Jump to content

R + L = J v 70


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Are there any hints given that Rhaegar might have loved Lyanna? I know Dany says it, but she wasn't born when it all happened, so she must have heard it from Viserys, who was only a little boy at the time and who wouldn't have known precisely either. Barristan also says something along the line of "Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna", but would Barristan actually know, giving that Rhaegar wasn't in KL for the most time of the war, or would he just conclude it, knowing Rhaegar's character (in which case, he might be wrong about it).

I am sure this has been discussed before in one of the many versions of this thread :) but I was just wondering about it and thought I´d ask it here, where the subject is so heavily discussed.

I was wondering about this, in order to make some small conclusions about whether or not Rhaegar actually loved Lyanna, or if he used her to fullfill his prophecy.

Aegon would still be the elder of the two, so he wouldn't have to worry

Except if he is a Fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any hints given that Rhaegar might have loved Lyanna? I know Dany says it, but she wasn't born when it all happened, so she must have heard it from Viserys, who was only a little boy at the time and who wouldn't have known precisely either. Barristan also says something along the line of "Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna", but would Barristan actually know, giving that Rhaegar wasn't in KL for the most time of the war, or would he just conclude it, knowing Rhaegar's character (in which case, he might be wrong about it).

I am sure this has been discussed before in one of the many versions of this thread :) but I was just wondering about it and thought I´d ask it here, where the subject is so heavily discussed.

I was wondering about this, in order to make some small conclusions about whether or not Rhaegar actually loved Lyanna, or if he used her to fullfill his prophecy.

Rhaegar died with Lyanna's name on his lips (per GRRM).

And while Viserys was too young to know for real himself, it cannot be ruled out that he heard it from Rhaella and/or Willem Darry who might have known the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any hints given that Rhaegar might have loved Lyanna? I know Dany says it, but she wasn't born when it all happened, so she must have heard it from Viserys, who was only a little boy at the time and who wouldn't have known precisely either. Barristan also says something along the line of "Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna", but would Barristan actually know, giving that Rhaegar wasn't in KL for the most time of the war, or would he just conclude it, knowing Rhaegar's character (in which case, he might be wrong about it).

I am sure this has been discussed before in one of the many versions of this thread :) but I was just wondering about it and thought I´d ask it here, where the subject is so heavily discussed.

I was wondering about this, in order to make some small conclusions about whether or not Rhaegar actually loved Lyanna, or if he used her to fullfill his prophecy.

Aegon would still be the elder of the two, so he wouldn't have to worry

I don't think its so much a matter of hereditary displacement, but he might feel emotional displacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not every one believes that Jon is some sort of embodiment of Ice/Fire. That sounds ridiculous IMO, and is something I'd expect in a bad fantasy novel - just not in asoiaf. The Ice and fire dichotomy exist on plenty of different levels in the story; though I really don't think that either element can be embodied even symbolically by a single person.

Jon is human, as was Rhaegar, as was Lyanna. Rhaegar wasn't fire made flesh, nor was Lyanna Ice. But if Jon were to be anything in particular it wouldn't imo, be a mix of Ice/Fire, but rather plain old ice - his whole story arc so far has to do with the frozen Wall and the lands beyond, with the north and cold, and winter. The fire element is currently, imo, associated to Dany, Stannis/Melisandre, Thoros of Myr and UnCat; Victarion and Moqorro....all factions I hope Jon stays well away from - and honestly, I can't see that anyone would still believe that fire is a force of "good," considering the aforementioned.

Rhaegar turning out to be unimportant in Jon’s arc would be the (one of the) famous twist we all expect when we say that GRRM likes to subvert fantasy tropes.

Never talked of one single person embodying anything nor of fire being a purely cathartic force, so I can't fathom who and what you are adressing or which post you are replying to. I'm one of those posters who doesn't like to risk hazardous guesses about story development nor claim ownership of GRRM's story and intentions. His story will go where he will, thanks the gods! And I'm there for the ride. WHATEVER he chooses and WHEREVER he decides to take us. I was merely talking from a textual analysis point of view and referring to the symbolisms/imageries alluding to ice and fire filling Jon's chapters and relating to his persona (a 70 threads long search). And while Rhaegar wasn't fire made flesh nor Lyanna ice, Baelor Breakspear wasn't a dragon in human form nor Tyrion a lion embodied. It's just that narrative likes to resort to nice little devices called figures of speech.

As for GRRM's supposed 'subversive' writing I'm afraid is all in our ignorance. Every story has already been told and every subversion/twist has already been written starting with myth and Greek tragedy/comedy up to Faulkner's conflicting heart. But there is always a personal way of singing an old 'song'.

Last but not least, character building is there for a reason. Otherwise we are not dealing with 'subversion' but with poor narrative (NOT Martin's case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might be true, but either way, the blue rose has little if anything to do with Rhaegar, even in the way you understand it. It's just that generally speaking saying that the symbolism of the blue rose is negated if Jon is not the son of Rhaegar doesn't make much sense, since as you've stated Bael gave Winterfell a son and heir through the female line. Bael himself is almost incidental here, however. He's the "sire", but IMO, he could have been anyone else, and his identity is not really important. The blue rose doesn’t say that R+L = J. All it says is that Lyanna is Jon’s mother - in the same way that Maege Mormont is Dacey's mother.

The blue rose symbolism + the story of Bael the bard rather makes me think that Jon is bastard born and not a true born Targaryen.

I'm not really sure I understand your point. I mean, it's true that Rhaegar and Bael lack the automatic connection to winter roses that Stark girls have, but it's not true that the flower "doesn't say R+L=J." Let's not forget the famous Harrenhal tourney, where Rhaegar crowned Lyanna as the QoLaB.

Ned remembered the moment when all the smiles died, when Prince Rhaegar Targaryen urged his horse past his own wife, the Dornish princess Elia Martell, to lay the queen of beauty’s laurel in Lyanna’s lap. He could see it still: a crown of winter roses, blue as frost.

- AGoT, Eddard XV

Aside from the literal act, the symbolic nature of this gesture has R+L=J as we know it written all over it. Rhaegar leaves his wife behind for Lyanna. He then places the Jon metaphor in the general vicinity of where babies come from. Now, In case you're not convinced, well, GRRM's word choice here is telling, I think: "blue as frost." Ahem, snow. And of course the "Jon metaphor" idea is supported by Dany's vision of a blue flower growing from a wall of ice in the HotU.

At the risk of being heavy handed, GRRM then gives us a: Promise me, Ned from Lyanna. After Ned grasps the flowery crown – Jon. It might even be that GRRM means for us to interpret the grasping as Ned holding baby Jon. Though it doesn't have to be that direct.

Ned Stark reached out his hand to grasp the flowery crown, but beneath the pale blue petals the thorns lay hidden. He felt them clawing at his skin, sharp and cruel, saw the slow trickle of blood run down his fingers, and woke, trembling, in the dark.

Promise me, Ned, his sister had whispered from her bed of blood. She had loved the scent of winter roses.

Regarding Bael and bastardy, I'm not sure I'd conclude that Jon is more likely to be one based on the story. After all, he stole the Stark girl, which would, or at least could, mean that he married her according to his culture and customs. Which draws an interesting parallel with Rhaegar taking Lyanna as a second wife. In both cases, the couples could have been married according to the man's traditions. Traditions which were not practiced by Starks as far as we know.

Also, looking at the first excerpt again. The item in question is a "crown" which could well symbolize royalty. But in reality, royal bastards don't get crowns, so I think this points to Jon being trueborn. (Rhaegar never had the power to legitimize Jon, but he did have the power to make him a trueborn prince, so only the latter works here.) Further, the literal act of crowning Lyanna was a way of honoring her. The use of the word "laurel" tells us this. And since you cannot honor a highborn lady by putting a bastard in her belly, the quoted passage once again seems to indicate that Jon is trueborn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I see people calling Jon a mixture of Ice and Fire, I don't jump to the conclusion that the Ice comes from the Others and the Fire comes from R'hllor.



Starks are descibed as having an icy/cold look on their faces sometimes, but that doesn't make me think that kind of Ice is the same as Others' Ice, nor do I see the Targaryens as some kind of offspring of R'hllor just because they are associated with fire-breathing dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not every one believes that Jon is some sort of embodiment of Ice/Fire. That sounds ridiculous IMO, and is something I'd expect in a bad fantasy novel - just not in asoiaf. The Ice and fire dichotomy exist on plenty of different levels in the story; though I really don't think that either element can be embodied even symbolically by a single person.

Jon is human, as was Rhaegar, as was Lyanna. Rhaegar wasn't fire made flesh, nor was Lyanna Ice. But if Jon were to be anything in particular it wouldn't imo, be a mix of Ice/Fire, but rather plain old ice - his whole story arc so far has to do with the frozen Wall and the lands beyond, with the north and cold, and winter. The fire element is currently, imo, associated to Dany, Stannis/Melisandre, Thoros of Myr and UnCat; Victarion and Moqorro....all factions I hope Jon stays well away from - and honestly, I can't see that anyone would still believe that fire is a force of "good," considering the aforementioned.

Rhaegar turning out to be unimportant in Jons arc would be the (one of the) famous twist we all expect when we say that GRRM likes to subvert fantasy tropes.

Are you forgetting one thing? I believe that Jon's arc is about balancing two conflicting forces; the icy and fiery aspects of his personality. He is "icy" in that his demeanour can be very cold and harsh to outsiders, but the fiery drive to rule and improve is there. And like Aegon the Conqueror he prefers solitude over being in a big crowd, and his aura reminds me of Rhaegar.

So in that aspect I think Jon will be a combination of the old Kings of Winter and the Targaryen dynasty; cold, yet passionate, harsh and kind, and both preserving and consuming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to why you say this. One could argue that if Jon is a son of Winterfell and all that it entails (Northern concerns, Long Night, etc.), and that this is firmly based on his upbringing through Ned and the belief that he's Ned's son (and not Lyanna's) at Winterfell, his biological parentage becomes irrelevant.

Because the parallels between the Bael story and what happened to Lyanna are far too close to ignore: we have the exchange of a blue rose left on the daughter's pillow and Rhaegar giving Lyanna a crown or circlet of blue roses. Both Lyanna and the other Lord Stark's daughter then disappear for a year despite all the efforts to find her; then finally she is discovered with a babe.

Despite his bastardy the babe then grows up to be Lord of Winterfell, and not as Bael's son, King-beyond-the Wall.

Ygritte tells Jon the story means that he has Bael's blood and is therefore one of them, a Wildling, and in the same way although Jon will will have Targaryen blood he will be his mother's son not his father's.

The only question that remains is whether the Targaryen blood will be forgotten, or whether like Bael's son Jon will be fated to slay, if not his father then the last Targaryen.

ETA: spelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only question that remains is whether the Targaryen blood will be forgotten, or whether like Bael's son Jon will be fated to slay, if not his father then the last Targaryen.

ETA: spelling

Or like Bael's son, he'll defeat the enemy beyond the Wall.

But I wouldn't take the Bael analogy too far, unless you think Jon is destined to be flayed by a Bolton.

Although that would be kind of bittersweet. He'd go from thinking he's a bastard, to Prince who was Promised, to Reek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ But BC, in the quote you reference Ygritte was saying that Bael's blood was significant. To her it makes Jon "one of them, a Wildling." How can you turn around and discount the possible significance of Targaryen blood? Sure Jon may be fated to unknowingly be a kinslayer as Bael's son was, but doesn't that make the father's blood highly significant?



And of course the further implication of Ygritte's statement imo is that Jon may be the perfect synthesis of wildling king, KitN and IT. In other words, exactly what Westeros (all of it, including the part beyond the Wall) needs at this point.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ But BC, in the quote you reference Ygritte was saying that Bael's blood was significant. To her it makes Jon "one of them, a Wildling." How can you turn around and discount the possible significance of Targaryen blood? Sure Jon may be fated to unknowingly be a kinslayer as Bael's son was, but doesn't that make the father's blood highly significant?

And of course the further implication of Ygritte's statement imo is that Jon may be the perfect synthesis of wildling king, KitN and IT. In other words, exactly what Westeros (all of it, including the part beyond the Wall) needs at this point.

The union of Ice and Fire sounds splendid, but how is it actually to work?

It seems to me that the expected outcome of R+L=J is that Jon will be identified as the heir to the Targaryen (Fire) Throne and that while as part Stark he might rally the North behind that throne as never before the ultimate aim is not a synthesis of Ice and Fire but the defeat of Ice in the form of the Others. In short it assumes Jon's destiny is to lead Fire (Targaryen blood and of course at least one dragon) in a victory over Ice. There is no balance in this outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Personally I asserted that Jon could be seen as the symbolic heir to three separate traditions. I actually said nothing about ice and fire and balance.



The word I used was synthesis which does not imply balance. It implies one of two things:



1. The combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole


or


2. In chemistry: the formation of a compound from simpler compounds or elements



Nothing there about balance, dichotomies or Ice or Fire...



Of course there is a third meaning:


3. In philosophy: the combination of thesis and antithesis in the Hegelian dialectical process whereby a new and higher level of truth is produced



In that case I suppose you could argue there is an implied dichotomy. But it seems to me that the result of something new and previously unknown might be just the solution needed when faced with a new and previously unknown threat.



For the record, I did not say that the "expected outcome" was for Jon to sit on the IT or be a Targaryen King. I said that Jon's particular combination of heritage makes him perfectly suited to lead Westeros (all of it, including the part beyond the Wall) in the coming conflict with the true enemy, which I assume to be the one coming from the far North.



Now I know you disagree with me on that part, but please spare me your other pre-conceived notions about what people here think is the "expected outcome"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon's particular combination of heritage makes him perfectly suited to lead Westeros (all of it, including the part beyond the Wall) in the coming conflict with the true enemy, which I assume to be the one coming from the far North.

Hear! Hear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said that Jon's particular combination of heritage makes him perfectly suited to lead Westeros (all of it, including the part beyond the Wall) in the coming conflict with the true enemy, which I assume to be the one coming from the far North.

This is worth some thought. If Jon really is from Rhaegar and Lyanna, what is it about this "heritage" that makes him suited to lead Westeros?

Some possibilities:

1. His upbringing. That seems unlikely because neither of his parents had anything to do with his upbringing. He was brought up by Ned. So you get the Stark side of his heritage (although Ned and Lyanna did not have the same upbringing since Ned was fostered in the Vale) but not the Targaryen side.

2. People who will want to follow him because of who his parents were.

There so seem to be people in the North who want to follow him because he is half-Stark. And the wildlings at least seem to respect the Stark family, although you could argue that they probably would respect any Lord Commander of the Night's Watch who did the things Jon did. It doesn't seem that there are many people from the South who would want to follow Jon for that reason, thought, especially after Ned Stark died a traitor's death.

Are there people from the South who will want to follow him if his real father was Rhaegar? Maybe, but there are a number of obstacles: (1) families that have reason to fear the return of the Targaryes (Stannis, Riverlords, Vale Lords, Lannisters),(2) Aegon (is, or is believed to be, the older son of Rhaegar), (3) Daenerys (undeniably a Targaryen, and a dragon-rider), and (4) proving that Rhaegar was really Jon's father (no matter what evidence he has, some people will claim he is fake).

3. Magic blood.

He definitely seems to have magic blood from the Stark side. Is the theory that he has magic blood from Rhaegar that will let him be a dragon-rider? Or that the combination of Stark magic blood and Targaryen magic blood is what is needed to defeat the Others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never talked of one single person embodying anything nor of fire being a purely cathartic force, so I can't fathom who and what you are adressing or which post you are replying to. I'm one of those posters who doesn't like to risk hazardous guesses about story development nor claim ownership of GRRM's story and intentions. His story will go where he will, thanks the gods! And I'm there for the ride. WHATEVER he chooses and WHEREVER he decides to take us. I was merely talking from a textual analysis point of view and referring to the symbolisms/imageries alluding to ice and fire filling Jon's chapters and relating to his persona (a 70 threads long search). And while Rhaegar wasn't fire made flesh nor Lyanna ice, Baelor Breakspear wasn't a dragon in human form nor Tyrion a lion embodied. It's just that narrative likes to resort to nice little devices called figures of speech.

As for GRRM's supposed 'subversive' writing I'm afraid is all in our ignorance. Every story has already been told and every subversion/twist has already been written starting with myth and Greek tragedy/comedy up to Faulkner's conflicting heart. But there is always a personal way of singing an old 'song'.

Last but not least, character building is there for a reason. Otherwise we are not dealing with 'subversion' but with poor narrative (NOT Martin's case).

I do know what a figure of speech is, which is why I've written "even symbolically." Lots of people on the forums keep bringing up that Jon is both Ice and Fire, or that he's important because he's half Stark, half Targaryen. Or that there'll be an ultimate "win" over the Long Night, that the dragons will be instrumental in the "fight" etc. etc. This is also what I understood you were implying with your post. I don't agree with that perspective. Further, as things stand I can’t image Jon even remotely embracing a Targaryen identity. But we can leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do know what a figure of speech is, which is why I've written "even symbolically." Lots of people on the forums keep bringing up that Jon is both Ice and Fire, or that he's important because he's half Stark, half Targaryen. Or that there'll be an ultimate "win" over the Long Night, that the dragons will be instrumental in the "fight" etc. etc. This is also what I understood you were implying with your post. I don't agree with that perspective. Further, as things stand I can’t image Jon even remotely embracing a Targaryen identity. But we can leave it at that.

You better read my post again about Jon balancing the "icy"and "fiery" aspects of his personality, and maybe you will understand that in order to lead the fight against the Others, he need to find balance within himself. And I think both the dragons and the Others are symptoms of a world gone out of whack, and need to brought back in balance. So if it might be possible that in order for the balance to return, both the Others and the dragons need to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...