Trial of Joy v .2

[pobeb]

So you're saying that they are actually all coordinating this too?

I would think so. Here's a post I made which details some interesting parallels in Brienne's trial with Lady Stoneheart:

Now, during the time Brienne is judged by Lady Stoneheart, 3 very important items are examined: Robb's Crown, Oathkeeper, and Tommen's Letter:

A trestle table had been set up across the cave, in a cleft in the rock. Behind it sat a woman all in grey, cloaked and hooded. In her hands was a crown, a bronze circlet ringed by iron swords. She was studying it, her fingers stroking the blades as if to test their sharpness. Her eyes

glimmered under her hood.

He slid the sword from its scabbard and placed it in front of Lady Stoneheart. In the light from the firepit the red and black ripples in the blade almost seem to move, but the woman in grey had eyes only for the pommel: a golden lion’s head, with ruby eyes that shone like two red stars.

“There is this as well.” Thoros of Myr drew a parchment from his sleeve, and put it down next to the sword. “It bears the boy king’s seal and says the bearer is about his business.”

The woman in grey gave no answer. She studied the sword, the parchment, the bronze-and-iron crown.

So, I've highlighted some VERY key lines here, but before I elaborate on these items, I'm going to tell you exactly what they represent:

1) Oathkeeper = Jon

- red and black (Targaryen) ripples (woven) in the blade (Jon)

- pommel has "ruby eyes that shone like two red stars" (Longclaw/Ghost)

- And the most definitive point:

“She asked the name of this blade of yours,” said the young northman in the sheepskin jerkin.

“Oathkeeper,” Brienne answered.

The woman in grey hissed through her fingers. Her eyes were two red pits burning in the shadows. She spoke again.

“No, she says. Call it Oathbreaker.."

Jon was once an "Oathkeeper" then accused of being an "Oathbreaker" :cool4:

2) Tommen's Letter = Robb's Letter

-Tommen's letter is "the boy king's letter" - Robb is referred to as "the boy king"

Robb stood, and as quick as that, her fate was settled. He picked up a sheet of parchment. “One more matter... I’ve thought long and hard about who might follow me. I command you now as my true and loyal lords to fix your seals to this document as witnesses to my decision.”

A king indeed, Catelyn thought, defeated.

-both letters carry a decree of the respective King

-both letters do not accurately describe the bearers true intentions

3) Robb's Crown = Jon's Crown

- While Catelyn is pondering the crown, she strokes it's blades "as if to test their sharpness"

- We've established that the swords and blades, in this sense, are a metaphor for Jon

- So, Catelyn is pondering the crown (thinking of the successor), and testing the blades (Jon) of their "sharpness" (truth)

- To magnify the significance of Catelyn's testing of blades for truth, look no further than the ultimatum she gives to Brienne:

“She says that you must prove your faith.”

“How?” asked Brienne.

“With your sword. Oathkeeper, you call it? Then keep your oath to her, milady says.”

“What does she want of me?”

(...) "She wants to feed the crows..."

"The sword (Jon) or the noose (death), she says. Choose, she says. Choose.”

Or, in other words, "Those who do not bend, break. Bow before King Jon, or you will be broken."

And now to bring is all home! So, when we see Lady Stoneheart, she is examing first the crown, then the sword, then the parchment. HOWEVER, after she's seen all 3, she studies them in a very, VERY specific and interesting order:

She studied the sword, the parchment, the bronze-and-iron crown.

If you've followed me so far, I hope you see the significance in this order: Catelyn's progressive thinking which concludes in who the King should be.

She studied the sword (Jon), the parchment (Robb's Will - naming Jon King)

and finally

the bronze-and-iron crown (The Future King)

[butterbumps!]

snip

Look, I'll level with you. The evidence you're giving for this is basically a code. Where the words stand for things, and can be read as having significance removed from context. I don't think Martin writes in code, and I don't think these things add up to what you're saying they add up to. Other posters might be into it, but I'm not a good target audience for this sort of thing, because I pretty much categorically reject theories constructed of codes.

Honestly, I think you've thought of a few future plot points-- like Jon's becoming a Targ publicly and having a bid for the throne, the idea that HR=HS and this whole thing with Cat giving Jon the Last Kiss (which already presupposes that he's dead as of his last chapter), and seem to be working backwards to get them all in place.

Given the way you're arguing through all this-- especially with the emphasis on "is this possible in an abstract sense" rather than working from motive, and especially, whether such a revelation makes sense in the context of the rest of the story-- we won't agree. There's really no common ground here. It's probably not the best use of either of our time to argue this, because our premises are all off.

[pobeb]

Look, I'll level with you. The evidence you're giving for this is basically a code. Where the words stand for things, and can be read as having significance removed from context. I don't think Martin writes in code, and I don't think these things add up to what you're saying they add up to. Other posters might be into it, but I'm not a good target audience for this sort of thing, because I pretty much categorically reject theories constructed of codes.

Honestly, I think you've thought of a few future plot points-- like Jon's becoming a Targ publicly and having a bid for the throne, the idea that HR=HS and this whole thing with Cat giving Jon the Last Kiss (which already presupposes that he's dead as of his last chapter), and seem to be working backwards to get them all in place.

Given the way you're arguing through all this-- especially with the emphasis on "is this possible in an abstract sense" rather than working from motive, and especially, whether such a revelation makes sense in the context of the rest of the story-- we won't agree. There's really no common ground here. It's probably not the best use of either of our time to argue this, because our premises are all off.

Well, sorry I couldn't form a more appealing theory for you.

Not sure what you mean, in that, GRRM doesn't write in codes. 100% of his foreshadowing is written in code.

Jon visiting the ice cells for Cregan was coded to foreshadow his death and warging Ghost.

The name "Ghost" was a code to foreshadow Jon warging at his death.

I mean, basically what I'm reading from you, is that all instances of foreshadow are codes until they actually happen in the story. And, as you yourself assert, GRRM doesn't write in codes.

Also, I don't see why it's bad for me to work backwards from a particular point. That's actually a method of critical thinking.

I presented an idea. I supported said idea with a wealth of evidence. And you're telling me that, all 17 pages of theory, is just something I'm pulling out of my ass.

Kinda confused, but I suppose you and I aren't going to be agreeing on any of this anytime soon. Like you said, probably best to just agree to disagree and move forward.

[Ser Ious Woodmont]

If the High Sparrow's handling of Cersei - to put her to trial - is a well thought out scheme by Howland Reed, let's look at the things that will happen when it all goes as planned.

1. Cersei somehow loses the trial. Since one of the accusations is incest then:

2. Tommen (and Myrcella) is not a Baratheon, so he loses his right on the throne.

3. In theory, Stannis is the rightfull heir.

That is the outcome of a trial against Cersei, won by the Faith. Coincidentally, the Faith now has the force to back such a hypothetical outcome.

If the High Sparrow is Howland Reed, and his plan - a plan he prepared so hard - pulls through as I described, what will happen next in his plan?

Would he, in his roll of pious septon, not advice against Stannis because he follows Rhollr?

Who would be king then? fAegon is a recent character, too recent to have come up in his plans. To call out Jon as king seems much to early.

One thing Reed, as Sparrow, could have planned, is to let know that Ned was not a traitor after all.

I think the High Sparrow is a pious and savvy septon,trying to cleanse the Faith of corruption and to make it the dominant power in Westeros. Because the Faith will be the one remaining unifying power. In a way the HS is another contender for the Iron Throne.

[Ser Creighton]

I think you might have misunderstood me.

Howland's plan is to avenge the Starks and also pave the way for King Jon.

However, I think Howland's plan is doomed to fail. I do think Cersei loses the trial - via Sandor's last stand, but without Howland and his chief plotters, the GNC loses traction in the South - thus opening the door for Aegon.

So, yes, his plan is still to accomplish the grand northern agenda - but, similar to Jon's intentions in his last chapter, things aren't going to work out as he thought.

Ok so it's not about crowning FAegon the Uncasted, but Jon. Alright I am just going to mosey, thought you made some interesting connections, but I think I will mosey on out of here.

[Ser Creighton]

Look, I'll level with you. The evidence you're giving for this is basically a code. Where the words stand for things, and can be read as having significance removed from context. I don't think Martin writes in code, and I don't think these things add up to what you're saying they add up to. Other posters might be into it, but I'm not a good target audience for this sort of thing, because I pretty much categorically reject theories constructed of codes.

Honestly, I think you've thought of a few future plot points-- like Jon's becoming a Targ publicly and having a bid for the throne, the idea that HR=HS and this whole thing with Cat giving Jon the Last Kiss (which already presupposes that he's dead as of his last chapter), and seem to be working backwards to get them all in place.

Given the way you're arguing through all this-- especially with the emphasis on "is this possible in an abstract sense" rather than working from motive, and especially, whether such a revelation makes sense in the context of the rest of the story-- we won't agree. There's really no common ground here. It's probably not the best use of either of our time to argue this, because our premises are all off.

Nope no codes, trust me on this one, have the words from the man himself, possibly. Though there are puzzles that he has said as much about. But a puzzle is not a code, unless it's a puzzle code.

I can't really embrace this theory, some interesting connections but... yeah.

[butterbumps!]

Well, sorry I couldn't form a more appealing theory for you.

Not sure what you mean, in that, GRRM doesn't write in codes. 100% of his foreshadowing is written in code.

Jon visiting the ice cells for Cregan was coded to foreshadow his death and warging Ghost.

The name "Ghost" was a code to foreshadow Jon warging at his death.

I mean, basically what I'm reading from you, is that all instances of foreshadow are codes until they actually happen in the story. And, as you yourself assert, GRRM doesn't write in codes.

Kinda confused, but I suppose you and I aren't going to be agreeing on any of this anytime soon. Like you said, probably best to just agree to disagree and move forward.

"Code" is not the same thing as "foreshadowing." And "foreshadowing" is a term that's badly abused on this forum. Most of what's taken as "foreshadowing" in the books is really stylistic language, motif, metaphor and symbolism. Not "foreshadowing."

Your response is looking at text as though it's a code-- like as though Martin's set it up so that when you pull passages completely out of context, X can be substituted for Y. That's not what foreshadowing is.

I have no expectations of anyone's theory being "appealing" to me, and I sure don't care when I don't find a theory appealing. It's not any conclusion you're positing that I find "unappealing." I find the way you're constructing it entirely problematic, not least of which is because there's nothing to discuss. When one works backwards from conclusions to prove said conclusions with extreme confirmation bias, there's just no way to actually discuss anything, because the methodology is completely arbitrary. And to top it off with these passages out of context that's supposed to serve as some kind of code? As someone who's definitely argued that Dany is made of wood and that Tywin is Gregor Clegane's lover as a joke using this "methodology" I can personally attest that this method of theorizing is criminally negligent to any sort of reasonable rubric, and that everything falls under "plausible" without any standards.

[Dr. Pepper]

As someone who's definitely argued that Dany is made of wood and that Tywin is Gregor Clegane's lover as a joke using this "methodology" I can personally attest that this method of theorizing is criminally negligent to any sort of reasonable rubric, and that everything falls under "plausible" without any standards.

And the wealth of evidence for these was astounding.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

This theory changes more than Varys and Illyrio's plans.

[pobeb]

snip

Noted.

Quick question - What if (hypothetically), when TWoW comes out, it is in fact revealed that Howland is the High Septon.

Would that mean GRRM is a bad writer? Would it mean all that info I gathered was just coincidental?

Just curious.

[butterbumps!]

Noted.

Quick question - What if (hypothetically), when TWoW comes out, it is in fact revealed that Howland is the High Septon.

Would that mean GRRM is a bad writer? Would it mean all that info I gathered was just coincidental?

Just curious.

Why are you asking me that? I wasn't violently opposed to the idea of HR as the HS. I'm opposed to your methodology, and that's what I've been criticizing. I've also been trying to interrogate the theory against the broader picture, as well as whether this theory even makes sense from the precious little we know of Howland. I even suggested that you develop the motive FFR posited as a way to bolster the overall theory, since it's the only one that made any logical sense.

My issue with this is that I don't think your argument is either valid or sound. The HS can be HR for all I care, but this is not the argument that sets it up.

And frankly, I'll go out on a limb and say that if WoW comes out and the HS turns out to be HR coordinating with these other factions for vengeance or to put Jon Targ on the throne, I'd say it was a case of an asspull, if what you've brought forth was the extent of what Martin set up for that revelation.

Why, why in holy hell, does a guy we can only assume has at least an inkling of what's going on beyond the Wall, who chooses to send his children to the alleged last Greenseer, who is so connected to the old gods he made a pilgrimage to the IoF, decide that this would be a great time to kick up more shit in KL and distract people from the North? Is he perhaps working with the Others too? Because that's the sort of move someone who knows what's coming would do if they were somehow hired by the Others, I'd reckon.

[pobeb]

I'd say it was a case of an asspull

Noted.

[butterbumps!]

Noted.

You're not actually reading what I'm saying, and being extremely disingenuous about the whole thing.

I have no investment in whether HR is the HS. I'm saying that the argument you are using to support it is atrocious. I'm exclusively speaking to this criminally negligent argument.

One more time: IF HR= HS and IF what you've laid out is the the extent of how Martin's set it up THEN it will be an asspull.

You haven't reconciled this theory with the broader strokes of ASOIAF, nor have you thought through a valid motive for Howland to even do this.

Note: I'm not even at the point of doubting the theory's conclusion. I'm addressing what you're considering evidence, and the remarkable dearth of thought that went into the ramifications of such a revelation in the bigger picture.

[pobeb]

You're not actually reading what I'm saying, and being extremely disingenuous about the whole thing.

I have no investment in whether HR is the HS. I'm saying that the argument you are using to support it is atrocious. I'm exclusively speaking to this criminally negligent argument.

One more time: IF HR= HS and IF what you've laid out is the the extent of how Martin's set it up THEN it will be an asspull.

You haven't reconciled this theory with the broader strokes of ASOIAF, nor have you thought through a valid motive for Howland to even do this.

Note: I'm not even at the point of doubting the theory's conclusion. I'm addressing what you're considering evidence, and the remarkable dearth of thought that went into the ramifications of such a revelation in the bigger picture.

What kind of a response do you want from me? I've explained and defended, many, many times how my evidence applies. You're rehashing the same argument, and applying your logic thusly. It's not that I haven't read or acknowledged your posts (I've probably been doing more actual reading than most people on these boards), but I just don't think this is something I care to continue discussing with you. You're set in perceiving my evidence as weak and false, and I'm set in that it's strong and true.

We're not changing each others minds, that much should be pretty clear to you at this point.

I respect your opinion, I just don't care for cyclic arguing.

[butterbumps!]

What kind of a response do you want from me? I've explained and defended, many, many times how my evidence applies. You're rehashing the same argument, and applying your logic thusly. It's not that I haven't read or acknowledged your posts (I've probably been doing more actual reading than most people on these boards), but I just don't think this is something I care to continue discussing with you. You're set in perceiving my evidence as weak and false, and I'm set in that it's strong and true.

We're not changing each others minds, that much should be pretty clear to you at this point, I hope.

I respect your opinion, I just don't care for cyclic arguing.

Ok, so next time someone says "let's part ways" on this, coming back with a fairly passive aggressive response is not the best way to end that conversation.

I wasn't arguing about the plausibility of this theory. I'm not rehashing the same arguments-- and I don't think anyone else brought up the issue of the Others that Howland-- "who seems to have a clue of what's going on-- would truly stir up further catastrophe in KL when there's this larger threat to deal with. I was trying to see how you were thinking about motive and the broader picture. That's what moves something beyond the "is it possible/ plausible" range to something compelling. It's why the H+A=JM theory ended up being so compelling to many of us.

All I'm trying to tell you is to think through the ramifications of what this theory entails-- both plot and in a more thematic literary sense-- to really look at whether it fits in the broader ASOIAF story. And, perhaps even more essential, nailing down a really strong motive for why Howland-- who very likely has an idea of what's happening beyond the Wall and doesn't have much indication to go against Ned and Lyanna on the issue of Jon (or have much interest in the Southron game of thrones) would stage this.

[pobeb]

Ok, so next time someone says "let's part ways" on this, coming back with a fairly passive aggressive response is not the best way to end that conversation.

I wasn't arguing about the plausibility of this theory. I'm not rehashing the same arguments-- and I don't think anyone else brought up the issue of the Others that Howland-- "who seems to have a clue of what's going on-- would truly stir up further catastrophe in KL when there's this larger threat to deal with. I was trying to see how you were thinking about motive and the broader picture. That's what moves something beyond the "is it possible/ plausible" range to something compelling. It's why the H+A=JM theory ended up being so compelling to many of us.

All I'm trying to tell you is to think through the ramifications of what this theory entails-- both plot and in a more thematic literary sense-- to really look at whether it fits in the broader ASOIAF story. And, perhaps even more essential, nailing down a really strong motive for why Howland-- who very likely has an idea of what's happening beyond the Wall and doesn't have much indication to go against Ned and Lyanna on the issue of Jon (or have much interest in the Southron game of thrones) would stage this.

I don't know what to tell you. You're making it seem like I never presented a scenerio for which the conclusion is logical. I did:

Boltons vs Northmen

Freys vs Cat and BwB

Lannisters vs Howland and Co.

The conspiritors of the Red Wedding are being assualted on all fronts by Northern supporters. Furthermore, none of the bad guys have recognized the danger at their door until it was too late. Which happened with Cersei, is about to happen with Roose, and will eventually happen with Walder.

You continue to assert how plot conflicting it would be if Howland intended to set a platform for Jon, then you make the argument of Howland knowing about the Others. Well, If the Others are the real danger (which I agree), wouldn't it serve the realm better if Jon was the King? Perhaps Howland knows about the prophecy, and knows that Jon has to be protected and established as ruler in order to combat the Others. Or, perhaps he doesn't know about the prophecy, but has decided to fufill Robb's wish, who was his last liege lord - not Ned or Lyanna.

That's my motive. Just like in the OP - to take down the Lannisters power and credibility, and supplant them with Jon.

You don't agree with my motive. You've made that evident. I think your arguments against why my motive are as weak as the perspective you have on my evidence.

Which is why we're just going to continue arguing in circles.

[butterbumps!]

I don't know what to tell you. You're making it seem like I never presented a scenerio for which the conclusion is logical. I did:

Boltons vs Northmen

Freys vs Cat and BwB

Lannisters vs Howland and Co.

The conspiritors of the Red Wedding are being assualted on all fronts by Northern supporters. Furthermore, none of the bad guys have recognized the danger at their door until it was too late. Which happened with Cersei, is about to happen with Roose, and will eventually happen with Walder.

You continue to assert how plot conflicting it would be if Howland intended to set a platform for Jon, then you make the argument of Howland knowing about the Others. Well, If the Others are the real danger (which I agree), wouldn't it serve the realm better if Jon was the King? Perhaps Howland knows about the prophecy, and knows that Jon has to be protected and established as ruler in order to combat the Others. Or, perhaps he doesn't know about the prophecy, but has decided to fufill Robb's wish, who was his last liege lord - not Ned or Lyanna.

That's my motive. Just like in the OP - to take down the Lannisters power and credibility, and supplant them with Jon.

You don't agree with my motive. You've made that evident. I think your arguments against why my motive works are as weak as the perspective you have on my evidence.

Which is why we're just going to continue arguing in circles.

The motives you provide don't work under scrutiny. Unless you can answer why HR has suddenly become super interested in Southron politics and is willing to neglect Lya/ Ned's wishes about Jon "Targ" in the one scenario. Or why he'd undergo this ludicrously elaborate scheme to troll the Lannisters after they've already been castrated in the other, as well as why he'd pursue a course of vengeance in light of the threat beyond the Wall.

Here's what HR's infiltrating the Faith as the HS might reasonably intend to accomplish based on his relationship to Ned and accounting for how the Lannisters already self-imploded (I think these are stretching it, but could be developed):

1. Down with the IT entirely to revert back (if you assume HR isn't aware of the Others and suddenly cares about the throne)

2. Down with the IT so that Jon Snow-- the LC of the Watch-- can fill that vacuum (assuming he is aware of the threat and stands against it, and not technically going against Ned/ Lya)

3. Down with the IT so that the Others emerge in the chaos to some further purpose (assuming he is aware, and not against the Others)

I do not necessarily endorse any of these options, but these are stronger motives than what you listed, based on the little we know of Howland, as well as what being in the HS position would actually accomplish. If you're committed to the vengeance coordination league/ King Jon Targ, then that's fine, and I'll drop it.

[pobeb]

If you're committed to the vengeance coordination league/ King Jon Targ, then that's fine, and I'll drop it.

I am. And I acknowledge, understand, and respect your position to think otherwise.

[Woofless]

The fly in the ointment regarding the High Septon's age is that D&D have cast Jonathan Pryce as HS.

Assuming that they know all of the rest of the story from their meeting with GRRM, then I can't see them casting JP if they knew in fact that the HS was HR.

UNLESS they've overlooked the fact that HR is in his late 30's. Otherwise Jonathan Pryce could never be taken for a man that young(ish).

But I liked the theory and am wondering how else it could be worked out.

[Woofless]

Oh, and I got my eyes - thanks for the tip.