R+L=J v.90

[sj4iy]

I agree that GRRM probably didn't dive too deep into the nitty gritty of puerperal fever's length before plotting out that chain of events. It actually helps my idea if he didn't, because it means Jon could be born right after the Sack without Ned having to haul ass to the Tower at an unreasonable/impossible speed in order to get to Lyanna while she was still alive. At this point, you (generally speaking) just have to accept that XYZ occurred in the order it did and just roll with it.

I also found the SSM where he sort of admits that the birthing process isn't really his forte, which is understandable: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Concerning_Wildling_Women

Wow, that person writing to him sounded a bit pretentious. Dalla is obviously in distress, so it would make sense that she is lying down. I never thought anything was odd about it, since she died later.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

We'll still be debating the bed of blood....

And the mathness.

Really, I find funny people wanting textual evidence of THE biggest mystery of the saga. George is NOT GOING to spell it out for us, he wants us to guess it. Otherwise, why not start the whole thing with "Jon, the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna...".

[Shinjuku Thief]

Promise me, she had cried in that room that smelled of blood and roses. aGoT page 40

sight and smell... fresh blood...

That's an assumption. Do sheets stained in blood need the blood to be fresh in order to smell of blood? How fresh must the blood be to still smell of blood? How many hours, and to 4 decimal points please.

[sj4iy]

That's an assumption. Do sheets stained in blood need the blood to be fresh in order to smell of blood? How fresh must the blood be to still smell of blood? How many hours, and to 4 decimal points please.

Don't forget, all work must be shown for full credit XD

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

My problem with Ashara being the informant is that why didn't she bother to clarify the entire situation with Ned. Even if the message was sent via raven why not inform Ned that Lyanna was not kidnapped, married to Rhaegar and about to give birth to his child. She should have known that if Ned got to the ToJ thinking that Lyanna was held against her will, things would get ugly. Now it could be possible that Ashara was also under the mistaken assumption that Lyanna was kidnapped, which I highly doubt. So if Ashara was the informant and she didn't give Ned the whole story, then it would have been terribly shortsighted of her. Maybe someone else with ulterior motives (can't be Varys then he'd likely know about R+L=J) told Ned about where Lyanna was being held and this same someone was responsible for telling Brandon et al about Lyanna's abduction/rape expecting the events to unfold as it did. If not, it will be a lot of shit happening to many decent people because of several misunderstandings, which I suppose would work as an operatic tragedy of sorts.

I think she did tell him that. I think Ned knew when he got there what he would find and why, it's just that the Kingsguard couldn't take any chances with Jon's life and didn't want Ned to dispossess him of his birthright.

There's this idea that a fight wouldn't have occurred if Ned knew the whole story, and I don't think that's the case. Namely because it's the Kingsguard, not Ned, who press the conflict.

[stateofdissipation]

Indeed. A bed of blood is referring to childbirth and a birthing bed, yet that does not mean the birth took place at that very instant or only a matter of moments before Ned entered the room.

Indeed. A bed of blood is referring to childbirth and a birthing bed, yet that does not mean the birth took place at that very instant or only a matter of moments before Ned entered the room.

and your basis for expanding or contracting the term is what?

Is it just this term or do we apply that to all figures of speech in aSoIaF?

Does "flowering" mean the month before and the month after menarche?

Does "born on the wrong side of the sheets" mean legitimate south of King's Landing?

Does "night soil" mean the ground after dark as well as feces?

Does "buried treasure" in moletown mean you need a shovel?

Does "bedding" mean putting on fresh sheets as well?

Ned remembering Lyanna in her bed of blood.... is Ned remembering Lyanna in childbirth.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

It's also possible that Lyanna went into labor (=waking the dragon) very soon after the Sack and gave birth, say, 2-3 days later. Which could be helpful with the timeline.

Good call on the Rhaenyra example. I know I've mentioned before that you could add a couple of days of labor to the timeline, if GRRM really wanted to demonstrate that it was horrific (and also, longer labor probably means more susceptibility to infection, which makes sense), but good to see it reiterated.

[mambru]

And IMO, the fact that you keep telling me (twice, already) that nobody agrees with me as proof that your theory is correct kind of indicates your attitude toward this discussion.

---

I have actually never said this.

Look at your quotes.

"They did not make the decision to parley. This is not problematic for most people looking at the evidence. It is problematic for your interpretation, but you are one person. It is not objectively problematic."

"You make loose and tenuous connections that satisfy no one but yourself that these connections are applicable when they are not."

In both your quotes, you make essentially the same statement that I am one person alone with my opinion, which makes it less valid. In your second statement, you say that I satisfy no one but myself with my reasoning. You're saying you know for a fact that no one agrees with my reasoning, and therefore it is not applicable. How is that NOT the Bandwagon Fallacy? And how is speaking for the universe (or even the thread) that you telepathically know that no one is satisfied by my reasoning either logically true or helpful to debate?

You certainly have never hesitated to tell me how very wrong and unreasonable I am. If you don't agree with me, that is your right.

I once took your "agree to disagree" as a cue that you feel I have nothing to bring to a discussion, and I stopped answering to any of your posts that weren't directed to me. But you kept answering my posts I was writing to OTHER people. Why? Is it perhaps because I'm not actually repeating myself...I'm actually saying new and different things that force you to re-examine your own ideas to come up with new replies?

In any case, I will continue to request in your next reply to me the textual proof you said you'd look for earlier:

The only pattern I'm sensing is your willful denial of common sense. I can't find specific textual references for everything, but I'll work on it.

I'm still waiting :)

[BearQueen87]

I think she did tell him that. I think Ned knew when he got there what he would find and why, it's just that the Kingsguard couldn't take any chances with Jon's life and didn't want Ned to dispossess him of his birthright.

There's this idea that a fight wouldn't have occurred if Ned knew the whole story, and I don't think that's the case. Namely because it's the Kingsguard, not Ned, who press the conflict.

Like Ned saying, "your queen and Prince Viserys" to see how they would react.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Like Ned saying, "your queen and Prince Viserys" to see how they would react.

Yeah, I think that's pretty huge. Even if you buy that they do think Viserys is the king even if they can't get to him, there's no way they'd let such a slight go uncorrected, especially not when the dynasty was under attack. I also think Ned knew what he was doing when he worded it that way, to see how they'd react. They don't correct him as you'd expect (imagine if someone called Joffrey "Prince Joffrey" after Robert died to Meryn and Boros's faces; there'd be a shitstorm), nor do they show any real interest in going to Viserys despite Ned implicitly offering them the chance (which also shoots down the idea that they'd go to Viserys if they could, but they just can't).

Seriously, it's all so clearly. right. there.

[teej6]

I think she did tell him that. I think Ned knew when he got there what he would find and why, it's just that the Kingsguard couldn't take any chances with Jon's life and didn't want Ned to dispossess him of his birthright.

There's this idea that a fight wouldn't have occurred if Ned knew the whole story, and I don't think that's the case. Namely because it's the Kingsguard, not Ned, who press the conflict.

Yeah, I guess this scenario works. The Kingsguard not knowing Ned's intentions (well for that matter Ned probably didn't know what he was going to do with Lyanna and the baby himself) and knowing about his loyalty to Robert probably caused them to take an aggressive stand. The show scene between Brienne and Sandor over Arya comes to mind. Perhaps that was a hint by the show runners as to how the conflict unfolded between Ned and the Kingsguard.

[Aeron_Damphair]

Look at your quotes.

"They did not make the decision to parley. This is not problematic for most people looking at the evidence. It is problematic for your interpretation, but you are one person. It is not objectively problematic."

"You make loose and tenuous connections that satisfy no one but yourself that these connections are applicable when they are not."

I've lined through what was poorly worded. I acknowledge that it is not out of bounds to call it the bandwagon fallacy even though it was not my intent to make an argument ad populum. If the interpretation is inevitable, I have to take responsibility for it. I'll grant that. The rest I don't think is bad. I'm essentially saying that your position hasn't passed muster in a peer review sense. You continue to apply GRRM's SSM for example because you believe it universally applies. I don't believe that it does and you have not demonstrated that it does, you have only demonstrated that you believe that it does.

In any case, I will continue to request in your next reply to me the textual proof you said you'd look for earlier:

I'm still waiting :)

I have already cited the text amply. I did so immediately after I made that comment. I'm not going to dig for it now.

As far as agreeing to disagree, sorry, I see an argument that I think is flawed and I respond to it. Perhaps I should stop doing so in your case, but it's not easy to simply turn off that impulse. But you're right, most often they are different than the arguments we've agreed to disagree on.