Black Crow Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 At this point I don't think it's productive to dispute the World Book's contention that Rhaegar and his six companions came upon Lyanna ten leagues from Harrenhal. It's such a specific piece of information that I doubt Martin just intentionally inserts this to deceive us. I do find that this presents some interesting issues with the idea that Rhaegar and Lyanna eloped. It doesn't really seem to jive that Rhaegar and Lyanna planned to have a secret elopement and then Rhaegar shows up with six of his buddies. While I suppose the two are not necessarily exclusive, the fact that Rhaegar shows up in force leans towards an abduction as opposed to two lovers running off together. And the fact that Lyanna is so close to Harrenhall is interesting as well. She is fairly far from Riverrun, but she is awfully close to the shores of the God's Eye. Which is why I'm leaning towards the idea that her initial disappearance was unrelated to Rhaegar and puts her instead near the God's eye. Which in turn is why I think it is at least possible that the person she ran off with was Howland. If she reunited with Howland as she and her party traveled down the Neck and they ran off to the Isle of Faces without her family's knowledge, this could lead to Brandon jumping to a different conclusion (the same conclusion most readers come to btw) that Rhaegar abducted her, initially. I agree. While there is an acknowledged bias in all these passages, that lies not in the events but in the interpretation of these events. A good example is the execution of Lord Eddard Stark. There is no doubting that on a given day he stood outside the Sept of Balor and confessed to certain crimes before having his head struck off by Ser Illyn Payne at the direct command of the king. Those are the facts. The devil lies in the interpretation. In this case therefore I don't see any reason to doubt that Lyanna Stark was abducted somewhere ten leagues [30 miles] from Harrenhal. What's open to interpretation is what she was doing there, why she was abducted and whether she went willingly. We have the King's interpretation as set out by Maester Yandel, and we have a contrary version elevated to an art-form by the faithful. Either could be true, but other interpretations are not only possible but positively invited by GRRMs warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNR Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 When it comes to actual storytelling, D&D seem far more adept at the game of thrones than they are the song of ice and fire, which is quite unfortunate as both warranted justice to be done. :agree: and you can see it in the titles. Show title: Game of Thrones. Book series title: ASOIAF. But I can't blame D&D if this is (in whole or in part) because GRRM has simply kept back critically important information pertaining to the SOIAF. But then a POV is just a point of view and not always objective. Sure, but let me illustrate the difference. Think of the chapter in which Ned and Robert go into the crypts. Everything Ned sees is true. It really existed as he saw it at that point in time. Everything Ned feels (the crypts are cold!) is true. Everything Ned hears Robert say is true... in that it was really said. Everything Ned says and thinks is true... in that he really said and thought that. All of that is true. It's reliable, you can count on it, etc. Here's what's not necessarily true: the abstract ideas Ned and Robert expressed. For instance, when Robert said Rhaegar raped Lyanna, that abstract idea may not have been true. We only know Robert said it. But that is a tiny, tiny fraction of the total info in that chapter. You can see that just looking at my list above. Now compare to the World book. We have... no POV content. Nothing is seen, heard, felt, thought, said in real time. The "tiny tiny fraction" of untrustworthy content we get in a POV chapter? That is 100% of a World book chapter. It's nothing but abstract ideas, from end to end, that could be wrong, and in many if not most cases, are wrong. Every time two maesters contradict each other, at least one is wrong and maybe both are wrong. Even recent history re Targs/Lannisters/Baratheons may be totally wrong because of Yandel's blatant agenda to suck up to the crown. And that's exactly why GRRM has done interviews in which he laughs off the reliability of the World book, and compares it to Suetonius' dubious history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Amen. :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 :agree: and you can see it in the titles. Show title: Game of Thrones. Book series title: ASOIAF. But I can't blame D&D if this is (in whole or in part) because GRRM has simply kept back critically important information pertaining to the SOIAF. No, you can blame them, because GRRM did not keep back Coldhands or Lady Stoneheart. Podrick Payne says about three words throughout the series, and not one of them are truly of any consequence. Yet, literally every word out of Coldhands' mouth, let alone his mere existence, is pertinent to the Song and the Wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNR Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 If you don't think GRRM would deliberately deceive us with a specific piece of information, then I see you, and raise you Wylla. Well said! We could put this another way: If GRRM wouldn't deceive us about Lyanna's place of disappearance, then would he deceive us about anything else in the World book? Would he deceive us about Aerys naming Viserys his heir? I think he might; but maybe he didn't; I just don't know. I don't feel confident. If that's true, it certainly explodes the premise that the KG were defending the Targ king, though. Would he deceive us about the Others in the Long Night really just being wildlings? Cough, cough. How about the world being 40,000 years old? Seems like non-truth to me. I would guess that figure is off by four orders of magnitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tyrion XX Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 :agree: "Editors" might have been a more apt title for the "Coauthors." GRRM wrote the world book, and approved the parts his undergrads helped compile - from his own writings... The WB is as canonical a source as any POV chapter or SSM, period.BULLSHIT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey family reunion Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I know I just defended the authenticity of the WB as canon, but that doesn't mean the author is truthful LOL... If you don't think GRRM would deliberately deceive us with a specific piece of information, then I see you, and raise you Wylla. When it comes to the World Book, it must be trusted with as much veracity as Grand Maester Pycell speaking to Ned Stark. In the World Book, we have a Citadel approved story, written for the delight of Robert Baratheon. We know why Ned lies to Robert. But where is the motivation for the Maester to indicate such a precise location of Lyanna's disappearance if it is in fact a complete fabrication? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmaid7 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 JNR you bring up a good point about what is the truth for a person "in that moment" and i'm reminded of what Ned remembers in hindsight about the tourney to what the Reeds(no doubt told by Howland) says of said event and notice something. Ned remembered the moment when all the smiles died, when Prince Rhaegar Targaryen urged his horse past his own wife, the Dornish princess Elia Martell, to lay the queen of beauty's laurel in Lyanna's lap. He could see it still: a crown of winter roses, as blue as frost.Ned Stark reached out his hand to grasp the flowery crown, (In fun to tease her about it?)but beneath the pale blue petals, the thorns lay hidden...AGOT p631 "The dragon prince sang a song so sad it made the wolf maid sniffle, but when her pup brother teased her for crying she poured wine over his head."ASOS p281. This to me paints below the scene a different picture.One of a girl who cried because a rockstar whose music brought tears to every girl's eyes and her brother nah nah nah nah Lya cried at the pretty man's song and she rewarded him by making him red.It's a really funny scene.But it shows in that moment between Ned and Lya were goofing off about something that happened.Its almost childlike. But Ned looking back at an event that seemed so light at the time seemed to be non verbally saying.This innocent moment where i was poking fun at my sis turned into something else.Ostensibly,she,him got pulled into something bigger than they were.Still intrigued by the below though "And the mystery knight should defeat all challengers and name the wolf maid the queen of love and beauty.""She was," said Meera. "But that's a sadder story." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew. Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 "The dragon prince sang a song so sad it made the wolf maid sniffle, but when her pup brother teased her for crying she poured wine over his head."ASOS p281. This to me paints below the scene a different picture.One of a girl who cried because a rockstar whose music brought tears to every girl's eyes and her brother nah nah nah nah Lya cried at the pretty man's song and she rewarded him by making him red.It's a really funny scene.But it shows in that moment between Ned and Lya were goofing off about something that happened.Its almost childlike. Isn't Benjen the 'young pup' who teases Lyanna? Ned is the quiet wolf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 Isn't Benjen the 'young pup' who teases Lyanna? Ned is the quiet wolf. That's how I read it - Ned is after all the older brother, not the pup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Well said! We could put this another way: If GRRM wouldn't deceive us about Lyanna's place of disappearance, then would he deceive us about anything else in the World book? Would he deceive us about Aerys naming Viserys his heir? I think he might; but maybe he didn't; I just don't know. I don't feel confident. If that's true, it certainly explodes the premise that the KG were defending the Targ king, though. Would he deceive us about the Others in the Long Night really just being wildlings? Cough, cough. How about the world being 40,000 years old? Seems like non-truth to me. I would guess that figure is off by four orders of magnitude. Deception and subversion is his game, so must always be wary, but at the same time, if we do not rely on things he has written, like the whole damn series and the world book LOL, then what are we even here for? BULLSHIT Should I be impressed you used a two syllable word, or request you justify your hypothesis? :lol: We know why Ned lies to Robert. But where is the motivation for the Maester to indicate such a precise location of Lyanna's disappearance if it is in fact a complete fabrication? I'm not emphatically stating it is a fabrication, only that Maesters are often ignorant of the truth... and our beloved author rarely makes the truth so clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 That's how I read it - Ned is after all the older brother, not the pup. The pup brother that teased Lyanna was Brandon. Ned was the quiet wolf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Snowfyre Chorus Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Within that same conversation, Jaime also throws in the nugget about Brandon demanding that Rhaegar come out and die, which again creates a context--Brandon heard something about Lyanna, and upon arriving at King's Landing he was, for some reason, furious at Rhaegar. The conversation implicitly links the two events. With Catelyn's statement alone, maybe all we'd know is that something happened with Lyanna, but Jaime's comment throws Rhaegar into the mix, which then fits this entire conversation into a broader picture we've been given over the course of the series. Oh there's no doubt the events are linked - they're linked by Brandon's own actions - and you're right, it's all part of the same conversation: Brandon "was on his way to Riverrun... when he heard about Lyanna and..." Brandon "...went to King's Landing instead." ("It was a rash thing to do.") Brandon "rode into the Red Keep...shouting for Prince Rhaegar to come out and die." So whatever actually happened to Lyanna, clearly Brandon was ticked off and thought Rhaegar was to blame in some way. It's just that this source (the Catelyn-Jaime conversation) does not tell us that what Brandon "heard about Lyanna" was that she had been abducted. That's an inference using information from somewhere else. (In this case, we have to rely on 8 yr old Bran.) And it's not an unreasonable inference, at all - don't get me wrong. Clearly, Martin set the conversation up to invite that very conclusion. It's just that, when we step back a bit and consider the sources of information used to fill in this gap... well, it does seem a bit less credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'm not emphatically stating it is a fabrication, only that Maesters are often ignorant of the truth... and our beloved author rarely makes the truth so clear. Perfectly true but the truth is not about the events but how they are interpreted and by whom, hence my example of Lord Eddard's execution. The facts are not in dispute, but the whys and wherefors are a different matter. In this case as I said there's no reason at all to doubt the location of the encounter, but exactly what happened there and why is a different matter entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmaid7 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Isn't Benjen the 'young pup' who teases Lyanna? Ned is the quiet wolf. Yes yes both of you are right That's how I read it - Ned is after all the older brother, not the pup. Yeah yeah i remember.My point remains though.The whole Rhaegar crowning her seemed trivial a tease worthy moment at lease from the point of view of the "kids" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Perfectly true but the truth is not about the events but how they are interpreted and by whom, hence my example of Lord Eddard's execution. The facts are not in dispute, but the whys and wherefors are a different matter. In this case as I said there's no reason at all to doubt the location of the encounter, but exactly what happened there and why is a different matter entirely. Lord Eddard's execution is a great example of the interpretation of a 'historical' event. But to JNR's point, unless a POV witnessed the abduction, it is not as absolute an event, and falls into the realm of hearsay. This event in particular smacks of gossip regardless of what the truth is, and King Robert's wrath and bias are not to be understated in the fabrication of what the World Book puts forth as 'truth.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 Lord Eddard's execution is a great example of the interpretation of a 'historical' event. But to JNR's point, unless a POV witnessed the abduction, it is not as absolute an event, and falls into the realm of hearsay. This event in particular smacks of gossip regardless of what the truth is, and King Robert's wrath and bias are not to be understated in the fabrication of what the World Book puts forth as 'truth.' That of course is one of the intriguing things about this business. Its not as if Lyanna rode out one day and simply disappeared. We're told she was abducted by Rhaegar and we're given a location for that abduction, which strongly suggests there was at least one witness. That's not to say the witness or witnesses told the truth far less the whole truth or even understood what they saw, but somebody saw it or saw the aftermath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew. Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Clearly, Martin set the conversation up to invite that very conclusion. It's just that, when we step back a bit and consider the sources of information used to fill in this gap... well, it does seem a bit less credible.Sure, but the question is, if we're being misinformed, what's the truth that's being covered up: that Lyanna actually went with Rhaegar willingly as part of a planned meeting, or that Rhaegar and Lyanna never crossed paths after Harrenhal in the first place? Bit by bit, we've been given different character perspectives on the war, yet all of those perspectives agree on the basic premise that something was going on with Rhaegar and Lyanna.I suppose it's possible that the entire realm was duped by someone into falsely believing that Rhaegar and Lyanna ran off together (or that she was abducted), but that's a hell of a coincidence, that both would disappear at roughly the same time, have their whereabouts unaccounted for for months, and that someone could know enough about the disappearance of both to concoct a timely lie that sends a pissed off Brandon Stark to King's Landing. I mean, if Lyanna suddenly pops up a month later, the whole scheme falls apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eira Seren Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 And Leaf raised the holy hand grenade up on high, saying, "Old gods, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies (and Thine Jojens) to tiny bits... in Thy mercy." And the gods did grin and the people did feast upon the fish, and acorns, and rats, and goat cheese, and long pork, and "foes," and a paste of weirwood seeds flavored with small chunks of Joj..." :lol: :laugh: well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tyrion XX Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Deception and subversion is his game, so must always be wary, but at the same time, if we do not rely on things he has written, like the whole damn series and the world book LOL, then what are we even here for? Should I be impressed you used a two syllable word, or request you justify your hypothesis? :lol: I'm not emphatically stating it is a fabrication, only that Maesters are often ignorant of the truth... and our beloved author rarely makes the truth so clear.If you want to be taken seriously you should stop playing pretend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.