picture first, since only the details will not build the big picture. And this theory alone does not make Jon The Prince Who Was Promised, since it is detail within detail that very well be coincidences.

[Ygrain]

Now, "the whole ToJ is ladden with meanings"... It could be, or could be not and the only important thing is the promise that Ned had made. We don't know for sure. When we are looking for something, probably we will find something, but that something can be anything. I believe, for example, that the OP believed that Jon was the Prince Who Was Promised before he made this theory, so his opinion was biased and he's seen what he would like to see. This is called confirmation bias, and it is a big common thing in Psychology, and that is what I'm seeing happening here.

You seriously do not see how the writing of ToJ differs from the rest of the series?

[Tolquius]

You seriously do not see how the writing of ToJ differs from the rest of the series?

It was the first book. There was no series back then.

Now, do you agree that this theory can be a case of confirmation bias? I think that the author believes that Jon is The Prince Who Was Promised even without the theory (can you tell me, OP?).

[J. Stargaryen]

It was the first book. There was no series then.

Now, do you agree that this theory can be a case of confirmation bias? I think that the author believes that Jon is The Prince Who Was Promised even without the theory (can you tell me, OP?).

There was always a series. It was initially planned as trilogy.

I think Jon and Dany are the candidates for tPtwP.

I didn't post the OP so we could test the limits of your stubbornness. You've already said that you think the whole thing is a coincidence, so I'm not sure what else you have to contribute, other than further derailing the thread.

---

As the OP, I would prefer the discussion remained on topic. I think the 'coincidence or not' argument has been well hashed out over these pages. Frankly, if someone isn't convinced by now, I doubt they can be.

Not that I want to sound ungrateful for the supporting arguments. I am. I just think the argument has run its course. And not only that, but I think it has stalled the discussion that this thread was meant to generate.

[Caesar beyond the wall]

It was the first book. There was no series back then.

Now, do you agree that this theory can be a case of confirmation bias? I think that the author believes that Jon is The Prince Who Was Promised even without the theory (can you tell me, OP?).

I think the author probably suspects that Jon is one of the likely candidates to be tptwp and has found evidence pointing towards that. That isn't confirmation bias, that's the standard hypothesis - test - result pattern that drives deduction.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

There was always a series. It was initially planned as trilogy.

[...]

I just think the argument has run its course. And not only that, but I think it has stalled the discussion that this thread was meant to generate.

:agree: and was just typing a post saying exactly this.

Back to discussion of the analysis-- I think that according to the OP, the author is using the second dream to remind the reader of the first dream and give us a hint to its meaning? That's subtly different from saying the two dreams have similar meanings in story. This is the type of nudge or parallel we are accustomed to finding around those things that remain unexplained in the text. I'm interested in how this device may have been used elsewhere, especially since we seem to have the next link in the chain begun with the quote that links Cersei's dream to the LH, which brings Jaime and Bran into the analysis. Add Caesar beyond the Wall's interesting observation about Jaime's and Jon's subterranean dreams and I wonder if there isn't a trail of breadcrumbs that could be followed a bit further.

[Tolquius]

I think the author probably suspects that Jon is one of the likely candidates to be tptwp and has found evidence pointing towards that. That isn't confirmation bias, that's the standard hypothesis - test - result pattern that drives deduction.

My point is that he and we could not know that the ToJ dream would be different or similar to other dreams because there weren't any books yet, and he could not have planned 10 years in advance. So, Cersei's dream can stand out, but he could have done anything to ToJ dream and it could or could not fall into the style of the series depending on how he would write the next books.

[Caesar beyond the wall]

My point is that he and we could not know that the ToJ dream would be different or similar to other dreams because there weren't any books yet, and he could not have planned 10 years in advance. So, Cersei's dream can stand out, but he could have done anything to ToJ dream and it could or could not fall into the style of the series depending on how he would write the next books.

I disagree, but please see the post from J. Stargaryen just above.