Jump to content

R+L=J v99


davos

Recommended Posts

It is a dream, and likely paraphrases the dialog. It, however, must make sense to Ned. The key components in the correct sequence must be present. If the Kingsguard are at the tower for any reason other than their vow as Kingsguard, Ned must have that in mind, we would know. (snip)

With apologies for the snip, I don't see how any of this follows. "It must make sense to Ned" for sure, but from there to "the key components in the correct sequence must be present" and "If the Kingsguard...Ned must have that in mind" are just assumptions. There is no reason to assume that what Ned dreams about has any direct correlation to what happened. it must reflect what Ned took away from it, what was important to Ned's understanding of the events -- as you say make sense to Ned -- but it does not follow that the dialog is anything more than a symbolic interpretation of Ned's emotional response to the events at the ToJ.

Maybe GRRM was trolling us when he said that dreams are not literal, but I doubt it. However "not literal" does not mean unconnected. A symbolic link is not a literal one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With apologies for the snip, I don't see how any of this follows. "It must make sense to Ned" for sure, but from there to "the key components in the correct sequence must be present" and "If the Kingsguard...Ned must have that in mind" are just assumptions. There is no reason to assume that what Ned dreams about has any direct correlation to what happened. it must reflect what Ned took away from it, what was important to Ned's understanding of the events -- as you say make sense to Ned -- but it does not follow that the dialog is anything more than a symbolic interpretation of Ned's emotional response to the events at the ToJ.

Maybe GRRM was trolling us when he said that dreams are not literal, but I doubt it. However "not literal" does not mean unconnected. A symbolic link is not a literal one.

I think you two are saying the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why the distinction matters? The Bran passage makes it clear that the KG are (or once were-- read pre Bobby B ) selected from the finest knights. Ergo a shining example of KG is also a shining example of knighthood. The same qualities that make one an ideal knight would be the prerequisite qualities for a KG. The obedience part is about keeping vows, which goes back to honour, which is part and parcel of being an ideal knight. The rest seems like splitting hairs, the reasons why KG obey their orders seem clear: not blindness, rather adherence to a vow...

....The notion that these three were blindly obeying orders from their dead prince seems not only lacking in textual proof, but illogical in that it ignores the fact that the three were not a monoblock but three individuals who could easily have split up to resolve any perceived conflict.

The fact they did not suggests that there was no such conflict.

I don't think we can depend on logic to deduce what the rules of the KG are when they haven't been spelled out to us. Because the KG has been shown to have some fundamental illogic built into its very fabric.

I mean, the KG requires honorable men to swear a vow as strong as their honor to serve the king NO MATTER WHAT. The Kingsguard depends upon the honor of its men being strong enough to keep that vow - even if that vow leads them to aid and abet the king in dishonorable crimes (rape, murder, blasphemy of the gods) that any honorable man would absolutely puke at. This is a paradox of illogic, IMO. So I don't think we can depend on such a rule existing simply because it sounds reasonable. The KG makes unreasonable demands. The rules may be unreasonable as well. We can't know for sure what they are till they're spelled out.

Besides, is it really THAT logical to assume that when the king wrote the rules for his KG, he'd give them carte blanche to DISOBEY his orders if he died - retreating from the battle he's ordered them to win, abandoning the loved ones that he's ordered them to guard? It doesn't sound that logical to me.

And I don't think we can depend on Ned's sense of what's honorable and what isn't to decide whether the KG is honorable or not, either. Because Ned is a traditionalist who usually accepts roles that are traditionally labeled as "honorable" without questioning them. He knows it's wrong to kill innocent children. He balks at such killing in the case of Dany and of Cersei's kids. Yet in his role as Warden of the North, he held Theon - an innocent child - hostage with the intent of killing him if his father ever rebels. And he never for one moment thought there was anything wrong with that. It's traditionally considered honorable to do it - so he doesn't question that it IS, in fact, honorable.

The KG are traditionally considered honorable. They impressed Ned with their courage and skill in marching steadfastly into battle when they were well outnumbered. Therefore, in Ned's eyes, they were what they appeared to be and he doesn't question THAT, either.

Remember, when Ned was telling Bran about what a great knight Dayne was, he didn't talk about his chivalry or his charity or his kindness to the downtrodden. He essentially said, "That Arthur Dayne was a great knight...he almost killed me." It seems to be admiration for his supreme martial prowess - not any other quality.

Furthermore, I don't see anything in text or in SSM to indicate that their obedience must continue after the death of the one who gave them an order, especially if such obedience would conflict their prime directive of guarding the King. Saying that is the case seems like an assumption of the highest order.

There's this (bolding mine):

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

Rhaegar was long dead by the time the KG chose to stand and fight Ned at the ToJ. The interview asks why the KG chose to fight at the ToJ (that is, after Rhaegar died). And the author himself clearly tells him that it was because Rhaegar gave them an order before he died. I think it's pretty clear that the author himself is saying that Rhaegar's orders remain in force for the ToJ KG even AFTER Rhaegar's death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we can depend on logic to deduce what the rules of the KG are when they haven't been spelled out to us. Because the KG has been shown to have some fundamental illogic built into its very fabric.

I mean, the KG requires honorable men to swear a vow as strong as their honor to serve the king NO MATTER WHAT. The Kingsguard depends upon the honor of its men being strong enough to keep that vow - even if that vow leads them to aid and abet the king in dishonorable crimes (rape, murder, blasphemy of the gods) that any honorable man would absolutely puke at. This is a paradox of illogic, IMO. So I don't think we can depend on such a rule existing simply because it sounds reasonable. The KG makes unreasonable demands. The rules may be unreasonable as well. We can't know for sure what they are till they're spelled out.

Besides, is it really THAT logical to assume that when the king wrote the rules for his KG, he'd give them carte blanche to DISOBEY his orders if he died - retreating from the battle he's ordered them to win, abandoning the loved ones that he's ordered them to guard? It doesn't sound that logical to me.

And I don't think we can depend on Ned's sense of what's honorable and what isn't to decide whether the KG is honorable or not, either. Because Ned is a traditionalist who usually accepts roles that are traditionally labeled as "honorable" without questioning them. He knows it's wrong to kill innocent children. He balks at such killing in the case of Dany and of Cersei's kids. Yet in his role as Warden of the North, he held Theon - an innocent child - hostage with the intent of killing him if his father ever rebels. And he never for one moment thought there was anything wrong with that. It's traditionally considered honorable to do it - so he doesn't question that it IS, in fact, honorable.

The KG are traditionally considered honorable. They impressed Ned with their courage and skill in marching steadfastly into battle when they were well outnumbered. Therefore, in Ned's eyes, they were what they appeared to be and he doesn't question THAT, either.

Remember, when Ned was telling Bran about what a great knight Dayne was, he didn't talk about his chivalry or his charity or his kindness to the downtrodden. He essentially said, "That Arthur Dayne was a great knight...he almost killed me." It seems to be admiration for his supreme martial prowess - not any other quality.

There's this (bolding mine):

Rhaegar was long dead by the time the KG chose to stand and fight Ned at the ToJ. The interview asks why the KG chose to fight at the ToJ (that is, after Rhaegar died). And the author himself clearly tells him that it was because Rhaegar gave them an order before he died. I think it's pretty clear that the author himself is saying that Rhaegar's orders remain in force for the ToJ KG even AFTER Rhaegar's death.

It doesn't matter what Rhaegar told them, though. Protecting the King is their FIRST and FOREMOST duty. If they know that their king is WITHOUT protection, they are duty bound to go to him, whatever their previous orders had been. That's their priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are the SAME THING. If it's an old dream, he's had it before. If he's had it before and now he's having it again, it IS RECURRING.

If they are the same thing... why use the extra SIX letters?

Is there extra credit for using more letters to say the same thing?

Yes the dream happened before.... a long time ago.

Ned had pulled the tower down afterward, and used its bloody stones to build eight cairns upon the ridge. It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory. They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed. He did not think it omened well that he should dream that dream again after so many years.--aGoT page 412

add six letters remove six words..dream again after so many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what Rhaegar told them, though. Protecting the King is their FIRST and FOREMOST duty. If they know that their king is WITHOUT protection, they are duty bound to go to him, whatever their previous orders had been. That's their priority.

The day had been windy when he said farwell to Rhaegar, in the yard of the Red Keep. The prince had donned his night-black armor, with the three headed dragon picked out in rubies on his breastplate. "Your grace," Jamie had pleaded, "Let Darry stay to guard the king this once, or Ser Barristan. Their cloaks are as white as mine."

Prince Rhaegar shook his head. "My royal sire fears your father more than our cousin Robert. He wants you close so Tywin can't harm him. I dare not take that crutch away from him at such an hour."

Jamie's anger had risen up in his throat. "I am not a crutch, I am a knight of the kingsguard."

"Then guard the king," SerJon Darry snapped at him. "When you donned that cloak you promised to obey."---aFfC page 133

interesting how that can turn into must rush to the new kings side immediately...

Jamie turned to Meryn Trant. "Ser you have been remiss in teaching our new brothers their duties."

"What duties," said Meryn Trant defensively.

"Keeping the king alive. How many monarchs have you lost since I left the city? Two, is it!" aSoS BG page 274

Robert and Joffrey

“When King's Landing fell Ser Jamie, slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were.”

“Far away,” Ser Gerold said ---aGoT page 410

Aerys and Aegon

The first and foremost duty... the priority... apparently only gets brought up after losing 2 monarchs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what Rhaegar told them, though. Protecting the King is their FIRST and FOREMOST duty. If they know that their king is WITHOUT protection, they are duty bound to go to him, whatever their previous orders had been. That's their priority.

So you're telling me it doesn't matter what Rhaegar told them, when the author himself is telling us in an interview that the KG stayed and fought Ned at the ToJ long after Rhaegar died because of orders Rhaegar gave them before he died - orders they didn't like, but HAD to obey?

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

Are you telling me it doesn't matter what GRRM told us, either?

Show me where it's written in the books that the KG are allowed to Disobey orders to Protect the King. It is not. Yes, I know "Protect the King" is the First Duty - but that doesn't necessarily mean first in priority. It could mean the first duty chronologically established. And I don't think we can take it for granted that because Protect the King is the first duty, the KG MUST break another part of their vow - the Duty to Obey - to keep that one. That alleged rule is not written anywhere. And we've NEVER seen a KG do so...while we've seen several cases of KG choosing to Obey over Protect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're telling me it doesn't matter what Rhaegar told them, when the author himself is telling us in an interview that the KG stayed and fought Ned at the ToJ long after Rhaegar died because of orders Rhaegar gave them before he died - orders they didn't like, but HAD to obey?

Are you telling me it doesn't matter what GRRM told us, either?

Show me where it's written in the books that the KG are allowed to Disobey orders to Protect the King. It is not. Yes, I know "Protect the King" is the First Duty - but that doesn't necessarily mean first in priority. It could mean the first duty chronologically established. And I don't think we can take it for granted that because Protect the King is the first duty, the KG MUST break another part of their vow - the Duty to Obey - to keep that one. That alleged rule is not written anywhere. And we've NEVER seen a KG do so...while we've seen several cases of KG choosing to Obey over Protect.

I am pretty sure you will get the following quote or some version of it... invariably excluding the bold part... normally you only get the first line.

The first duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat. The white knights were sworn to obey the king's commands as well, to keep his secrets, counsel him when counsel was requested and to keep silent when it was not, serve at his pleasure and defend his name and honor. Strictly speaking; it was purely the king's choice whether or not to extend Kingsguard protection to others even those of royal blood. Some kings thought it right and proper to dispatch Kingsguard serve and defend their wives and children, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins of a greater or lesser degree,and occasionally their lovers, mistresses and bastards. But others preferred to use household knights for those purposes, whilst keeping their seven as their own personal guard never far from their sides.

If the queen had commanded me to protect Hizdahr, i would have no choice but to obey.--aDwD 857-858

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're telling me it doesn't matter what Rhaegar told them, when the author himself is telling us in an interview that the KG stayed and fought Ned at the ToJ long after Rhaegar died because of orders Rhaegar gave them before he died - orders they didn't like, but HAD to obey?

Are you telling me it doesn't matter what GRRM told us, either?

Show me where it's written in the books that the KG are allowed to Disobey orders to Protect the King. It is not. Yes, I know "Protect the King" is the First Duty - but that doesn't necessarily mean first in priority. It could mean the first duty chronologically established. And I don't think we can take it for granted that because Protect the King is the first duty, the KG MUST break another part of their vow - the Duty to Obey - to keep that one. That alleged rule is not written anywhere. And we've NEVER seen a KG do so...while we've seen several cases of KG choosing to Obey over Protect.

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

If the queen had commanded me to protect Hizdahr, i would have no choice but to obey.--aDwD 857-858

much better than

If we ignore

January 02, 2002

You'll need to wait for future books to find out more about the Tower of Joy and what happened there, I fear.

I might mention, though, that Ned's account, which you refer to, was in the context of a dream... and a fever dream at that. Our dreams are not always literal.

http://www.westeros....he_Tower_of_Joy

If we invent

If they know that their king is WITHOUT protection, they are duty bound to go to him, whatever their previous orders had been. That's their priority.

If we ignore

As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. .---aGoT page 410

"I know every secret of the bloody bed, silver lady, nor have I ever lost a babe." Mirri Maz Duur replied.--aGoT page 650

"That was the way of this cold world, where men fished the sea and dug in the ground and died, whilst women brought forth short-lived children from beds of blood and pain."- AFfC p. 21

If we invent

Lyanna most likely died of puerperal fever, which kills the mother about 3-10 days after labor. In other words, Jon was already born when Ned arrived
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are the SAME THING. If it's an old dream, he's had it before. If he's had it before and now he's having it again, it IS RECURRING.

I'm not saying it really makes a difference, but a dream can be old without being a recurring dream. King Monkey explained it well:

I'm guilty of referring to it as a recurring dream in the past too, but it's not really supported in the text. "He dreamt an old dream," is all we have to go on. This might indicate that it's a dream he has been having for years, or it might indicate a dream he had once many years ago and never since. It's not even explicit in the text that the dream he has on this occasion is exactly the same as previous versions:

"He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood." End paragraph. These elements must necessarily by the text be the substance of previous dream(s), but the form of the dream may be quite different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it really makes a difference, but a dream can be old without being a recurring dream. King Monkey explained it well:

All "recurring" means is that he's had it more than once. He's obviously had the dream before, hence, it is both old and recurring (even if he only had it once before, and is having it again now, that still freaking counts as recurring, because he's obviously having it again). It could be recurring but not old, if he'd only started having the dream recently.

Why the hell is this even an issue? Are we down to splitting hairs this small?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So it seems that the question some people are asking is how can the reader tell that the reason the KG stayed at ToJ rather than go to Viserys might not be because Jon is king given that GRRM says that IF Rhaegar gave an order to stay at ToJ, they would have stayed at ToJ--and we don't know what Rhaegar actually ordered so we don't know if his orders are why they stayed. I find this SSM interesting. I think we have to choose whether GRRM is giving a straight answer to the question or just really being evasive and not really answering the question. I think it could be either, and thus this SSM really adds little to the analysis--but a close reading suggests he was merely being evasive.

Put it this way--assume that the only reason the KG made no attempt to get to Viserys is because the KG believe Jon is king (as I tend to believe). Now GRRM gets this question. He could say--I cannot answer that question--but saying that would virtually be the same as saying that Jon is king. Now GRRM does not like to outright lie, so he gives the answer that is implied by a straight reading of the text--that Rhaegar told them to stay. But as J. Star points out, GRRM uses the conditional "if" so that he is not technically lying--even if he is misleading the listener into thinking GRRM is confirming that they stayed due to Rhaegar's orders--when he never actually said that. GRRM basically uses the Varys technique of telling technical truths if you listen to the words closely, but clearly intended to mislead the casual listener.

If the real reason the KG stayed at ToJ was due to Rhaegar's orders, GRRM likely would have said, that Rhaegar ordered them to stay rather than saying, "if" Rhaegar ordered them to stay.

So while not determinative either way--I think this SSM, if read closely, suggests the KG did not stay due to Rhaegar's orders but due to a reason that GRRM could not admit to without giving away too much (perhaps that the new king is in the tower).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All "recurring" means is that he's had it more than once. He's obviously had the dream before, hence, it is both old and recurring (even if he only had it once before, and is having it again now, that still freaking counts as recurring, because he's obviously having it again). It could be recurring but not old, if he'd only started having the dream recently.

Why the hell is this even an issue? Are we down to splitting hairs this small?

I agree. The answer to question or whether Ned had the dream once before or 100 times before is basically irrelevant. I don't know why it has become just an issue on this thread. Maybe people are just trying to come up with something to discuss to get us to thread #100 more quickly. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. The answer to question or whether Ned had the dream once before or 100 times before is basically irrelevant. I don't know why it has become just an issue on this thread. Maybe people are just trying to come up with something to discuss to get us to thread #100 more quickly. ;)

I think it's actually down to people wanting to discredit Ned's dream altogether under the auspices of it being drug-induced. Which makes no sense because if the entire thing should/could be thrown out, then there's no basis for analyzing it at all, which renders including it at all completely pointless. But the fact that it's an old dream that he's had before, at least once, shows that it can't be blithely written off as drug-induced and might have actual basis in fact, which makes it harder to discredit. I'll also point out that the language of "In the dream ..." can be read multiple ways: either this specific dream that he's having here and now, or the broader "old dream" that he's had before.

The fact that the Kingsguard's faces are crystal clear while Ned's men's faces are shadowed and blurred should be a slap in the face that it's the Kingsguard, what they do and what they say, that's important here. Ned's mind is focusing on them and they're at the forefront of his mind when he remembers and dreams about the encounter. Almost as if what they're saying is important ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i may be able to help get to 100 then... (which i hope has a good summary)



I thought GRRM was trying to head away from the things in fantasy that annoys people like the big bad evil and the unlikely, meek hero. Why would he then make the most obvious hero (supposedly a bastard) actually the prince in crows (or frogs) clothing? seems like the frog and the prince. And now that he may have died, if he comes back, is he now the second dragon reborn? all he needs is a taste for blood and a ring to take somewhere and its the full cake. (i figure warging is close enough to mind reading)



From what ive read there are a lot of hints and symbolism in these theories but not much else and I havent read all 99 versions of this thread so i may have missed actual evidence. is there any? Can there be any without a dna test or Howland Reed?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

All "recurring" means is that he's had it more than once. He's obviously had the dream before, hence, it is both old and recurring (even if he only had it once before, and is having it again now, that still freaking counts as recurring, because he's obviously having it again). It could be recurring but not old, if he'd only started having the dream recently.

Why the hell is this even an issue? Are we down to splitting hairs this small?

He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks. and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood.---aGoT page 409

He did not think it omened well that he should dream that dream again after so many years.--aGoT page 412

recurring....

January 02, 2002

You'll need to wait for future books to find out more about the Tower of Joy and what happened there, I fear.

I might mention, though, that Ned's account, which you refer to, was in the context of a dream... and a fever dream at that. Our dreams are not always literal.

http://www.westeros....he_Tower_of_Joy

It is a dream, and likely paraphrases the dialog. It, however, must make sense to Ned. The key components in the correct sequence must be present.

Is it splitting hairs to note when something is invented?

or

Is it splitting hairs to maintain that nothing was invented?

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...