R+L=J v99

[UnmaskedLurker]

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 ...

Of course I agree with this analysis--there was no point in putting in the exchange between Ned and the KG unless it "works" from a literary standpoint and means what it implies that it means (and MtnLion has shown how well it works from that point of view--based on her line-by-line break down of the meaning of each statement). I was just trying to take a page out of your book--so to speak--and add a little snark to the conversation (even if the snark was at ToJ and not at the Wall).

[BearQueen87]

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?

Because "cliche" hidden Prince Jon is not how people want the story to be told because GRRM is "breaker of all the things."

[J. Stargaryen]

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).

I agree with what you've written here. The reason I pointed out the "if" is that I believe Mambru missed it. GRRM never actually says that Rhaegar gave those orders. Just that if he did, they would have followed them. He basically gave the interviewer a hypothetical scenario, which is obviously not the same as giving a definitive answer.

[Ser Leftwich]

Seems like a good time to, again, mention the 'it can be figured out from just AGoT' clue.

[stateofdissipation]

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 ...

"A small cup," Ned said. "my head is still heavy with milk of the poppy."---aGoT page 412.

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

Neither discredit the dream...

Misrepresenting either discredits the argument that follows.

Argument: a statement or series of statements for or against something http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument

not

Analysis; : a careful study of something to learn about its parts, what they do, and how they are related to each other http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analysis

One does not find misrepresentation in analysis.

[corbon]

I agree with what you've written here. The reason I pointed out the "if" is that I believe Mambru missed it. GRRM never actually says that Rhaegar gave those orders. Just that if he did, they would have followed them. He basically gave the interviewer a hypothetical scenario, which is obviously not the same as giving a definitive answer.

If there is one thing you can guarantee from a GRRM interview, is that he will not give any definitive answer that throws light on one of his 'mysteries'.

Always check the angles on his answers if they have any importance at all.

[Kingmonkey]

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

This is the 99th thread, and most people agree with the basic premise. Without new information from a new book, it shouldn't be too surprising if we're mostly splitting hairs! ;^)

Splitting hairs is perhaps a slightly unfair way to look at it though. The ToJ events are central to the entire story of ASOIAF and yet the textual material we've been presented with is quite intentionally enigmatic, not to mention in the case of Ned's dream one of the most interestingly written passages in the books so far. Barring some spectacular revelation (if someone's got one, they're probably waiting for thread 100) we're still left with the potential for an interesting textual analysis and some broad differences of interpretation even amongst people who accept the R+L=J premise. The threads left to unweave may mostly be hair-thin, but it can still be interesting!

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Splitting hairs is perhaps a slightly unfair way to look at it though.

When people are arguing over semantics regarding "old" vs. "recurring," that's splitting hairs, sorry.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If there is one thing you can guarantee from a GRRM interview, is that he will not give any definitive answer that throws light on one of his 'mysteries'.

Always check the angles on his answers if they have any importance at all.

The Olenna/Littlefinger thing comes to mind. He said something like, "Would Littlefinger lie?" when confronted with whether what Baelish told Sansa the truth. Some people lost their shit like, "Omg the Tyrells didn't do it, Littefinger is lying!" When that isn't what he said. Would Littlefinger lie? Yeah. Did he lie about this? It looks like he actually ... didn't.

[BearQueen87]

This is the 99th thread, and most people agree with the basic premise. Without new information from a new book, it shouldn't be too surprising if we're mostly splitting hairs! ;^)

Splitting hairs is perhaps a slightly unfair way to look at it though. The ToJ events are central to the entire story of ASOIAF and yet the textual material we've been presented with is quite intentionally enigmatic, not to mention in the case of Ned's dream one of the most interestingly written passages in the books so far. Barring some spectacular revelation (if someone's got one, they're probably waiting for thread 100) we're still left with the potential for an interesting textual analysis and some broad differences of interpretation even amongst people who accept the R+L=J premise. The threads left to unweave may mostly be hair-thin, but it can still be interesting!

I don't think we mind going over the same material or anything. But old vs reoccurring does feel a bit...split-y. It's a dream that Ned has had before and is having now. That is reoccurring.

[J. Stargaryen]

If there is one thing you can guarantee from a GRRM interview, is that he will not give any definitive answer that throws light on one of his 'mysteries'.

Always check the angles on his answers if they have any importance at all.

Absolutely. I recall your post from a while back regarding GRRM's use of if. :)

[RumHam]

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?

Yes, technically the dream has recurred when it happens the second time. Still when people talk about recurring dreams, I think they're usually speaking of dreams that they have fairly often or consistently over a period of time. So it could be an old dream Ned is having for the second time or third time. My point is it's not clear that the dream has haunted him for the past however many years. Having the same dream two or three times in ten years does not seem unusual to me, I would not call that a recurring dream in the sense the term is generally understood.

[stateofdissipation]

2003 Robert Shaw.

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."

http://web.archive.o...s3/00103009.htm

There is not an "if" in front of don't get to make up their own orders. There is not an "if" in front of obeying orders from the royal family.

Two things that are very problematic for the kingsguard means king present conjecture...

[stateofdissipation]

Yes, technically the dream has recurred when it happens the second time. Still when people talk about recurring dreams, I think they're usually speaking of dreams that they have fairly often or consistently over a period of time. So it could be an old dream Ned is having for the second time or third time. My point is it's not clear that the dream has haunted him for the past however many years. Having the same dream two or three times in ten years does not seem unusual to me, I would not call that a recurring dream in the sense the term is generally understood.

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."

http://web.archive.o...s3/00103009.htm

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

[Questions concerning Targaryen polygamy.]

Maegor the Cruel has multiple wives, from lines outside his own, so there was and is precedent. However, the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Asshai.com_Forum_Chat

And then there are some things that are just don’t square with history. In some sense I’m trying to respond to that. [For example] the arranged marriage, which you see constantly in the historical fiction and television show, almost always when there’s an arranged marriage, the girl doesn’t want it and rejects it and she runs off with the stable boy instead. This never fucking happened. It just didn’t. There were thousands, tens of thousand, perhaps hundreds of thousands of arranged marriages in the nobility through the thousand years of Middle Ages and people went through with them. That’s how you did it. It wasn’t questioned. Yeah, occasionally you would want someone else, but you wouldn’t run off with the stable boy.--GRRM

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

It is very simple... if it does not support you ignore it...

if you need it to support you or counter what does not... make it up... if you repeat it enough it becomes canon.

[UVA]

Yes, technically the dream has recurred when it happens the second time. Still when people talk about recurring dreams, I think they're usually speaking of dreams that they have fairly often or consistently over a period of time. So it could be an old dream Ned is having for the second time or third time. My point is it's not clear that the dream has haunted him for the past however many years. Having the same dream two or three times in ten years does not seem unusual to me, I would not call that a recurring dream in the sense the term is generally understood.

This is your point of contention? How does the recurring phrase of "Promise me, Ned" and repeated recollections of flower crowns, blue winter roses while he's awake not strongly indicate that the topic of Lyanna and her demise at the TOJ notably unsettled him all these years? This realistically provokes these semi and/or unconscious images later on in GOT. Furthermore, how does the Baroque vibe of Ned's "recurring"/"old"-this-shit-has-haunted-him-for-over-a-decade-tainted dream/recollection have any impact on how the reader should perceive it? I'm just not getting this.

And stateofdiss, it appears that you put time and effort into your posts but you invalidate your whole project by taking statements out of context. Like, are you really going to parse and reconstruct on the basis of incomplete/vague source intel the exact timeline of Lyanna's childbirth/and acquisition of an infection related to the birth, how long it realistically takes Ned to reach the TOJ, and conclude that since the specifics don't hold up, the theory is invalidated? Pal, you are so missing the forest for the trees here. I'll go out on a limb here to say that Martin, as particular as he is in many areas, doesn't seem to have put a lot of thought into the pathophysiology of what ostensibly killed Lyanna (puerperal fever). But you seem to insist that he should have if this is true in-story.

Fwiw, I'm an attorney who is trained to parse through the bullshit disclosed in corporate proxy statements and executive employment contracts only to perpetuate the same sophistry and I find your posts to be some of the most tedious and inaccessible on the forum, not the least of which is because you resort to the bells and whistles of multicolored fonts to emphasize your point(s). Your words should be a sufficient force of your argument, not the font color or wonky formatting.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

"A small cup," Ned said. "my head is still heavy with milk of the poppy."---aGoT page 412.

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

Neither discredit the dream...

Misrepresenting either discredits the argument that follows.

Argument: a statement or series of statements for or against something http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument

not

Analysis; : a careful study of something to learn about its parts, what they do, and how they are related to each other http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analysis

One does not find misrepresentation in analysis.

Of course the dream isn't entirely literal. The faces of the men he was with weren't literally wraiths, Lyanna wouldn't have called him by his full name, and I highly doubt there was a literal "storm of rose petals." That last one especially seems pretty metaphorical. That doesn't mean that the meat of the dream (the encounter with the Kingsguard) isn't accurate.

Also, what happened at the Tower of Joy encompasses a fuck ton more than just Ned's fight. Namely, everything that came before it and what came after it. So acting like Ned's dream somehow isn't valid because we're going to learn more about the Tower of Joy in the future doesn't make much sense.

But ... way to quote the dictionary? Gee, you sure ... taught ... me.

[Kingmonkey]

When people are arguing over semantics regarding "old" vs. "recurring," that's splitting hairs, sorry.

Technically all we can do is argue semantics, there's no other source than the meaning of the text, but I get where you're coming from. I suspect the difference between those who consider it splitting hairs and those who'd rather we be more precise is that some people see the phrase "recurring dream" as having a very specific meaning and some don't.

A clinical psychologist would certainly consider the frequency at which Ned's dream has recurred (and the change over time of that frequency) a very important issue. Mind you, they'd probably then bemoan the lack of REM-associated kinesiological data in GRRM's narrative, and the concomitant difficulties of attempting a post-traumatic stress analysis, and nobody wants that -- so yeah you're right, let's leave this one alone!

[Salazor Ahai Stormborn]

Because "cliche" hidden Prince Jon is not how people want the story to be told because GRRM is "breaker of all the things."

Martin being a "breaker of all the things" is now cliche, so it's not cliche if Jon is a hidden prince.

About the dream, I think the dialog might not have been exactly like it's written in the book, but some of the things told was only understood after Ned sees Lyanna (like "We swore a vow"). What happened is as important as the words. Kingsguard died defending someone. All remaining loyal Kingsguards there, and all of them die. Of course they were not just obeying orders, unless madness is contagious and they were all crazy as Aerys.

[stateofdissipation]

This is your point of contention? How does the recurring phrase of "Promise me, Ned" and repeated recollections of flower crowns, blue winter roses while he's awake not strongly indicate that the topic of Lyanna and her demise at the TOJ notably unsettled him all these years? This realistically provokes these semi and/or unconscious images later on in GOT. Furthermore, how does the Baroque vibe of Ned's "recurring"/"old"-this-shit-has-haunted-him-for-over-a-decade-tainted dream/recollection have any impact on how the reader should perceive it? I'm just not getting this.

And stateofdiss, it appears that you put time and effort into your posts but you invalidate your whole project by taking statements out of context. Like, are you really going to parse and reconstruct on the basis of incomplete/vague source intel the exact timeline of Lyanna's childbirth/and acquisition of an infection related to the birth, how long it realistically takes Ned to reach the TOJ, and conclude that since the specifics don't hold up, the theory is invalidated? Pal, you are so missing the forest for the trees here. I'll go out on a limb here to say that Martin, as particular as he is in many areas, doesn't seem to have put a lot of thought into the pathophysiology of what ostensibly killed Lyanna (puerperal fever). But you seem to insist that he should have if this is true in-story.

Fwiw, I'm an attorney who is trained to parse through the bullshit disclosed in corporate proxy statements and executive employment contracts only to perpetuate the same sophistry and I find your posts to be some of the most tedious and inaccessible on the forum, not the least of which is because you resort to the bells and whistles of multicolored fonts to emphasize your point(s). Your words should be a sufficient force of your argument, not the font color or wonky formatting.

And stateofdiss, it appears that you put time and effort into your posts but you invalidate your whole project by taking statements out of context. Like, are you really going to parse and reconstruct on the basis of incomplete/vague source intel the exact timeline of Lyanna's childbirth/and acquisition of an infection related to the birth, how long it realistically takes Ned to reach the TOJ,

Source material does not give enough specifics for calculation. The fever and the kingsguard guarding the king does.

However, if you really must know, you can figure out the distances for yourself. The Wall is a hundred leagues long. A league is three miles. Go from there.---GRRM

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/2787

Ned's route is given. Trident to King's Landing to Storm's End to Tower of Joy... 1300 miles

The route of news is Trident to King's Landing to Tower of Joy is 950 miles.

The baby was born 3 to 10 days before Ned arrived (fever) and at least the day news arrived (kingsguard guarding king)

For the News to reach the Tower of Joy 10 days ahead of Ned... Ned had to go at least 50 miles a day an the news had to go form 7/6ths to 7/5ths Ned's speed. The slower Ned goes the greater the difference in between his arrival time and the arrival of the news.

and conclude that since the specifics don't hold up, the theory is invalidated?

The specifics do add up so long as Ned made 50 miles a day and news went at 7/6ths to 7/5ths Ned's speed.

It is the consequence of adding too many specifics without thinking them through.

Asserting only that Lyanna died of childbed fever and the kingsguard were guarding the king provides the timeline... you can choose to ignore it... you can invent something else to avoid the problem.

Pal, you are so missing the forest for the trees here. I'll go out on a limb here to say that Martin, as particular as he is in many areas, doesn't seem to have put a lot of thought into the pathophysiology of what ostensibly killed Lyanna (puerperal fever). But you seem to insist that he should have if this is true in-story.

"No,"Ned said with sadness in his voice, " Now it ends." As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming, "Eddard" she called. A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.

"Lord Eddard," Lyanna called again,

"I promise," he whispered. "Lya, I promise..." ---aGoT page 410

"I was with her when she died." Ned reminded the king. "She wanted to come home, to rest beside Brandon and father." He could still hear her at times. Promise me, she had cried in that room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been as faint as a whisper, but when he had given his word, the fear had gone out of his sister's eyes. Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm dead and black. After that he remembered nothing. They found him still holding her body. Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his, Ned could recall none of it. "I bring her flowers when I can," he said. "Lyanna was... fond of flowers."--aGoT page 40

The bold part is the link we have between Lyanna's death and the showdown.

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

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

Interestingly enough a search for fever after childbirth comes up with puerperal fever....a search for fever during childbirth comes up with the following link....

http://www.birth.com.au/fever-in-labour/about-fevers#.U_xFsfl_vT8

[stateofdissipation]

Of course the dream isn't entirely literal. The faces of the men he was with weren't literally wraiths, Lyanna wouldn't have called him by his full name, and I highly doubt there was a literal "storm of rose petals." That last one especially seems pretty metaphorical. That doesn't mean that the meat of the dream (the encounter with the Kingsguard) isn't accurate.

Also, what happened at the Tower of Joy encompasses a fuck ton more than just Ned's fight. Namely, everything that came before it and what came after it. So acting like Ned's dream somehow isn't valid because we're going to learn more about the Tower of Joy in the future doesn't make much sense.

But ... way to quote the dictionary? Gee, you sure ... taught ... me.

But ... way to quote the dictionary? Gee, you sure ... taught ... me.

I cited the dictionary... I do not use words or text in a non standard manner...

I was not using "argument" as a name or a label... it is the accurate word for an essay that is series of statements for the kingsguard mean king present---it was cited in contrast to your---.then there's no basis for analyzing---

That doesn't mean that the meat of the dream (the encounter with the Kingsguard) isn't accurate.

"A small cup," Ned said. "my head is still heavy with milk of the poppy."---aGoT page 412.

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

The unwillingness to accept what the author and/or text says about the dream says nothing about the accuracy of the dream and everything about the accuracy of the poster.

Also, what happened at the Tower of Joy encompasses a fuck ton more than just Ned's fight.

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

Namely, everything that came before it and what came after it.

beginning with

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

and ending with

As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming,--aGoT page 410 or Lyanna in her bed of blood.---aGoT page 409

So acting like Ned's dream somehow isn't valid because we're going to learn more about the Tower of Joy in the future doesn't make much sense.

validity of an analysis is internal...validity of an argument is not. Inventing the "valid" dream will not validate the inventions in the dream or any argument based on inventions.