Jump to content

Archived

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

Ygrain

[TWOIAF Spoilers] R+L=J without spoiler tags v.2

Recommended Posts

You, probably, didn't understand me correctly. English is not my native language, so sorry. I've never meant to say Kevan or Jaime talked to her. I meant for Rhaegar it was her character, but not her beauty that mattered. That wild thing...daring, strong will and sense of justice...if she was tKoLT and Rhaegar knew that, probably, even talked to her...that what played the major part, but not her incredible looks. I presume we can agree that Ashara definitely was the most beautiful of all, that at least was mentioned a lot by different people. Even Kevan admits Lyanna had a wild kind of beauty. Lyanna was said to be pretty by few as well, Cersei too, even Cat once or twice, Elia was always described fair and delicate. If you think that any person's character (I mean personal features like shyness or hot temper) does not affects his/her looks, features and even movements you are very much mistaken. I think it is the same here. Look at Arya, how she behaves, she speaks what she thinks, she defends the innocent (at least tries) and she is considered wild. I just think that Rhaegar was good to Elia, he treated her well, as Barristan said "fond of her", he didn't love her all the same. He was faithful and dutiful up to the point he fell in love for real. And looks didn't play any kind of role here. I think, it's the character that inflamed him in Lyanna. Elia could be the most fair girl ever, but if she was simple...I do not know how to describe what I am trying to say. I know few very pretty women, who are at the same time simple and uninteresting, which doesn't make them bad at all, mind you. And sometimes you can meet a girl or a woman with average looks, but you won't be able to take your eyes of her, especially if you talk to her (which has nothing to do with what she wears or her make up). Some people has it, some don't. Not mentioning that people in general like different things (to me Elia and Rhaegar were too alike, while Lyanna was complete opposite).

As my mother use to say, "beauty is as beauty does." :)

Edit: Rhaegar would have been surrounded by some of the most beautiful women in the land at court.

I daresay that perhaps Tywin was not the only ambitious father.

As for who was most beautiful, again I think its tit-for-tat. Jaime doesn't mention Ashara, while he does mention Cat as interesting, and Cersei actually pitied her,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elia could be the most fair girl ever, but if she was simple...I do not know how to describe what I am trying to say. I know few very pretty women, who are at the same time simple and uninteresting, which doesn't make them bad at all, mind you.

Because of course, the fact that Rhaegar didn't feel attracted to her automatically means she was simple and uninteresting, fair or not.

I hereby declare that all blonde men with blue eyes are simple and uninteresting, no matter how handsome they are. The reason? I can never be attracted to fair hair and blue eyes.

Same here. You don't need to defend Rhaegar by demeaning Elia's looks. She was not attractive to him. Such things happen. It doesn't mean she was simple or whatever and Rhaegar certainly doesn't need flaws invented for Elia to be justified in not loving her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks often come down to personal taste, bias, perception, etc... Different strokes for different folks. Kevan has a natural bias towards his family, but that does not mean Rhaegar shared the same perception. There is a lot of this person was attractive and that same person not being attractive to someone else in the story.

Jaime and Bree not saying it's a love story but they have something, when you care about someone it's not hard to see the beauty in them.

Here I agree definitely. That isn't looks that make Brianna beautiful, it is her character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Yandel's entire work is composed post-Rebellion (he took his vows as a maester in the 9th year of Robert's reign), and is colored throughout with pro-Baratheon and pro-Lannister sentiments. What I thought was interesting about Ran's comment is that it implies that there was something special about this section in particular, that the authors wanted to hit their readers over the head with the evidence of later revision.

I mean, I think that the likeliest explanation was that the section was re-written after Robert's death to make it even more pro-Lannister. But the "different parchment" idea could imply someone else's hand altogether, that's all I was thinking. But really I can't think of how making a false claim that Viserys was heir actually changes anything for anyone in-world (though it may for us readers, hence all this discussion!).

Oh my mistake I didn't realize that. You're probably right that it was edited to be more Lannister friendly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of course, the fact that Rhaegar didn't feel attracted to her automatically means she was simple and uninteresting, fair or not.

I hereby declare that all blonde men with blue eyes are simple and uninteresting, no matter how handsome they are. The reason? I can never be attracted to fair hair and blue eyes.

Same here. You don't need to defend Rhaegar by demeaning Elia's looks. She was not attractive to him. Such things happen. It doesn't mean she was simple or whatever and Rhaegar certainly doesn't need flaws invented for Elia to be justified in not loving her.

Don't be ridiculous! I suggest you reread the original post carefully, not the only part you've chosen. I chose the word "simple" because I couldn't find another one in English, not a native speaker. I clearly stated that it wasn't her looks or lack of beauty (which I think was untrue, she probably was a pretty woman), but her character that made her uninteresting or simple for Rhaegar. Is it more clear now? I'm not trying to find any flaws in Elia, on the contrary, I think she was a perfect lady, wife, mother etc. But, unfortunately, sometimes it is not enough, thank God, it happens only sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As my mother use to say, "beauty is as beauty does." :)

Edit: Rhaegar would have been surrounded by some of the most beautiful women in the land at court.

I daresay that perhaps Tywin was not the only ambitious father.

As for who was most beautiful, again I think its tit-for-tat. Jaime doesn't mention Ashara, while he does mention Cat as interesting, and Cersei actually pitied her,

Agree! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And I love your English. :)

You know, when I was in college, my friend tried to set me up with this guy who was, smart, handsome, but very serious.

We didn't click, but it didn't make either one of us a bad person, though my friend was a little "miffed" for awhile.

We did end up being very good friends however.

And my mom use to preach that saying to me as I went through an awkward phase. It is about character, and a warning against vanity.

As beautiful as Cersei was, Oberyn would rather a canopy of scorpions fall upon him than marry her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be ridiculous! I suggest you reread the original post carefully, not the only part you've chosen. I chose the word "simple" because I couldn't find another one in English, not a native speaker. I clearly stated that it wasn't her looks or lack of beauty (which I think was untrue, she probably was a pretty woman), but her character that made her uninteresting or simple for Rhaegar. Is it more clear now? I'm not trying to find any flaws in Elia, on the contrary, I think she was a perfect lady, wife, mother etc. But, unfortunately, sometimes it is not enough, thank God, it happens only sometimes.

I suggest you reread your own original post. Maybe you'll see just how insulting it is. And the one that follows isn't any better. You speak in absolute terms, as if Rhaegar was the ultimate arbiter, and use your own experiences to give an air of objectivity of something that is subjective by its very nature.

You might not have meant it this way but it sounds that of course Rhaegar could not find her attractive because she was "simple", as if being "simple", be it in looks or character, was a fact and true in general. And you're making it sound like she had a flaw - OK, let's say a character flaw - that stopped Rhaegar from loving her. "If Elia was simple..." "If she was uninteresting..." You even used the ridiculous reasoning that even Elia's brothers didn't describe her as beauty queen to claim that she was simple. Yes, Oberyn should have totally waxed rhapsodies about her looks in front of Tyrion and Doran should have done the same while speaking about her. Or have you forgotten that the only times Ned calls Lyanna beautiful is when he thinks of her and when he wants to reassure Arya about her own looks? She was simple, she paled in comparison to Ashara and even more compared to Lyanna - were those not your own words? All in the terms of looks.

Unfortunately, it happens only sometimes? People don't click all the time, no matter how attractive, smart, kind, wild, or whatever they are. I don't see why it should be different for Rhaegar and Elia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you reread your own original post. Maybe you'll see just how insulting it is. And the one that follows isn't any better. You speak in absolute terms, as if Rhaegar was the ultimate arbiter, and use your own experiences to give an air of objectivity of something that is subjective by its very nature.

You might not have meant it this way but it sounds that of course Rhaegar could not find her attractive because she was "simple", as if being "simple", be it in looks or character, was a fact and true in general. And you're making it sound like she had a flaw - OK, let's say a character flaw - that stopped Rhaegar from loving her. "If Elia was simple..." "If she was uninteresting..." You even used the ridiculous reasoning that even Elia's brothers didn't describe her as beauty queen to claim that she was simple. Yes, Oberyn should have totally waxed rhapsodies about her looks in front of Tyrion and Doran should have done the same while speaking about her. Or have you forgotten that the only times Ned calls Lyanna beautiful is when he thinks of her and when he wants to reassure Arya about her own looks? She was simple, she paled in comparison to Ashara and even more compared to Lyanna - were those not your own words? All in the terms of looks.

Unfortunately, it happens only sometimes? People don't click all the time, no matter how attractive, smart, kind, wild, or whatever they are. I don't see why it should be different for Rhaegar and Elia.

And that isn't what she. or anyone else is saying.

I like simplicity, so I'm simple as well. To tell the truth. I am more of a Pod woman, you can keep your Brandons, Rhaegars, Oberyns and Roberts.

I like Quintyn aa well, for which I would have Selmys approval because I'm a mud girl. Fire and all its drama bore me, so three cheers for simlple.

And if I were into women, I'd run screaming from Lyanna, Cersei, Ashara, Arianne, and straight into simple Elias arms.

Kings Landing must have seemed alot like Hotel California to Elia where you check in, but you don't check out.

But it still doesn't make Rhaegar a bad person just because Elia didn't do it for him, and just because she didn't doesn't negate her value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you reread your own original post. Maybe you'll see just how insulting it is. And the one that follows isn't any better. You speak in absolute terms, as if Rhaegar was the ultimate arbiter, and use your own experiences to give an air of objectivity of something that is subjective by its very nature.

You might not have meant it this way but it sounds that of course Rhaegar could not find her attractive because she was "simple", as if being "simple", be it in looks or character, was a fact and true in general. And you're making it sound like she had a flaw - OK, let's say a character flaw - that stopped Rhaegar from loving her. "If Elia was simple..." "If she was uninteresting..." You even used the ridiculous reasoning that even Elia's brothers didn't describe her as beauty queen to claim that she was simple. Yes, Oberyn should have totally waxed rhapsodies about her looks in front of Tyrion and Doran should have done the same while speaking about her. Or have you forgotten that the only times Ned calls Lyanna beautiful is when he thinks of her and when he wants to reassure Arya about her own looks? She was simple, she paled in comparison to Ashara and even more compared to Lyanna - were those not your own words? All in the terms of looks.

Unfortunately, it happens only sometimes? People don't click all the time, no matter how attractive, smart, kind, wild, or whatever they are. I don't see why it should be different for Rhaegar and Elia.

I think Gala meant Rhaegar found her uninteresting, because her personality wasn't appealing to him. It doesn't mean Elia wasn't uninteresting to everyone else. I don't think you two are in disagreament, it's as you said, they just didn't click.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*true story*



*Me standing at my window...I see a blue hat; I almost FLY down stairs, past my mother who mutters, "mail must be here....;"throw open the door, grab the package from Mr. Mailman, yelling "thank you" like a decent person, and now it's MINE!*






Agree! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.





Agreed :)



And we know Rhaegar was fond of Elia, whatever that might mean. As it stands, I see them more as partners than lovers. (still making my way through World Book but so fa, nothing is changing my mind on this...)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Gala meant Rhaegar found her uninteresting, because her personality wasn't appealing to him. It doesn't mean Elia wasn't uninteresting to everyone else. I don't think you two are in disagreament, it's as you said, they just didn't click.

I don't think she meant that, initially. In # 218, she speaks of character - "I just think that the person's character is more important here. Elia was never described as a beauty queen even by her own brothers-they called her gentle and feeble in health (was it Oberyn or Doran recalling that she was ill most of her childhood, even almost died and that she had a feeble health and was delicate). Word "delicate" was used quite often to describe her and it is quite eloquent word."

Even Elia's brothers did not think her beautiful, Gala writes. What was wrong with Elia's character, and wrong in a such major way that even her own brothers thought it a flaw? "She was simple, "pale" comparing to girls like Ashara or Cersei, even more simple if comparing to Lyanna (if we presume that she indeed was tKoLT)." Where is it mentioned that Rhaegar showed any interest in those two? And this being so, why does she draw such general comparisons? If Rhaegar was the one who didn't find Elia attractive, what do Ashara and Cersei have with that? Only that, according to Gala, they were superior to Elia in looks.

She changed her tune in her subsequent posts and started blaming people for not understanding her. I guess that might be her true reasoning but she got carried away in the post I quoted (happens to me often). But the problem isn't with her English, it's with her reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, how attached are we to the idea that Jon is legitimate? I know people have being arguing about it for endless threads in the board, but how important is it, really? Jon is awesome, regardless of wheter his parents were married or not. This whole prejudice against bastards in Westeros is awlful.



It's not like he can easily prove R and L married. They can have wed in front of a weirwood, and in a sept, and in Valyrian fashion, and people will always question it. If he is to become king, it won't be because he is the legitimate heir.



And there have been bastard kings in the past, like Benedict Justman, who seems to have been a really great bloke


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, how attached are we to the idea that Jon is legitimate? I know people have being arguing about it for endless threads in the board, but how important is it, really? Jon is awesome, regardless of wheter his parents were married or not. This whole prejudice against bastards in Westeros is awlful.

It's not like he can easily prove R and L married. They can have wed in front of a weirwood, and in a sept, and in Valyrian fashion, and people will always question it. If he is to become king, it won't be because he is the legitimate heir.

And there have been bastard kings in the past, like Benedict Justman, who seems to have been a really great bloke

Would I burn my books and curse GRRM for all of time if Jon's not legit? Certainly not. GRRM can do as he pleases.

I think Jon is, though proving it is difficult and may only happen privately to Jon via Howland's account of perhaps something inside Lyanna's tomb that proves to him (and Dany?) that he's legit.

But, honestly, I don't think Westeros is going to care at all if he's legit or not when he is, IMO, made King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*true story*

*Me standing at my window...I see a blue hat; I almost FLY down stairs, past my mother who mutters, "mail must be here....;"throw open the door, grab the package from Mr. Mailman, yelling "thank you" like a decent person, and now it's MINE!*

Agreed :)

And we know Rhaegar was fond of Elia, whatever that might mean. As it stands, I see them more as partners than lovers. (still making my way through World Book but so fa, nothing is changing my mind on this...)

Me standing at the window as he takes it to the law offices next door, slipping it through the delivery door, and they are closed on vacation through Tuesday.

Stands there clawing at the window pane, screaming profanities that would make Swearinger blush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, how attached are we to the idea that Jon is legitimate? I know people have being arguing about it for endless threads in the board, but how important is it, really? Jon is awesome, regardless of wheter his parents were married or not. This whole prejudice against bastards in Westeros is awlful.

This. Another thing that puzzles me is how attached people are to the idea that Lyanna was tKotLT and that was absolutely gorgeous and shows how great she was.

I, for one, give some credence to the idea that Ned is the knight - the only one of the Starks who isn't mentioned in the episode. And I actually think that if it was Lyanna, it diminishes her character. We know that she was into swords, fighting, and wanting to be a knight. Actually being tKotLT corresponds with her own wishes to play knight, it isn't purely because of Howland. I admire the way she defended him from the squires because he was, in a way, one of the pack and in Westeros, it's hard for a girl to yell at boys - I mean, girls are taught to think they are inferior. But she saw them tormenting Howland and didn't even stop to think before acting, stepping out of her role, with her own face and name and not giving a damn what Daddy who wanted to make her a lady would say. That's pretty awesome. The tKotLT episode? Not so much for me. A blend of playing Lord Stark wielding the sword, defending Howland and the ideals of knighthood, and having the chance to actually practice her hobby on a large scale. I would be far more impressed if she went to Ned and they concocted it together for HIM to be the knight because, let's face it, he did have some training and that was sure to impart the lesson better.

I think she gets too much credit for being tKotLT and not nearly enough for defending Howland from the meanies. This isn't your local school, it's "Sit near the window, dear, do your needlework and smile prettily" Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. Another thing that puzzles me is how attached people are to the idea that Lyanna was tKotLT and that was absolutely gorgeous and shows how great she was.

I, for one, give some credence to the idea that Ned is the knight - the only one of the Starks who isn't mentioned in the episode. And I actually think that if it was Lyanna, it diminishes her character. We know that she was into swords, fighting, and wanting to be a knight. Actually being tKotLT corresponds with her own wishes to play knight, it isn't purely because of Howland. I admire the way she defended him from the squires because he was, in a way, one of the pack and in Westeros, it's hard for a girl to yell at boys - I mean, girls are taught to think they are inferior. But she saw them tormenting Howland and didn't even stop to think before acting, stepping out of her role, with her own face and name and not giving a damn what Daddy who wanted to make her a lady would say. That's pretty awesome. The tKotLT episode? Not so much for me. A blend of playing Lord Stark wielding the sword, defending Howland and the ideals of knighthood, and having the chance to actually practice her hobby on a large scale. I would be far more impressed if she went to Ned and they concocted it together for HIM to be the knight because, let's face it, he did have some training and that was sure to impart the lesson better.

I think she gets too much credit for being tKotLT and not nearly enough for defending Howland from the meanies. This isn't your local school, it's "Sit near the window, dear, do your needlework and smile prettily" Westeros.

I think that both are laudable, and may spring from the same impulses. Sure, as we saw in Bran's fantasies, knighthood can certainly represent personal glory, but I think that there may be genuine fantasies of honor and nobility and generosity...chivalry, in short, that makes a young boy, or girl, attach to the ideal of being a knight. And, as I think your comments suggest, it's quite understandable that a large-spirited girl would be frustrated by the available outlets for her positive impulses toward defending the weak and punishing the unjust.

So, I agree that standing up for Howland is admirable, really, really admirable. But I think her impulse to stand publicly against a system that allows the weak and vulnerable to be belittled by showing up the "false" knights is also admirable.

ETA: So, in some sense, maybe Aerys isn't wrong to see the KotLT's shield as mocking him, as he's representative of a corrupt system. He was just wrong to think that Jaime Lannister would be the one to take on that role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me standing at the window as he takes it to the law offices next door, slipping it through the delivery door, and they are closed on vacation through Tuesday.

Stands there clawing at the window pane, screaming profanities that would make Swearinger blush.

omgosh, poor you!!! :(

I think that both are laudable, and may spring from the same impulses. Sure, as we saw in Bran's fantasies, knighthood can certainly represent personal glory, but I think that there may be genuine fantasies of honor and nobility and generosity...chivalry, in short, that makes a young boy, or girl, attach to the ideal of being a knight. And, as I think your comments suggest, it's quite understandable that a large-spirited girl would be frustrated by the available outlets for her positive impulses toward defending the weak and punishing the unjust.

So, I agree that standing up for Howland is admirable, really, really admirable. But I think her impulse to stand publicly against a system that allows the weak and vulnerable to be belittled by showing up the "false" knights is also admirable.

I agree. I see the latter as a continuation of the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that both are laudable, and may spring from the same impulses.

So, I agree that standing up for Howland is admirable, really, really admirable. But I think her impulse to stand publicly against a system that allows the weak and vulnerable to be belittled by showing up the "false" knights is also admirable.

But not nearly as pure. It also fits with the entitled Stark way of seeing themselves as the law (I am a Ned fan but I found the way he was so for the law and being the law when he executed that Night Watch deserter chilling, especially when contrasted with his decision to go all human, aka against the truth to save Sansa). It also fits with her own desire to carry a sword. If it was about Howland alone, Brandon or Ned would have been a better choice. I cannot see Ned refusing her.

In contrast, standing up for Howland brings nothing to her. Well, it does - a not so small amount of trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence the wolf's blood bringing her to an early grave.

Ned was consistent with the law. It might have been harsh, but people also said a maiden could walk naked and no one would dare touch her unlike the current chaotic situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×