XSarellaX Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Do we know for sure if Wylla the Wetnurse is still alive?For sure? No. But I think so. If she's dead, she becomes a footnote "oh, by the way, your wetnurse pretended to be your mother, nice woman, right? Pity she's died". It works as another piece of the mystery, which is fine, but I think it would be more interesting if we got to see her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 No? Why are the dead kings hiding from the small folk? Where are you getting that? The Kings of Winter are "hiding" under the snow. They aren't literally hiding--they are dead. But they reside under the snow. It's also ironic because kings are not a rare sight in the north...Ned and Robert are walking by them. Once again, George is doing a literary thing..pointing you towards what he is doing. And Jon is hiding from Robert---but not literally. Ned knows who Jon is (RLJ...forget the legit for a second). He resides, like the King of Winter, under the stone and snow of Winterfell (and his name). Parallels, friend. Parallels. You have the patience of a saint. I loved your grammar lesson (perfect in virtually every respect) and the way in which you continue to calmly explain the obviousness of the literary allusion. IMHO, assuming R+L=J is correct (which it almost certainly is), then if someone cannot see the unambiguousness of the literary word-play GRRM is using with the word "Snow" then either the person does not really understand how to interpret literature or the person is being willfully stubborn because of a dislike for the implications of the allusion. There are some apparent "clues" that might be a bit of overreach--this one is not one of them--this one is an easy one. Not even a close call. Not even that subtle once RLJ is understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 For sure? No. But I think so. If she's dead, she becomes a footnote "oh, by the way, your wetnurse pretended to be your mother, nice woman, right? Pity she's died". It works as another piece of the mystery, which is fine, but I think it would be more interesting if we got to see her Yeah, I agree. And I think Wylla Manderly yelling, "I know about the promise" is GRRM's big red flag about another Wylla. As for how we might see her...well I assume we have to go to Starfall someday. Not sure who would go (Sam maybe?) but that little keep has been far too quiet for awhile now. If Dawn is there, and is important either for Jon or another character, then yes I envision a layover at Starfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrettyPig Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Not that anyone cares, but... "I've never seen such a vast emptiness. Where are all your people?" "Likely they were to shy to come out," Ned jested. He could feel the chill coming from up the stairs, a cold breath from deep within the earth. "Kings are a rare sight in the north." Robert snorted. "More likely they were hiding under the snow. Snow, Ned!" The king put one hand on the wall to steady himself as they descended. Robert is expanding Ned's prior qualifier. To add to the fun, though: in a later novel, who/what people do we see actually "hiding under the snow" in the North? Wights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Just something I found reading an old interview, probably old news but just in case Shaw: Lord Stark accepts Jon as though he were a true-born son, while Lady Stark rejects him. But neither of them are true parental figures to him. Are these complex relations just a reflection of the typical family life that characterizes all the key families in the novel, or are these relations also central in shaping Jon's character? Martin: They're certainly important in shaping Jon's character. I might dispute whether Lord Stark is a true parental figure to Jon. He does serve as a pretty good parental figure to Jon and to all of his children by Catelyn as well. Of course, the standards of what characterized being a good father or a parental figure are very different in a medieval setting than they are today, so that does have to be borne in mind when you're looking at these things. Today we would be horrified if someone took their eight-year-old son and sent him across the country to be a servant in someone else's house, but in the middle ages they did that sort of fostering all the time. http://web.archive.org/web/20051103091500/nrctc.edu/fhq/vol1iss3/00103009.htm/ Edit: nevermind he's disputing Shaw's suggestion that Ned is not a true parental figure. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Just something I found reading an old interview, probably old news but just in case http://web.archive.org/web/20051103091500/nrctc.edu/fhq/vol1iss3/00103009.htm/ I guess I'm not sure the relevance of this particular quote... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I guess I'm not sure the relevance of this particular quote... Yeah I just realized I misinterpreted it. I thought he was hinting that Ned was not Jon's father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Yeah I just realized I misinterpreted it. I thought he was hinting that Ned was not Jon's father. Gotcha ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Not that anyone cares, but... "I've never seen such a vast emptiness. Where are all your people?" "Likely they were to shy to come out," Ned jested. He could feel the chill coming from up the stairs, a cold breath from deep within the earth. "Kings are a rare sight in the north." Robert snorted. "More likely they were hiding under the snow. Snow, Ned!" The king put one hand on the wall to steady himself as they descended. Robert is expanding Ned's prior qualifier. To add to the fun, though: in a later novel, who/what people do we see actually "hiding under the snow" in the North? Wights. Ok. Again. Ned and Robert know what they are talking about. It's GEORGE RR MARTIN who is doing the literary, playing with grammar thing. There is a difference! Robert and Ned are not having a secret conversation about Jon and Kings. They know the conversation they are having. George is playing with grammar in a subtle way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XSarellaX Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I think sometimes we should just accept that somethings that are obvious to us aren't to other people, and that others can think certain clues and forshadowing are very clear, even when they aren't to us. There's no need to insult people saying they can't read, don't know grammar, etc. Why do we have this need to convert others? Let's just agree to disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Interpreting subtext relies entirely on your opinion though. It doesn't make it fact. Are you familiar with the concept of deception? Because some of your beloved "facts" are placed in the text with the purpose of deceiving the audience. So, Ned claiming Jon as his son does not automatically make it reliable. And sure, interpreting subtext can be problematic. But when so many people are able to independently interpret the same subtext the same way, it speaks for itself. Yeah, I agree. And I think Wylla Manderly yelling, "I know about the promise" is GRRM's big red flag about another Wylla. As for how we might see her...well I assume we have to go to Starfall someday. Not sure who would go (Sam maybe?) but that little keep has been far too quiet for awhile now. If Dawn is there, and is important either for Jon or another character, then yes I envision a layover at Starfall. Yep, and it's right after her mother says to her: "You know nothing." Move along. Nothing to see here. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 <snip> I think that there are multiple layers to interpreting Daenerys' visions in the HotU. There are several writers involved, including GRRM, and we know that the visualization of the written word would have given away too many hints and clues. I see that Snow is on the throne and Daenerys does not disturb (him) it. She finds her true love north of the Wall, and her child. Hmmm. As much as I dislike Daenerys marrying Jon, it may indeed be where we are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 So Doran is King? I said, a prince may be a king, and a king may be a prince. What about "may" did you not understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 Where has GRRM ever written that Jon is Lyanna and Rhaegar's trueborn son? It's not written anywhere. In fact, assuming Jon is Lyanna and Rhaegar's son is a jump the reader has to reach, and making him trueborn is another jump you have reached. Nothing of the sorts is in the book, and some things you have no support for like the trueborn thing. I am beyond trying to explain things to you. What I believe has no impact on you or your thoughts. I simply asked, "how would you like to see it written so that you would believe, too?" Care to answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalatis Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Are you familiar with the concept of deception? Because some of your beloved "facts" are placed in the text with the purpose of deceiving the audience. So, Ned claiming Jon as his son does not automatically make it reliable. And sure, interpreting subtext can be problematic. But when so many people are able to independently interpret the same subtext the same way, it speaks for itself. markg171 has yet to admit to a mystery existing starting in the first book and will be revealed likely in book 6. I'm not sure why I see people arguing foreshadowing with this poster; when you don't even agree on the fact that there is a mystery to begin with. I asked him to agree that there was a mystery and that the mystery was Jon's mother. If he doesn't agree that Jon's mother is a mystery (as he states multiple times he thinks it's Wylla), then he needs to state what that mystery is. As GRRM has talked about this mystery and that people had it figured out as of 1998, but he wasn't going to change it. It is a waste of energy/time for you guys to argue subtle hints and foreshadowing to a person that doesn't even agree that there is a mystery to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrettyPig Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Ok. Again. Ned and Robert know what they are talking about. It's GEORGE RR MARTIN who is doing the literary, playing with grammar thing. There is a difference! Robert and Ned are not having a secret conversation about Jon and Kings. They know the conversation they are having. George is playing with grammar in a subtle way. You have your interpretation, I have mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 You have the patience of a saint. I loved your grammar lesson (perfect in virtually every respect) and the way in which you continue to calmly explain the obviousness of the literary allusion. IMHO, assuming R+L=J is correct (which it almost certainly is), then if someone cannot see the unambiguousness of the literary word-play GRRM is using with the word "Snow" then either the person does not really understand how to interpret literature or the person is being willfully stubborn because of a dislike for the implications of the allusion. There are some apparent "clues" that might be a bit of overreach--this one is not one of them--this one is an easy one. Not even a close call. Not even that subtle once RLJ is understood. Yep. A little prose (I am not a really good writer, but): We have such beautiful weather, not a cloud in the sky. The sky is blue, and the day clear and comfortable. Where is the sun? Do I need to tell you where it is for you to know that it is visible? Do I need to tell you that the sunlight feels warm where it strikes? Such is the description of Jon Targaryen. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 It's kinda funny learning how you see things through your R+L=J glasses... Actually, it is kind of funny seeing you try to distort what story line that GRRM likely has. You have come up with some really side-splitting scenarios. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 You have your interpretation, I have mine. Ok, fine. It's interpretation. But do you think there is nothing odd about that conversation: grammatically, thematically, punctuation wise, and ironically given that kings are not a rare sight as Ned and Bobby B walk by them all? I mean, sure. It could just be two friends having a conversation without any authorial insert anywhere. But...eh. Not-GRRM-ish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Ok, fine. It's interpretation. But do you think there is nothing odd about that conversation: grammatically, thematically, punctuation wise, and ironically given that kings are not a rare sight as Ned and Bobby B walk by them all? I mean, sure. It could just be two friends have a conversation without any authorial insert anyway. But...eh. Not-GRRM-ish I wonder if people realize the implications of what they're arguing when they go this route; i.e., eroding the text's depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.