R+L =J v. 115

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I marvel at your ability to alternate between close mindedness in the face of nearly overwhelming evidence, and open mindedness in its absence.

...your reading seems rather shallow.

Are you one of those people who has trouble differentiating in universe knowledge with the reader's perspective?

J. Star, you seem like an intelligent person. I generally enjoy reading your posts and engaging you in conversation or debate. But sometimes, when you start to get defensive, I wonder if you consider my arguments threatening. Is that what's going on when you get personal like this? You really don't have to respond to my comments at all, if you don't want to. But I'd appreciate it if you'd resist the urge to ridicule or insult me personally.

[Alia of the knife]

I have trouble tying these quotes to R+L=J. This one is a good example. The part you quoted makes it sound like there are kings hiding under "Snow." In fact, the fuller dialogue is:

"Where are all your people?"

"Likely they were too shy to come out. Kings are a rare sight in the North."

Then, it is: Robert snorted. "More likely they were hiding under the snow. Snow, Ned!"

There is nothing there about kings hiding under snow. Just the commoners in the North hiding from a king.

It is a double entendre.

Your take on Robert and Neds conversation is correct on the surface, but the Author is a third party, and his meaning more subtle.

There is a king in disguise as a bastard hiding under a bastard name.

[UnmaskedLurker]

But I think GRRM is playing fast and loose with grammar here. The subject of Robert's "they" could reflect back to the people (the original subject) OR it could reflect back to Ned's new subject in his second sentence "Kings"

Right. To expand on the thought a bit--of course Robert has no knowledge that Jon Snow is the "rightful Targ" heir. GRRM is giving a clue by playing this grammar trick where Robert might mean the common folk--but technical grammar rules would require the term "they" to mean "kings". It doesn't matter what Robert meant because he was not intending to refer to Jon in any event. What is important is the sentence construction chosen by GRRM.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Wasn't Bael King-Beyond-The-Wall? (please correct me if I'm not remembering right)--but at any rate, a musician (like Rhaegar).

He was... eventually. But Ygritte begins her story with the following line: "...long before he was king over the free folk, Bael was a great raider..."

Here's a fuller look at the beginning of the story:

"...long before he was king over the free folk, Bael was a great raider."

Stonesnake gave a snort. "A murderer, robber, and raper, is what you mean."

"That's all in where you're standing too," Ygritte said. "The Stark in Winterfell wanted Bael's head, but never could take him, and the taste o' failure galled him. One day in his bitterness he called Bael a craven who preyed only on the weak. When word o' that got back, Bael vowed to teach the lord a lesson. So he scaled the Wall, skipped down the kingsroad, and walked into Winterfell one winter's night with harp in hand, naming himself Sygerrik of Skagos. Sygerrik means 'deceiver' in the Old Tongue, that the First Men spoke, and the giants still speak."

That's not a set-up that corresponds very well with the R+L story. Unless you think the Starks had already been after Rhaegar's head, and considered him a "murderer, robber, and raper" long before Lyanna's actual disappearance; or that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna simply because he wanted "to teach [House Stark] a lesson."

[Alia of the knife]

That works for me. What troubles me about the idea of the rose as an inference to RLJ is that I don't believe it requires R. In other words, the blue rose as symbol/metaphor for Lyanna stands on its own - whoever Jon's father turns out to be.

I also think it's a push to think a symbol for Lyanna is also necessarily a symbol for Jon. And, even setting aside the HoU vision, I can't think of an appearance of the blue rose that would seem to represent Jon himself.

I think the rose is Lyanna/Stark daughter~centric, but Rhaegar and Jon can be secondary inferences, as well as anyone else impacted by a Stark female.

If Edric Dayne and Arya had a child, I could see the blue rose, as a symbol of Arya, woven into the mosaic and symbolism of the childs lineage.

[BearQueen87]

That's not a set-up that corresponds very well with the R+L story. Unless you think the Starks had already been after Rhaegar's head, and considered him a "murderer, robber, and raper" long before Lyanna's actual disappearance; or that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna simply because he wanted "to teach [House Stark] a lesson."

No, but I think this is when culture comes into play. In-text Ygritte is telling a story of a Wilding cultural hero, meaning he has to embody certain aspects that they deem heroic: so raiding for instance. She's not trying to reflect on Rhaegar.

However, the set up via Martin of Bael as "murderer, robber,and raper" IS what people (ie: Robert Baratheon) think about Rhaegar after the L incident.

I take Ygritte's line "That's all in where you're standing too," as being totally Martin nudging us

[J. Stargaryen]

J. Star, you seem like an intelligent person. I generally enjoy reading your posts and engaging you in conversation or debate. But sometimes, when you start to get defensive, I wonder if you consider my arguments threatening. Is that what's going on when you get personal like this? You really don't have to respond to my comments at all, if you don't want to. But I'd appreciate it if you'd resist the urge to ridicule or insult me personally.

I marvel at your ability to alternate between close mindedness in the face of nearly overwhelming evidence, and open mindedness in its absence.

In this case, I was poking a bit of fun at you. But it's well deserved, imo, based on your posting history and attitude. When it comes to things like or involving R+L=J, you're very skeptical, and unwilling to concede even, e.g., that the "wall of ice" from the HotU is the Wall. This isn't necessarily a bad thing by itself. But then you'll turn around and entertain something like T+L=J, or Aegon at the ToJ, or that the wall of ice is Roose or Tywin. Where did your hardline skepticism go? Is there a switch that turns it on and off? It seems very selective.

...your reading seems rather shallow.

Which was in reply to: "As a result, it surprises me that people do find a way to read it that way. It seems rather forced."

Are you one of those people who has trouble differentiating in universe knowledge with the reader's perspective?

This was a genuine question. Otherwise, I'm not sure what kind of argument you were trying to make.

[aDanceWithFlagons]

Well, the word "chink" is suggestive to me. I'm inclined to wonder if the "wall of ice" represents a character whose human heart is otherwise well concealed and protected by his cold, hard exterior.

I have to say this is a nice way to look at it. I've never come to a conclusion that fit the description of the flower from the chink on the wall.

I do not know if you had this in mind, but I think you were going this way... Lyanna is the love/emotion/strength that breaks through the ice shell of Jon that melts the heart, or softens the hardened heart.

The Heart of Winter.

Now that I read more of the thread I may have taken your interpretation a little far. But the blue rose equals Jon has never cliked with me. I guess that's why I enjoyed your ideas so much.

I pushed the idea that Jon's future reveal of his mother could lead to melting the icy shell of Snow.

[Ygrain]

That works for me. What troubles me about the idea of the rose as an inference to RLJ is that I don't believe it requires R. In other words, the blue rose as symbol/metaphor for Lyanna stands on its own - whoever Jon's father turns out to be.

I also think it's a push to think a symbol for Lyanna is also necessarily a symbol for Jon. And, even setting aside the HoU vision, I can't think of an appearance of the blue rose that would seem to represent Jon himself.

To be honest, I don't believe the son is included in the rose symbolism. As a result, it surprises me that people do find a way to read it that way. It seems rather forced.

What do you find so strange about the idea that if a man gifts a woman something that can be interpreted as a token of love, the gift relates both to him and the fruit of their union?

Re: going back through the text to reinterpret in light of "R+L=J"... Once again, I'm confused about whether you would consider "R+L" (1) the premise upon which readers can be expected to locate and identify clues and evidence to Jon's parentage; or (2) the conclusion which readers can be expected to reach on the basis of such clues and evidence. And if you ask me, it looks like it would be very difficult to get to the conclusion (2) without first assuming it as a premise (1). It's very circular.

Then you should probably ask other people because they did arrive to the conclusion on the basis of clues, without assuming anything.

Actually, I'm arguing against precisely that point. It's completely reasonable to believe that Lyanna would have been associated with blue roses, whether or not she'd ever laid eyes on Rhaegar. And that she was.

And do you have a single textual proof that she was associated with winter roses prior Harrenhal?

Plus, even if she had liked them before, she wouldn't have been associated with a crown of them.

Strike the word extensive. There is a history in which a Stark maiden is associated with winter roses. That's what the song of the winter rose is. It's not merely "an illustration" or "an allegory" of some more recent event, cleverly cast in the past tense to fool readers. How would Mance, Ygritte, Qhorin, and others (north of the Wall) know anything about Rhaegar, Lyanna, Harrenhal and its aftermath? What interest would Ygritte have in illustrating "R+L?" Reducing an older, widely known oral tradition into nothing but a reflection of something we already "know" effectively excises from Martin's story what may be crucial background for a more informed understanding of the events leading up to Robert's Rebellion.

Do you seriously suggest that in order for the author to relay some meaning to the readers, the in-world characters must be aware of its significance?

He was... eventually. But Ygritte begins her story with the following line: "...long before he was king over the free folk, Bael was a great raider..."

Here's a fuller look at the beginning of the story:

"...long before he was king over the free folk, Bael was a great raider."

Stonesnake gave a snort. "A murderer, robber, and raper, is what you mean."

"That's all in where you're standing too," Ygritte said. "The Stark in Winterfell wanted Bael's head, but never could take him, and the taste o' failure galled him. One day in his bitterness he called Bael a craven who preyed only on the weak. When word o' that got back, Bael vowed to teach the lord a lesson. So he scaled the Wall, skipped down the kingsroad, and walked into Winterfell one winter's night with harp in hand, naming himself Sygerrik of Skagos. Sygerrik means 'deceiver' in the Old Tongue, that the First Men spoke, and the giants still speak."

That's not a set-up that corresponds very well with the R+L story. Unless you think the Starks had already been after Rhaegar's head, and considered him a "murderer, robber, and raper" long before Lyanna's actual disappearance; or that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna simply because he wanted "to teach [House Stark] a lesson."

A parallel in stories doesn't require for every single detail to be the same. I can't believe you're being serious with this.

[Greymoon]

Right. Because of the Bael story, people act as if there is some extensive history of associating Stark maidens with winter roses. There's not, as far as we know. There's Lyanna and Bael's girl. I would move to call her Baela, if it wasn't already a Targaryen name.

Btw, it wouldn't surprise me if the Targ-like spelling of Bael was on purpose. In order to nudge readers to think of Targaryens in this other blue rose story. Why is GRRM using a Targaryen spelling for this child's father?

conversely, Bael is one of the seven princes of hell; at times equivalent with Beelzebub; sometimes associated to Satan himself....and, the bael tree + fruit; the tri-foliate form of its leaves + it's ritual purposes (symbolical marriage between girls and the bael fruit ;) could also be considered as 'not a coincidence'... all GRRM needed for inspiration was knowledge of the old Testament; a pot of bael tea (recommended for its medical properties) and that's it....

"ae" also brings to mind Irish/Brythonic/Gaelic names... Ael, Gael, Gwenael > Brandon is of the same origin...and Abel is a male first-name in Brittany.

EDIT: spelling

[Alia of the knife]

From the aSoIaF Wiki;

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Blue_winter_rose

[BearQueen87]

From the aSoIaF Wiki;

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Blue_winter_rose

I don't think anyone is trying to utterly dissociate Lyanna from the roses and saying it can only be Jon. Lyanna is part of this equation. But I'm struggling with those who want to remove Rhaegar totally. Jon is the blue rose by way of Lyanna and Rhaegar. It links the three of them.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

What do you find so strange about the idea that if a man gifts a woman something that can be interpreted as a token of love, the gift relates both to him and the fruit of their union?

Nothing, really. I don't mean to put down that reading. I just think it may be a secondary interpretation when all is said and done.

A parallel in stories doesn't require for every single detail to be the same. I can't believe you're being serious with this.

Believe it. But my argument is one of precedence. I don't mean that the R+L connections aren't there at all - that would be ridiculous. I'm saying that the song of the winter rose came first.

[The guy from the Vale]

Nothing, really. I don't mean to put down that reading. I just think it may be a secondary interpretation when all is said and done.

Believe it. But my argument is one of precedence. I don't mean that the R+L connections aren't there at all - that would be ridiculous. I'm saying that the song of the winter rose came first.

Bu in the story we are reading, it came two books after being introduced to the idea of R+L=J. So, R+L=J takes precedence to us, the readers.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I don't think anyone is trying to utterly dissociate Lyanna from the roses and saying it can only be Jon. Lyanna is part of this equation. But I'm struggling with those who want to remove Rhaegar totally. Jon is the blue rose by way of Lyanna and Rhaegar. It links the three of them.

Don't mean to make you struggle. But I do want to remove Rhaegar from the blue rose. :)

[BearQueen87]

Don't mean to make you struggle. But I do want to remove Rhaegar from the blue rose. :)

Right...I know. Which is why we're now on page 7 of v. 115 and have discussed nothing but the blue rose.

I still don't get why given, at the very least, that R gave those roses to L and that he is J's father. And I haven't seen an explanation for why you're linking the ice wall to Tywin or Roose....But at this point... :dunno:

It's not something that is ever going to fleshed out in text. GRRM isn't going to have a character explain all the meaning behind various symbols.

[sj4iy]

Now that the embargo is lifted, I will add that Martin put another parallel in about Jaehaerys and Rhaella running off to wed in secret against their parents' wishes. It's not an EXACT parallel, but it is, indeed, a parallel. Details don't have to be exactly the same for a parallel to exist.

[sj4iy]

Don't mean to make you struggle. But I do want to remove Rhaegar from the blue rose. :)

Why? It seems rather absurd to want to do that, since Rhaegar GAVE Lyanna the flowers in the first place and there would likely be no Jon if he hadn't. As mentioned above, there's no mention of her liking the flowers before then.

Ooh, I just had a thought- Ned said that he went down to the crypts to bring her flowers often. Makes me think that he would go down to tell her how Jon was doing.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Now that the embargo is lifted, I will add that Martin put another parallel in about Jaehaerys and Rhaella running off to wed in secret against their parents' wishes. It's not an EXACT parallel, but it is, indeed, a parallel. Details don't have to be exactly the same for a parallel to exist.

That would be Jaehaerys (later Jaehaerys II) and his younger sister Shaera ;)

Permission had not been given by the king, but upon discovery of the marriage, it had already been consummated, forcing the king to accept it (I personally find the 'forcing' part very interesting).

And it is a nice way of GRRM to show that even in Westeros (especially in Westeros) this can still happen.

[The guy from the Vale]

Wait, you're saying Rhaegar's grandfather pulled basically the same trick Rhaegar tried to?

Well, I guess that explains where he got that idea...