Jump to content

R+L=J v.119


Jon Weirgaryen

Recommended Posts

Personally, I find this explanation to be very poor...

I understand your motive for presenting this explanation, as it is the best that you have to offer, but I think most would agree that it is rather lacking, to say the least...

The real reason that the KG did not advise Ned that his sister had just given birth to a son is more likely one of the following::

  • Because the author did not want the audience to know Jon's story at this point (or did not want the audience to come by the information so easily)
  • Because Jon/Jon's birth was of no importance to the King's Guard & they stood their ground for reasons that the author has yet to reveal...
I think that one of these has to be correct...

Good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I find this explanation to be very poor...

I understand your motive for presenting this explanation, as it is the best that you have to offer, but I think most would agree that it is rather lacking, to say the least...

The real reason that the KG did not advise Ned that his sister had just given birth to a son is more likely one of the following::

  • Because the author did not want the audience to know Jon's story at this point (or did not want the audience to come by the information so easily)

Because Jon/Jon's birth was of no importance to the King's Guard & they stood their ground for reasons that the author has yet to reveal...

I think that one of these has to be correct...

A third

  • They are unsure about the reputation of this newly raised Lord, who just happened to arrive right around the sack of the King Landing, in which 2 royal children were brutally killed. While he does have familial ties, he also was one of the top 3 most important people in overthrowing the previous regime. They may think he won't believe their story, or that the child may somehow be inferior in Ned's eyes since he thinks it's the result of a lot of rape.

I'm inclined to go with a big heap of #1 with a scoop of #3, but I think there are more than just the two options you presented. Nailing Martin down to only one possibility in the absence of a large amount of evidence is stupid, especially when all those possibilities can work within the context of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I find this explanation to be very poor...

I understand your motive for presenting this explanation, as it is the best that you have to offer, but I think most would agree that it is rather lacking, to say the least...

The real reason that the KG did not advise Ned that his sister had just given birth to a son is more likely one of the following::

  • Because the author did not want the audience to know Jon's story at this point (or did not want the audience to come by the information so easily)

Because Jon/Jon's birth was of no importance to the King's Guard & they stood their ground for reasons that the author has yet to reveal...

I think that one of these has to be correct...

Straw-man attack of "the best you have to offer." More than mildly insulting to the poster.

False dichotomy of "one of these has to be correct." It could be both of those, as the scene is written, along with GRRM not wanting to reveal too much and the KG defending a king/heir/baby of importance.

ETA: Also an, Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to Majority) in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did anyone say that? Ned certainly wouldn't have killed Jon himself but he would have revealed him to Robert, and that would have been the death of Jon. At best, he would have lost the throne.

My apologies, I was making a flippant simplification and forgot that around here there was every reason to take it seriously. You say he would have revealed Jon to Robert, thus the death of Jon. Ned might not be swinging the sword, but that's still signing the death sentence.

We don't know how much the 3KG knew, so we don't know if they had any inkling of the bitter argument between Ned and Robert. Nevertheless, Lyanna is Ned's sister, Jon is Ned's nephew. It would be bizarre to assume that he would necessarily, undoubtedly, follow a course of action that would see Jon die. In the dream dialogue, the 3KG don't raise the subject, they don't even make the slightest effort to determine which way Ned is likely to sway.

To dismiss this by saying the 3KG knew in advance that they had to fight Ned to save Jon is simply ignoring the fact that he's just about the one person in the Westeros most likely to be at least a little sympathetic, and is the second most powerful person in Westeros at that moment. That's a massive opportunity, even if you think it's a slim one. Why on earth would you not even explore it? They have everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. Why try to keep a secret from someone who's either going to kill you and take a look for themselves, or is about to die? If the dream dialogue is really the only thing they had to go on to make that judgement, then the 3KG were dumber than bricks.

Not really. "We are Kingsguard and we do not flee because we swore a vow" and fighting to the death while being remember by the surviving participant as shining examples of KG point pretty much to the vow being the vow.

Points to, yes. I entirely agree. However that's still speculation until it's confirmed. There is no reason to conclude that no other vows could have been in play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Straw-man attack of "the best you have to offer." More than mildly insulting to the poster.

False dichotomy of "one of these has to be correct." It could be both of those, as the scene is written, along with GRRM not wanting to reveal too much and the KG defending a king/heir/baby of importance.

ETA: Also an, Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to Majority) in there.

Thanks.

I'm truly shocked that Snowfyre endorsed it. "J. Star, there's no need to be rude and insulting to me." Hmm, someone was rude and insulting to J. Star. "Good post." - Snowfyre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

I'm truly shocked that Snowfyre endorsed it. "J. Star, there's no need to be rude and insulting to me." Hmm, someone was rude and insulting to J. Star. "Good post." - Snowfyre

I presumed. I don't know if you took it as insulting, I know I would have. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK--others have tried to explain this point to no avail, but I will give it a try anyway. I am not 100% convinced that you are debating in good faith, but for this purpose, I will assume you are.

It has been many years since I was in a high school English class (just attended my 30-year high school reunion), but I still remember some of what we learned regarding symbolism and foreshadowing. The author in fiction literature absolutely is NOT bound by his characters when putting in foreshadowing. It is quite common that the characters are doing one thing for one reason--but that there is symbolism in the action which is not at all explicitly intended by the characters in-story but that foreshadows something that would happen later in the story. Authors in literature employ this technique all the time. The symbolism is not intended by the characters or even known by the characters. The symbolism is solely for the benefit of the readers--to make the story more interesting for them to read by giving "clues" about what will happen next.

Here is an example of foreshadowing from wikipedia:

Foreshadowing is used in much of the works of John Steinbeck. In Of Mice and Men, Lennie accidentally kills a mouse, a dog and finally Curley's wife. This foreshadows his own death. When Carlson kills Candy's Dog, Candy tells George, "I ought to of shot that dog myself" making George later chose to kill Lennie himself to save him from dying by the hands of a stranger. Doing it the way that Carlson did it was for the best because, "He won't even feel it."

As you can see from this example, when Lenny kills others accidentally or Candy talks about it being better to be killed by a loved one than a stranger--neither Lenny nor Candy intends to be making any statement about Lenny's eventual death. The statements are meant for the reader to figure out that eventually George is going to have to choose to kill Lenny. The author was not bound by what the characters knew--the author did not need the characters to intend for their actions or statement to relate to Lenny's death. They related to Lenny's death because that is how many authors write their fiction.

So here we have an obvious phallic symbol being used by Rhaegar to place a crown of flowers in the lap of a girl that we know he later runs offs with in secret for an extended period of time. Of course at the time Rhaegar took that action, he had no intent relating to this phallic symbolism. Of course Rhaegar had no idea at that point he was eventually going to run off with Lyanna. This is symbolism in literature--it is not related to the intent of characters performing the symbolic action. The characters almost never intend the symbolic action to have the symbolic meaning that the readers are expected to understand (at least the attentive readers).

Anyone who is familiar with how symbolism and foreshadowing works in literature would consider this scene to be almost a "ham handed" way of foreshadowing a sexual relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna. It really is not ambiguous for anyone who has ever studied literature and how symbolism and foreshadowing has been used in literature for centuries. Once a reader knows that Rhaegar and Lyanna ran off and were isolated for an extended period of time, the scene in which Rhaegar uses his lance to put a crown of flowers in the lap of Lyanna can only be understood as symbolism by the author to indicate a future sexual relationship between the two characters. I would put forth a prediction that 100% of English teachers would agree with this analysis. It really is not a close call.

We do not know Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna in secret for an extended period of time. It is assumed by some forum members they spent 9 months together in TOJ or something similar yet we do not know this for anything close to fact.

You and the others are however correct on the foreshadowing issue. Though it would only be foreshadowing IF Rhaegar did indeed do the dirty with Lyanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, there could be something there. I'm a bit wary about the certainty of conclusions we can draw from the numbers 7 and 3, though. They pop up so damn often. Then again, I don't think the 7 vs. 3 at the ToJ was by coincidence. So maybe it means something in Cersei's dream, too. Keep exploring. Let us know what you come up with. Feel free to post in my thread, if you'd like.

I'll look into it and you know these days I am just a bit more cautious with numbers. But I take on a case by case basis, not everything is a parallel and 3 and 7 do not always correlate. However it is not just about 3 and 7, I have frog. Can't believe I just wrote that. It's going to take a bit of time, because you know I gotta watch the Bears suck and eat. But if and when I get anything I will post it on your thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm truly shocked that Snowfyre endorsed it. "J. Star, there's no need to be rude and insulting to me." Hmm, someone was rude and insulting to J. Star. "Good post." - Snowfyre

Sorry. Didn't mean to endorse any insults. Just thought that, in general, it was a good post by AtS. He and I have had our own disagreements, and I think some of his stuff is pretty far out there. But his comment on potential tower of joy explanations seems pretty reasonable to me.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies, I was making a flippant simplification and forgot that around here there was every reason to take it seriously. You say he would have revealed Jon to Robert, thus the death of Jon. Ned might not be swinging the sword, but that's still signing the death sentence.

We don't know how much the 3KG knew, so we don't know if they had any inkling of the bitter argument between Ned and Robert. Nevertheless, Lyanna is Ned's sister, Jon is Ned's nephew. It would be bizarre to assume that he would necessarily, undoubtedly, follow a course of action that would see Jon die. In the dream dialogue, the 3KG don't raise the subject, they don't even make the slightest effort to determine which way Ned is likely to sway.

To dismiss this by saying the 3KG knew in advance that they had to fight Ned to save Jon is simply ignoring the fact that he's just about the one person in the Westeros most likely to be at least a little sympathetic, and is the second most powerful person in Westeros at that moment. That's a massive opportunity, even if you think it's a slim one. Why on earth would you not even explore it? They have everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. Why try to keep a secret from someone who's either going to kill you and take a look for themselves, or is about to die? If the dream dialogue is really the only thing they had to go on to make that judgement, then the 3KG were dumber than bricks.

Indeed, we do not know if they knew of the fallout but we do know from the dialogue what options Ned presents them - bend their knee, or stand down and go to Viserys. Neither option allows them to keep Jon, and either leaves the secret with Ned, who perhaps can be trusted, and six other men who are a big unknown to the KG and thus a huge risk.

Another factor that affects the actions of those at ToJ is honour - honour dictates that the loyalty to the liege is put above family ties. It is quite possible that Ned could not be swayed until Lyanna herself pleaded with him.

Also, from Ned's following actions we know that he wouldn't support Jon's claim to the throne, so this is indeed abone of contention between him and the KG.

Besides, since the dialogue is definitely not the actual one, it is quite possible that they did indeed parley before the fight.

Points to, yes. I entirely agree. However that's still speculation until it's confirmed. There is no reason to conclude that no other vows could have been in play.

The context of the reference to the vow does seem to preclude other vows.

ETA: Solely on its own, the point perhaps may be argued. In collusion with Arthur Dayne being considered the most exemplary KG ever, I don't think there can be any shadow of doubt that Arthur Dayne died doing his primary duty, giving his life for his king. While other options might lead to holding him in high esteem as a knight/man of honour, nothing else can explain such a level of esteem as Kingsguard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks to all for responses to my query ("Hey Ned, come see your nephew, our King. You wanna be Regent?").

Special thanks to:

MtnLion has a very good analysis of the ToJ sequence here: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/117116-rl-j-v105/?p=6228116

Which led to:

MtnLion, on 08 Sep 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

...It seems that even facing the odds that they do, the Kingsguard should prevail...

...There is nothing here that would indicate any fatalism on the part of Arthur. It suggests that Arthur expects to win...

My query was founded in an assumption that the KG were always going to lose, because of force concentration. Prussian military genius Carl von Clausewitz said:

...in small as well as great combats, an important superiority in numbers but which need not be over two to one, will be sufficient to ensure the victory...

I should have stated my assumption; but that's the trouble with assumptions - they have a way of masquerading as self-evident truths.

I know Ned was very unlikely to join the side that had just lost RR, but, of all the Lords Paramount, he was the most likely to do so. If the KG knew they were about to lose the showdown, wouldn't they at least try to turn him - if only to poison Robert's new reign with division? That was my query.

But if they assumed they would win the showndown, it makes sense how they reacted to Ned. After reading MtnLion's contribution, I'm convinced they did assume they would win. Furthermore, I believe they should have won! Which makes me all the more eager to find out what Howland Reed did to save Ned's life...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks to all for responses to my query ("Hey Ned, come see your nephew, our King. You wanna be Regent?").

Special thanks to:

Which led to:

My query was founded in an assumption that the KG were always going to lose, because of force concentration. Prussian military genius Carl von Clausewitz said:

I should have stated my assumption; but that's the trouble with assumptions - they have a way of masquerading as self-evident truths.

I know Ned was very unlikely to join the side that had just lost RR, but, of all the Lords Paramount, he was the most likely to do so. If the KG knew they were about to lose the showdown, wouldn't they at least try to turn him - if only to poison Robert's new reign with division? That was my query.

But if they assumed they would win the showndown, it makes sense how they reacted to Ned. After reading MtnLion's contribution, I'm convinced they did assume they would win. Furthermore, I believe they should have won! Which makes me all the more eager to find out what Howland Reed did to save Ned's life...

Well unless Ned fought Dayne with Ice, Dawn would have shredded his sword to bits like it did to the Smiling Knight's. So I've always kind of wondered if it was just a case of Ned's sword breaking and Howland throwing him a new one as Dayne moved in for the kill. I mean we're told by Martin that Dawn has broken swords before, so why not here?

And I'm not so sure that they did think that they'd win or were even trying to. After all, they gave up the advantages of fighting Ned from behind the safety of the walls, which is completely against Dayne's character as we learn from Jaime who says that Dayne insisted on fortifying all of his military camps even if there was no risk of attack. So for him to give up the advantages of the watchtower's walls suggest beating Ned wasn't their main concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not know Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna in secret for an extended period of time. It is assumed by some forum members they spent 9 months together in TOJ or something similar yet we do not know this for anything close to fact.

You and the others are however correct on the foreshadowing issue. Though it would only be foreshadowing IF Rhaegar did indeed do the dirty with Lyanna.

We do know that Lyanna disappeared several months into 282 AC. That happened together with Rhaegar.

We also know that Robb and Jon are born very close to one another (though the order still isn't clear). We know that Robb was born at least 9 months into the war. We also know that Jon was born in the time window of two weeks before and two weeks after the Sack. Rhargar had died before, Lyanna would die after the Sack.

So while we don't know the exact amount of time, it would seem that more than nine months passed in between, and Lyanna had been with Rhaegar when she disappeared, and with Rhaegars sworn swords when she wad eventually found, in a place which had been given its name by Rhaegar himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do know that Lyanna disappeared several months into 282 AC. That happened together with Rhaegar.

We also know that Robb and Jon are born very close to one another (though the order still isn't clear). We know that Robb was born at least 9 months into the war. We also know that Jon was born in the time window of two weeks before and two weeks after the Sack. Rhargar had died before, Lyanna would die after the Sack.

So while we don't know the exact amount of time, it would seem that more than nine months passed in between, and Lyanna had been with Rhaegar when she disappeared, and with Rhaegars sworn swords when she wad eventually found, in a place which had been given its name by Rhaegar himself.

They may have disappeared around the same time and there are a few connections I highly doubt they spent an entire 9 months together in a small crumbling watch tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Straw-man attack of "the best you have to offer." More than mildly insulting to the poster.

False dichotomy of "one of these has to be correct." It could be both of those, as the scene is written, along with GRRM not wanting to reveal too much and the KG defending a king/heir/baby of importance.

ETA: Also an, Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to Majority) in there.

Not insulting at all, it is the best in-story explanation that one can offer in favor of R+L=J...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may have disappeared around the same time and there are a few connections I highly doubt they spent an entire 9 months together in a small crumbling watch tower.

Ah, I thought it was about them not having been together in that period of nine+ months..

We indeed don't know when they arrived at the tower... They might have been elsewhere first for a few months.. and then there is travel time.. we also don't know when Rhaegar exactly left, but perhaps the reasons Lyanna remained there when he returned to KL is that 1) she was pregnant, and Rhaegar did not want to take any chances, 2) Lyanna couldn't travel south, as that would take her into Dorne, which would have been hostile towards her without a doubt, and 3) Lyanna couldn't go north, as that would take her into the Stormlands, where people were fighting and those loyal to Aerys would have a good chance of finding her.

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...