Heresy 165

[Mace Cooterian]

I shudder at the thought of boiling "Heresy" down to its bare essentials would yield nothing less than a simple equation of X+Y=J.

[superunknown5]

I shudder at the thought of boiling "Heresy" down to its bare essentials would yield nothing less than a simple equation of X+Y=J.

You're right of course, but my the point of my theory is not that Jon is some generic fantasy hero Sword of the Morning. He's a son of winter, a child of death, the personification of grief. He bears all the weight of the realm's political, magical, and romantic machinations. His family is slaughtered, shattered and scattered. His life is forfeit, banished to a monastic, militaristic order at the far ends of the earth in a frozen wasteland. This bastard, this black knight, this dark, lost, forgotten, tortured son is the only thing standing between the realm and total annihilation. Not as a hero, but as the bearer of a great curse and and a great burden, as one who must sacrifice everything he is or cares about for the preservation of a realm in which he cannot hope to be a part of. The watcher on the wall. The sword in the darkness.

Just like he can never sit at the table with his family during the Winterfell feast. It's not for him.

[Black Crow]

HI all

Pardon me for peeping in with my bad English. I am really tired of the WB ( I have not read) the show ( I have not seen) Dunk and Egg (I have not read) and all the story´s you put in GRRM work and I have not read ;)

As a "just" book reader I think that first and in front Jon is a son of Winterfell, son of Lya and therefore one of the hero´s of the story. What he think when Mormont give him his sword is that he is not his father and he wants his sword, or so I take it IMO. So I hope he will somehow get the orginal Ice in his hands or maybe he made Longclaw his when he took of Slynt´s head. Who is his father? It is sure to be a big bomb for many, who ever it is, but I am not sure it will be so for Jon. He had a "father" even if he is not a true one and all he ever wanted to know was who is mother was. When he knows who are his parents, my guess Lya and ? Jon will be even stronger Stark.

Ned did all the fatherhood and to know his mother is also Stark, will be all that he needs. His real father was just "some man" be his name Dayne or Howland or someone else.

I don't know who you really are or where you come from but if I could speak and write in your language half as well as you can write English I would be a very happy man. No apologies or pardons are required on that score.

As to what you have written I agree and that's the whole point both of Jon's thoughts on receiving the sword from Mormont and of Maester Aemon's declaration. Jon's biological father is almost certainly going to turn out to be either Ser Arthur Dayne or Rhaegar Targaryen, but his real father was Lord Eddard Stark of Winterfell, his mother who bore him was Lyanna Stark of Winterfell and he was brought up at Winterfell.

[Voice]

1. "It will come to fruition eventually" is his way of saying "and that's all I can say about Jon's parents." He can't say anymore about the parentage, so he pivots to the broader context of the story, the Wot5K as War of the Roses. He's not linking the two, he's changing the subject. Also notice the talk about Targaryen inbreeding, unless you believe Rhaegar and Lyanna are siblings, he's clearly changed topics mid answer. Unless you think Benjen + Lyanna = Jon. But how is that (or RLJ for that matter) a "Star Wars situation"? There's no inbreeding in Star Wars, Luke kisses his sister, whom he didn't know was his sister at the time, but that's hardly inbreeding!

2. Arthur Dayne is not alive. Neither is Rhaegar. He says it's "a bit of" a Luke situation. That implies it's similar but not identical. It's more like a REVERSE Luke Skywalker situation. The man who killed Jon's father lives on under the guise of BEING his father (whereas with Luke Skywalker the man who IS his father lives on under the guise of HAVING KILLED his father).

3. I think you're misremembering Star Wars (lol) From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars#Plot_overview:

1. Sounds subjective. He literally talks about Jon, then Targaryen succession issues, without any indication (from his words at least), that he has changed gears. Not only that, Alfie Allen is on of the few actors on the show who can read apparently, as he's one of the cool ones that actually read the series.

I'm not a fan of RLJ, so don't get me wrong here, but he had no reason to suddenly restrain himself, he didn't give anything away.

2. Well, in fairness SU, he doesn't say it's a "reverse Luke" situation. Why would he associate it with Luke at all if Jon learns from Howland/Benjen/?? that Ned was almost killed by his actual father, if not for Howland Reed? And honestly, given the casual manner in which Alfie mentions it, it doesn't sound nearly as complicated as we might like it to be. Just going by word-choice alone, the tone of his response sounds like he learned, from GRRM, a very expected (or at least uncomplicated) secret.

3. I'm pretty familiar with the plot lol. Per canon:

Darth Vader: If you only knew the power of the Dark Side. Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.

Luke: He told me enough. He told me you killed him.

Darth Vader: No. I am your father.

Luke: No. That's not true. That's impossible.

Darth Vader: Search your feelings you know it to be true.

Luke: Nooooo. Nooooo.

But why read when you can watch. Luke didn't just find out his father was the greatest knight in the seven kingdoms.

4. I'm going off of what is says in the World Book, which is ambiguous:

This passage, which was written by a maester, says Eddard Stark "was said" to have killed him in single combat. It's ambiguous, so It could be true, or it could be BS. But of course we have this passage:

This passage is also ambiguous. It could be that Howland killed Dayne outright, this seems unlikely to me however, considering his relative lack of physical size and prowess, and Dayne's presumably well armored stature. The more likely scenario is Howland somehow interfered or employed some trickery to distract/incapacitate/whatever Arthur so that Ned could deliver the killing blow.

Regarding Howland v Arthur... there's no way it ended in single combat, as clearly, Arthur Dayne had already bested Ned and as about to finish him. Enter Howland Reed to save the day:

"The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed." Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

No matter what you think Howland did, Ned was down for the count. Arthur beat Ned in single combat, not the other way around. The maesters and commoners are wrong, again.

I have a question for you Voice and other heretics:

If Arthur is not Jon's father, how else do you explain his apparent presence and/or centrality to the whole narrative, especially in the context of Ned's memory and his appearance in the ToJ dream? If Arthur is just there being a flawless, heroic, badass with perfect honor and judgment, then what kind of boring fucking character is that? With no skeletons in his closet he has no skin in the game, so to speak. He's just there because he was ordered to be there, no agency, no agenda, no nothing. Does that sound like a GRRM character to you? Arthur MUST HAVE SOME DARK SECRET. GRRM's first law, appearances can be deceiving, DEMANDS it! The greatest knight in Westeros almost HAS to be responsible for some great blunder or evil act or SOMETHING shocking.

I ran the idea of Arthur by a few friends. Casual readers. They've read the series once, twice, one had read it three times. The first, had no idea who Arthur Dayne was. I had to repeat a lot of the story before she even remembered things like Dawn and Starfall. Arthur Dayne is not central within the narrative. Far from it. Targaryens, on the other hand...

Those who had read the book twice, had a vague memory of Arthur Dayne but did not remember that Ned had fought with him.

The one who read the series thrice knew Arthur Dayne, remembered the fever dream, etc. but didn't see what the point would be if AD was the father. When I mentioned SotM, Dawn, all that cool stuff, he just shrugged, and said that stuff didn't sound very important.

It is easy to think GRRM is writing the most complicated book ever, because everyone, here in particular, sees these intricacies. But these casual readers are a good Litmus test. Martin is writing a series that will make sense to all readers. Critical readers will enjoy the subtext and interwoven layers. But it still has to be comprehensible to less analytical fans.

I mean you can explain the other characters' presence: Gerold Hightower is the Lord Commander of the KG, so his being there makes sense as the leader of the group. Oswell Whent's father is the Lord of Harrenhal, the one who started the tourney (with help from a shadow backer), he represents the Tourney at Harrenhal/the mystery of Lyanna's disappearance, his presence makes sense also. Ned Stark, leader of the rebellion clearing the final pockets of enemy resistance. Howland Reed, his loyal best friend and war buddy, riding along side him.

Sure. Point being?

If you're suggesting Arthur Dayne's presence at ToJ must mean he is the father, I don't buy it. Him being where his other KG brothers are isn't exactly surprising.

And why is Ned's returning of Dawn to Starfall mentioned at all? It would seem to have no narrative significance unless Arthur and the sword were somehow important to the future of the story.

That is your assumption, but the narrative doesn't collapse if Arthur is simply Arthur. Dawn may still be significant, and Ned's act of returning it may still be significant. But Arthur need not be Jon's father to make it so. It is entirely possible that Bran will see Lyanna kissing the greatest knight in the seven kingdoms from the peephole of the weirnet, and you will have your romance story, but somehow I doubt it.

I like this better than RLJ for its non-heir originality, but AD+L=J might be an even more cheesey true love story than RLJ. It might not be, but then again lol... it might.

[Voice]

I don't know who you really are or where you come from but if I could speak and write in your language half as well as you can write English I would be a very happy man. No apologies or pardons are required on that score.

As to what you have written I agree and that's the whole point both of Jon's thoughts on receiving the sword from Mormont and of Maester Aemon's declaration. Jon's biological father is almost certainly going to turn out to be either Ser Arthur Dayne or Rhaegar Targaryen, but his real father was Lord Eddard Stark of Winterfell, his mother who bore him was Lyanna Stark of Winterfell and he was brought up at Winterfell.

Just wanted to agree with Old Ida and the above. It makes Jon a stronger Stark. That is the end result. That is the purpose of the secret, regardless of the sperm donor (imo).

:cheers: and welcome!

[Melifeather]

Ser Arthur Dayne was guarding Aerys when Brandon Stark came to Kings Landing looking for his sister Lyanna. Rhaegar was gone....presumably to Dorne. Some facts to think about:

1) Ser Arthur wasn't at that moment with Lyanna He was guarding the King.

a) where was Lyanna at this moment? With Rhaegar? In the Red Keep? Somewhere else?

2) The kidnapping caused Brandon to come to Kings Landing to confront Rhaegar.

3) Brandon believed Rhaegar had kidnapped Lyanna.

a) did this belief only come from rumors after the Tourney?

4) Why would Rhaegar go to Dorne prior to the Rebellion?

a) why would he take Lyanna to Dorne? Seems weird choice.

B) was he actually rallying an army to overthrow Aerys?

c) many believed the Tourney was a way for Rhaegar to gather allies.

d) wouldn't the kidnapping jeopardize winning any allies from the North?

5) Why does Aerys seem to over react to Brandon's accusations?

a) surely he realizes that killing Brandon and Rickard would cause a revolt.

B) the kidnapping would be an effective means to turn a large segment of Westeros against Rhaegar.

6) The Rebellion doesn't happen until the deaths of Brandon and Rickard.

a) Rhaegar didn't go to Dorne anticipating a rebellion.

7) When Kingsguard were sent to fetch Rhaegar, he had assembled an army of Dornishmen. This takes time, which means there was another, earlier reason other than the Rebellion.

I guess typing the letter b followed by ) = b)

[Urrax2]

.... I guess typing the letter b followed by ) = B)

Yes. You have to put a space in.

[Bryaugh]

Regarding Howland v Arthur... there's no way it ended in single combat, as clearly, Arthur Dayne had already bested Ned and as about to finish him. Enter Howland Reed to save the day:

"The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed." Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

I ran the idea of Arthur by a few friends. Casual readers. They've read the series once, twice, one had read it three times. The first, had no idea who Arthur Dayne was. I had to repeat a lot of the story before she even remembered things like Dawn and Starfall. Arthur Dayne is not central within the narrative. Far from it. Targaryens, on the other hand...

Those who had read the book twice, had a vague memory of Arthur Dayne but did not remember that Ned had fought with him.

The one who read the series thrice knew Arthur Dayne, remembered the fever dream, etc. but didn't see what the point would be if AD was the father. When I mentioned SotM, Dawn, all that cool stuff, he just shrugged, and said that stuff didn't sound very important.

It is easy to think GRRM is writing the most complicated book ever, because everyone, here in particular, sees these intricacies. But these casual readers are a good Litmus test. Martin is writing a series that will make sense to all readers. Critical readers will enjoy the subtext and interwoven layers. But it still has to be comprehensible to less analytical fans.

Well said. I have friends that are casual readers of the series as well and most of them don't catch the stuff that we over analyze here on the forums. They know Jon's parentage is a mystery but they are not as familiar with characters like we are. Arthur definitely comes across as a minor character to them, as Voice said, most don't even remember him, so for these readers it might not make sense if someone like AD has a role that impacts a main character in a major way. To them the reveal would be like, "Wait, Arthur who?"

[JNR]

RIP Heresy 164.

[Bryaugh]

RIP Heresy 164.

I didn't catch any of 164, what was being discussed?

[Matthew.]

It is easy to think GRRM is writing the most complicated book ever, because everyone, here in particular, sees these intricacies. But these casual readers are a good Litmus test. Martin is writing a series that will make sense to all readers. Critical readers will enjoy the subtext and interwoven layers. But it still has to be comprehensible to less analytical fans.

It's already been said, but this is an excellent point, and I agree 100%. The characters are complicated, the world is complicated, and all of the little layers and easter eggs are countless--nevertheless, when it comes to the major plot points, they are designed to be immediately comprehensible, even to a less astute reader. Were it otherwise, every major twist would take a mountain of exposition to explain.

I think those of us that have analyzed the text to death may occasionally lead ourselves astray by assuming that just because a potential plot turn seems obvious to us ("obvious" meaning it's completely logical and consistent with information we already have), that it's obvious to everyone, and therefore there must be a trick involved, which then leads us down the winding road of more convoluted and unwieldy theories. That recent interview with GRRM where he's talking about a possible new twist he'd been pondering proves that that isn't the way he works--he doesn't view surprise factor as an end unto itself, even if he does like surprising his readers.

[Black Crow]

I didn't catch any of 164, what was being discussed?

Various things

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

RIP Heresy 164.

They just don't make 'em like they use to, eh? :worried:

[Melifeather]

It's already been said, but this is an excellent point, and I agree 100%. The characters are complicated, the world is complicated, and all of the little layers and easter eggs are countless--nevertheless, when it comes to the major plot points, they are designed to be immediately comprehensible, even to a less astute reader. Were it otherwise, every major twist would take a mountain of exposition to explain.

I think those of us that have analyzed the text to death may occasionally lead ourselves astray by assuming that just because a potential plot turn seems obvious to us ("obvious" meaning it's completely logical and consistent with information we already have), that it's obvious to everyone, and therefore there must be a trick involved, which then leads us down the winding road of more convoluted and unwieldy theories. That recent interview with GRRM where he's talking about a possible new twist he'd been pondering proves that that isn't the way he works--he doesn't view surprise factor as an end unto itself, even if he does like surprising his readers.

But he has said that he wants to write in a way that keeps us guessing, and he doesn't want to be predictable.

[Black Crow]

Ser Arthur Dayne was guarding Aerys when Brandon Stark came to Kings Landing looking for his sister Lyanna. Rhaegar was gone....presumably to Dorne. Some facts to think about:

1) Ser Arthur wasn't at that moment with Lyanna He was guarding the King.

a) where was Lyanna at this moment? With Rhaegar? In the Red Keep? Somewhere else?

2) The kidnapping caused Brandon to come to Kings Landing to confront Rhaegar.

3) Brandon believed Rhaegar had kidnapped Lyanna.

a) did this belief only come from rumors after the Tourney?

4) Why would Rhaegar go to Dorne prior to the Rebellion?

a) why would he take Lyanna to Dorne? Seems weird choice.

B) was he actually rallying an army to overthrow Aerys?

c) many believed the Tourney was a way for Rhaegar to gather allies.

d) wouldn't the kidnapping jeopardize winning any allies from the North?

5) Why does Aerys seem to over react to Brandon's accusations?

a) surely he realizes that killing Brandon and Rickard would cause a revolt.

B) the kidnapping would be an effective means to turn a large segment of Westeros against Rhaegar.

6) The Rebellion doesn't happen until the deaths of Brandon and Rickard.

a) Rhaegar didn't go to Dorne anticipating a rebellion.

7) When Kingsguard were sent to fetch Rhaegar, he had assembled an army of Dornishmen. This takes time, which means there was another, earlier reason other than the Rebellion.

I guess typing the letter b followed by ) = B)

1. Ser Arthur was with Rhaegar; it was Hightower who was present at the execution and muttered to Jaime Lannister about guarding, not judging the king.

2. Lyanna was lifted by Rhaegar but as nobody knew where he went, demanding justice of the king would ordinarily be the proper procedure

3. The abduction occurred several months after the tournament, and there's a shred suspicion it occurred at the Inn at the Crossroads with inconvenient witnesses - as when Catelyn Starrk lifted Tyrion

4. We don't actually know where Rhaegar went to start off with. He certainly appears to have wound up in Dorne but that may not have been his initial destination.

5. Aerys is not quite sane

6. It all rather depends on what Rhaegar actually thought he was playing at

7. It was quite some time before Hightower tooled up to order him home but its not certain whether he led or attached himself to the Dornish army.

[Bryaugh]

Various things

Thanks for summing it up BC. ;)

[Amoracchius]

2. Lyanna was lifted by Rhaegar but as nobody knew where he went, demanding justice of the king would ordinarily be the proper procedure

But Brandon didn't go to King's Landing to petition the King for justice. He went believing that Rhaegar was there, hence demanding that Rhaegar "come out and die!"

[Matthew.]

But he has said that he wants to write in a way that keeps us guessing, and he doesn't want to be predictable.

And, again, our context for "predictable" and "obvious" is almost certainly not in alignment with that of someone that is reading the books for the first time, or is just a more casual reader. If GRRM has done his job as an author, it should absolutely be possible to predict certain broad strokes of the story, especially when you're waiting 5 - 10 years for the next step in that story, and have had the luxury of rereads and rigorous discussion.

More significantly, just because you can look at the information we have at Point A, and reasonably predict what might be waiting for us at Point B, that doesn't mean that the journey itself won't be exciting, and full of fine details and nuance. Someone with the information available in aCoK might reasonably predict that Robb is going to die, but that does not remotely do justice to the way that whole plot line actually plays out on the page.

[Black Crow]

But Brandon didn't go to King's Landing to petition the King for justice. He went believing that Rhaegar was there, hence demanding that Rhaegar "come out and die!"

True, but once again the point is that no-one knows where Rhaegar actually went. Kings Landing was an assumption - and one that turned out to be wrong.

[Black Crow]

And, again, our context for "predictable" and "obvious" is almost certainly not in alignment with that of someone that is reading the books for the first time, or is just a more casual reader. If GRRM has done his job as an author, it should absolutely be possible to predict certain broad strokes of the story, especially when you're waiting 5 - 10 years for the next step in that story, and have had the luxury of rereads and rigorous discussion.

More significantly, just because you can look at the information we have at Point A, and reasonably predict what might be waiting for us at Point B, that doesn't mean that the journey itself won't be exciting, and full of fine details and nuance. Someone with the information available in aCoK might reasonably predict that Robb is going to die, but that does not remotely do justice to the way that whole plot line actually plays out on the page.

Perfectly true, but I think that the problem in this case is that a fairly obvious and to be honest perfectly plausible assumption about the paternity of a particular character is assuming an importance not so far warranted by the course of the story and being used to predict a very specific outcome.