"Lyanna was at the ToJ" = not canon

[chambraigne]

Sure. History of lit crit is interesting. Each one is just a way of looking at the text. You're talking New Criticism, right? I could try a Marxist one, but would be better at a Feminist one, or even take a stab at a Postcolonial one. A Feminist one might suggest Lyanna ran off with someone, because she didn't want to be stuck marrying studfarm Robert. It gives her agency in a fake world where noblewomen didn't get to make a lot of decisions about their life. And it turned out badly, and her brother ended up raising her child.

I'm not sure it's particularly important to a Feminist reading that Rhaegar be the dad. That seems rather anti-feminist to me in some ways. . . would certainly like to think she had better sense than to go haring off with a married dude. And obviously, I'd really hate to think she got kidnapped and raped and then died. Though that could be a nasty reality. I'm unconvinced.

My critical lens doesn't really do to well, though, if I stray so far from the text that I'm building theories upon theory and not on the text. At some point, you've got to put the secondary resources aside and clear the table and look at the thing itself again.

The problem with this approach is that we're not dealing with a "whole" text. R+L=J is a speculation on what the whole text might become, not an attempt to interpret what is already laid out. There are two more books left to read (hopefully) that will determine whether R+L=J is a reality. If you don't approve of speculation on the fates of some of the characters that are yet to be revealed in future texts, that's a whole different story. But any talk of "proof" or "canon" is just as presumptuous as speculation on the fate of the characters without the rest of the series to work with.

[TheSmallOther]

much and more sense spoken here.

By the logic of the OP Syrio Forell is still alive because the death was not on page. Limitations of a PoV structure is that we can't see everything happen, we must draw some conclusions from what evidence is presented.

Logic of OP is quite sound. But for some reasons it's quite normal for people to speculate if Syrio is dead or alive. For another unclear reasons claiming something which is a little bit from RLJ is so bad, so bad that poster should burn in seven hells (or freeze in them, depends on hell). OP is not even claiming RLJ is false, he just talks about small part of the theory, Lyanna being in the tower. Yet it looks like even this small discussion is as great a sin, as R+L in the eyes of faithful. I mean, Renly and Loras, not Rhaegar and Lyanna.

[COYStars]

Logic of OP is quite sound. But for some reasons it's quite normal for people to speculate if Syrio is dead or alive. For another unclear reasons claiming something which is a little bit from RLJ is so bad, so bad that poster should burn in seven hells (or freeze in them, depends on hell). OP is not even claiming RLJ is false, he just talks about small part of the theory, Lyanna being in the tower. Yet it looks like even this small discussion is as great a sin, as R+L in the eyes of faithful. I mean, Renly and Loras, not Rhaegar and Lyanna.

The logic of the OP is fine but that doesn't get us anywhere.

It isn't absolutely certain (I believe) that Robert Strong is Gregor Clegane healed in some way. It isn't absolutely certain (I believe) that an imposter is pretending to be Pate in the citadel, nor that a faceless man is the imposter. It isn't absolutely certain (I believe) that Robert had any bastards.

But the text hints at all these things and more, and encourages us to believe them to be so, until such time as the text says otherwise.

[LmL]

The development of a theory (not a GoT theory, literally any theory) goes something like this:

1) People make observations of objective fact

2) People develop a logical framework that sufficiently explains all known observations (this is a theory)

3) If possible, people use the framework developed in step 2 to make predictions that can then be tested via experimentation (obviously, this is not an option for us)

4) If the theory holds up to experimentation, it lives another day. If it does not, a new logical framework must be devised which not only explains all of the observations in existence prior to experimentation, but the experimental observations as well.

5) Once that theory is devised or once a simpler theory that also explains all observable facts is devised, the new theory replaces the old.

Simply put, the idea that Lyanna was at the ToJ explains tons of things, and does so without conflicting with any other known facts.

Arguing that the ToJ doesn't have a room inside or that Lyanna wasn't there is essentially theorizing that 3 kingsguard are standing out in the middle of nowhere guarding a pile of rocks in the middle of a war (while their prince and king were both killed, mind you). You are further arguing that, despite having a sister to find, Ned Stark sought out the men who were guarding that pointless pile of rubble and risked his best men to fight them...for no reason.

In short, your theory makes no sense. It solves no problems in the story, and it strains credulity at best. If the theory had any redeeming value beyond being contrarian, you might find a convert. If you were able to support it from the text, you might find a convert. If it helped any part of the story make more sense, you might find a convert.

At the moment, it sounds ludicrous.

I'm not attacking anyone here for asking questions either. All I ask is that you lay your theory out, and support it with text. I'm ready to listen, as soon as everyone starts saying something besides "nuh uh."

You won't get it. The RLJ denier crowd will NEVER EVER say what they think happened. They only want to feel smart by attempting to poke holes In other people's theories without ever proposing an alternative explanation. That's because any alternate theory about Jon's parentage doesn't hold up, doesn't have symbolic foreshadowing, and does not make sense. If this alternate theory existed, one which did fit the symbolism of the text, then we WOULD HAVE HEARD OF IT BY NOW. RLJ has been around for 15 years.

The truth is that some people in life are simply contrarians. If everyone is doing or saying something, they do the opposite for the sake of not "going with the flow." Sometimes going against the flow is a good thing, to be sure, but seem folks do this for its own sake, to feel smarter than everyone. It's hard to escape the feeling that some of that is a factor here with RLJ deniers, in a general sense.

As you say, Plectrum, the argument that we did not see it in person can be applied to a lot of things to come up with nonsensical possibilities, but this is totally meaningless. This is literature. The people who expect everything to be served up on a silver platter with empirical proof really baffle me. There's a real difference here in how people think about art and art appreciation. Subtlety, people. This is large part a mystery novel - this thing is packed with secrets, big and small, along with the clues needed to solve them. We are supposed to be able to figure stuff out without being given the answers. When you're writing a book and laying out clues for people to follow, you have to make them subtle. If you give everyone the answers, you're not a good writer. George is a good writer, which is why he's laid subtle but clear clues to figure out RLJ and a host of other secrets in the novels. Sure, you can stand around and point at every single theory and say "well, we can't be absolutely sure!" But this is a totally meaningless argument, unless you 1.) address all the points laid out in the initial theory and 2.) provide an alternate theory that makes sense within the larger narrative. And RLJ deniers will NEVER do the latter, and their attempts at the former simply don't stand up to logic.

I personally didn't even know this cadre of RLJ deniers existed until about a month ago. Being somewhat surprised, but curious at their initial arguments, I went round with them for about 10 pages, trying to see if their "heresy" had any merit. I hadn't spent a ton of time on RLJ, and I'm open to any idea if it has merit. (The RLJ heretics have their own little "gripe about Westeros.org" forum where they talk about how mean RLJ supporters are.) In ten pages of debate, not one of them put forward anything resembling a coherent alternative scenario for Jon's parentage, and their attempts to explain away what appear to be RLJ clues was laughable at best. Why did I go through ten pages of their non-answers? Because I am open-minded an interested in the truth, no matter how strange it may sound, and I wanted to be absolutely sure that they did not have some sort of valid argument. I wasn't against the possibility of everyone being wrong about something, that happens sometimes - but if you can't make your case in ten pages of debate, or 15 years of debate for that matter, there isn't a case to be made. Now I understand why the heretics were forced into their own thread. The sheer inanity of their arguments is just really painful to read, and since they don't want to put forward any ideas of their own, but only attack other people's ideas, they aren't very good debate participants.

[LmL]

What's really strange is the RLJ denier crowd is super bitter about people not taking their ideas seriously. And yet, they do not seem to be trying to convince anyone there is an alternate theory for Jon's parentage that makes sense. What's the point of objecting to RLJ, if you don't think there's a better or at least plausible alternative? This isn't physics, so no, we don't have empirical proof. But in a great work of literature, everything makes sense, everything has a reasoning behind it. RLJ simply makes sense on many, many levels when taken in the context of the entire story. If anyone really wants to convince anyone that R+L does not = J, they must have an alternative that makes sense - or else, very few people will respect their arguments or find them convincing.

So really, it's put up or shut up for RLJ deniers - or at least, if you don't put up AND don't shut up, don't expect anyone to take what you have to say any more seriously than they do now, which is to say not at all.

[moey reed]

What's really strange is the RLJ denier crowd is super bitter about people not taking their ideas seriously. And yet, they do not seem to be trying to convince anyone there is an alternate theory for Jon's parentage that makes sense. What's the point of objecting to RLJ, if you don't think there's a better or at least plausible alternative? This isn't physics, so no, we don't have empirical proof. But in a great work of literature, everything makes sense, everything has a reasoning behind it. RLJ simply makes sense on many, many levels when taken in the context of the entire story. If anyone really wants to convince anyone that R+L does not = J, they must have an alternative that makes sense - or else, very few people will respect their arguments or find them convincing.

So really, it's put up or shut up for RLJ deniers - or at least, if you don't put up AND don't shut up, don't expect anyone to take what you have to say any more seriously than they do now, which is to say not at all.

and who are you to tell other people to put up or shut up? i thought forums were for discussing stuff and not telling otherthinking people to shut up just because they don't share your point of view?!

why has there to be an alternte theory? that's utter bullcrap!!! maybe jon's parantage is not such a big deal?! there are certainly bigger mysteries in the series and not everyone has to think of rlj as true/important or necessary

eta: and the OP never said that RLJ isn't true. that wasn't the point of the post. just fyi.

[Ygrain]

maybe jon's parantage is not such a big deal?! there are certainly bigger mysteries in the series and not everyone has to think of rlj as true/important or necessary

Which is why GRRM used Jon's parentage as a test question for the show producers, right?

[LmL]

I said if they want anyone to take their ideas seriously, if they want people to be convinced their arguments have even a little validity - THEN they they need to show the alternate scenario that makes sense. Certainly it's a free world - by all means, say whatever you want. Type away, I'm not taking away your keyboard. But don't expect people to be convinced if all you do is argue against others' theories but don't present anything yourself.

The point of this OP is absolutely to question RLJ. Their efforts are questioning the whole theory have failed utterly, so now it's simply attacking the various pieces of RLJ. But RLJ is what we are talking about here.

[LmL]

Which is why GRRM used Jon's parentage as a test question for the show producers, right?

These are the kind of nonsensical things that RLJ deniers end up saying. Not a big deal? Really? Okay...

[COYStars]

maybe jon's parantage is not such a big deal?!

So, the honourable Ned Stark brings a child home from the war and tells his new wife that he was unfaithful to her. It drives something of a wedge between them for the rest of their lives.

It's pretty unbelievable, from what we know about Ned, that he would have been the father. It seems inconceivable to me.

If Jon wasn't Ned's then it's a big story. Because he won't be a newborn from Flea Bottom - by all means Ned could have brought one of those home, but to pretend that it was his own child would be madness. And Ned wouldn't lie for no reason.

If Jon wasn't Ned then he must be protecting and nurturing somebody else's child for a reason. It's a big deal and one of the enduring mysteries of the series. It doesn't have an important effect on the plot and perhaps never will. But it's still a big deal.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

The point of this OP is absolutely to question RLJ.

So, LmL... would you say, then, that the entire RLJ enterprise hinges upon Lyanna's presence at the tower of joy? In other words, if she wasn't there - does the whole theory fall apart?

(ETA: FWIW, I'm not sure I'd agree... I'd have to think about it.)

[Amoracchius]

The point of this OP is absolutely to question RLJ.

It's really not. While I do tend to believe that Ned found Lyanna inside the Tower of Joy, the OP is correct in pointing out that the novels themselves don't make this explicitly clear. It's entirely possible to believe that (1) Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon Snow's parents; and (2) Lyanna and her newborn were not in the Tower of Joy. As Snowfyre asks above, what is it about the idea that Lyanna was somewhere else (Starfall?) that makes R+L=J impossible?

To me, this is about accuracy more than anything. If the wiki cites a chapter as it's evidence of something, but the chapter itself is ambiguous, the wiki should be corrected. The wiki can still elaborate on a theory or what people believe is implied by the text, but it should be as accurate as possible about what has in fact been confirmed by the text.

[COYStars]

So, LmL... would you say, then, that the entire RLJ enterprise hinges upon Lyanna's presence at the tower of joy? In other words, if she wasn't there - does the whole theory fall apart?

(ETA: FWIW, I'm not sure I'd agree... I'd have to think about it.)

No it doesn't. It would make much less sense. But Jon must have parents, I don't believe that Ned would have been unfaithful, so Lyanna and Rhaegar would seem the obvious choices.

It would challenge the notion that Jon was the legitimate Targ heir - because the dialogue of the ToJ scene that is the evidence for that.

But if - let's say - Rhaegar had left Lyanna elsewhere, she still died young and still made a promise of Ned, a promise that haunts him. And he still brought a child home and pretended that it was his. It's still more likely to be Lyanna's child with Rhaegar than anything else. It just makes the ToJ scene make little sense.

[Amoracchius]

No it doesn't. It would make much less sense. But Jon must have parents, I don't believe that Ned would have been unfaithful, so Lyanna and Rhaegar would seem the obvious choices.

It would challenge the notion that Jon was the legitimate Targ heir - because the dialogue of the ToJ scene that is the evidence for that.

But if - let's say - Rhaegar had left Lyanna elsewhere, she still died young and still made a promise of Ned, a promise that haunts him. And he still brought a child home and pretended that it was his. It's still more likely to be Lyanna's child with Rhaegar than anything else. It just makes the ToJ scene make little sense.

Why does this make the TOJ scene make less sense? If R+L=J is true, then there is a rather large reason for Ned to connect that hint-filled conversation with the Kingsguard to the conversation he had with his dying sister as she revealed what they'd been hinting at. Even if the two events happened weeks and miles apart, it makes sense that they would be connected in Ned's mind, and therefore might pop up together in a dream despite not happening together in real life.

[LmL]

It's really not. While I do tend to believe that Ned found Lyanna inside the Tower of Joy, the OP is correct in pointing out that the novels themselves don't make this explicitly clear. It's entirely possible to believe that (1) Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon Snow's parents; and (2) Lyanna and her newborn were not in the Tower of Joy. As Snowfyre asks above, what is it about the idea that Lyanna was somewhere else (Starfall?) that makes R+L=J impossible?

To me, this is about accuracy more than anything. If the wiki cites a chapter as it's evidence of something, but the chapter itself is ambiguous, the wiki should be corrected. The wiki can still elaborate on a theory or what people believe is implied by the text, but it should be as accurate as possible about what has in fact been confirmed by the text.

All I can say is that this post does not exist in a vacuum. It's part of a long-running conversation. The reason why anyone cares about this idea that maybe, just maybe, she was in some other undisclosed location that we've never heard of is because they are trying to create wiggle room in RLJ.

I just wish the people who don't buy RLJ would say what hey think happened instead. If they had a counter narrative to explain what the clues that seem to support RLJ actually mean, and what Jon's parentage actually is, then maybe we'd have something to debate. It's like, "ok, what's your theory? Let's hear it! This is the place for speculation and theory making, let's see it!" That's all I mean by saying "put up or don't expect anyone to care."

The "we can't be totally sure of ______" argument is only interesting if it leads somewhere. These good folks on the heresy threads have been objecting to RLJ for years, so they've had plenty of time and space to explore the alternate ideas. And what have they come up with?

[Amoracchius]

All I can say is that this post does not exist in a vacuum. It's part of a long-running conversation. The reason why anyone cares about this idea that maybe, just maybe, she was in some other undisclosed location that we've never heard of is because they are trying to create wiggle room in RLJ.

I just wish the people who don't buy RLJ would say what hey think happened instead. If they had a counter narrative to explain what the clues that seem to support RLJ actually mean, and what Jon's parentage actually is, then maybe we'd have something to debate. It's like, "ok, what's your theory? Let's hear it! This is the place for speculation and theory making, let's see it!" That's all I mean by saying "put up or don't expect anyone to care."

Okay, I see what you're saying, but just because someone is incorrect about one thing, does not mean that they are wrong about all things. Maybe the OP wrote this post to cast doubt on R+L=J, but (1) Maybe s/he didn't, I don't think it's fair to presume people's intentions; (2) As far as I can tell, nothing in the OP is factually incorrect; (3) Nothing in the OP shakes my conviction in R+L=J, nor do I think it can be logically argued that the statement "The novels do not explicitly state that Ned found Lyanna at the Tower of Joy" disproves R+L=J.

What I'm saying is, let's discuss this issue on it's merits, and then move on to its implications. Lyanna could have been at the TOJ or not regardless of the veracity of R+L=J, so making arguments about R+L=J or R+L=/=J doesn't really further the discussion.

The "we can't be totally sure of ______" argument is only interesting if it leads somewhere. These good folks on the heresy threads have been objecting to RLJ for years, so they've had plenty of time and space to explore the alternate ideas. And what have they come up with?

So let's discuss the thing we can't totally be sure of and see what we come up with. Just because one person on the forum thinks that it's only implication is X, or Y, or R+L=J, does not mean that is the case. I've read many threads that start with one idea and, after other people contributed and shared what they took away from it, stumbled onto a much larger and more interesting idea. This thread, on the other hand, has had a lot of, "Uch, you're just trying to disprove R+L=J again. What a waste of time."

[COYStars]

Why does this make the TOJ scene make less sense? If R+L=J is true, then there is a rather large reason for Ned to connect that hint-filled conversation with the Kingsguard to the conversation he had with his dying sister as she revealed what they'd been hinting at. Even if the two events happened weeks and miles apart, it makes sense that they would be connected in Ned's mind, and therefore might pop up together in a dream despite not happening together in real life.

But what were they doing there, and why were they fighting, if it wasn't

- for Ned to gain access to Lyanna

- for the KG to protect/prevent access to Lyanna and Jon?

[LmL]

Okay, I see what you're saying, but just because someone is incorrect about one thing, does not mean that they are wrong about all things. Maybe the OP wrote this post to cast doubt on R+L=J, but (1) Maybe s/he didn't, I don't think it's fair to presume people's intentions; (2) As far as I can tell, nothing in the OP is factually incorrect; (3) Nothing in the OP shakes my conviction in R+L=J, nor do I think it can be logically argued that the statement "The novels do not explicitly state that Ned found Lyanna at the Tower of Joy" disproves R+L=J.

What I'm saying is, let's discuss this issue on it's merits, and then move on to its implications. Lyanna could have been at the TOJ or not regardless of the veracity of R+L=J, so making arguments about R+L=J or R+L=/=J doesn't really further the discussion.

So let's discuss the thing we can't totally be sure of and see what we come up with. Just because one person on the forum thinks that it's only implication is X, or Y, or R+L=J, does not mean that is the case. I've read many threads that start with one idea and, after other people contributed and shared what they took away from it, stumbled onto a much larger and more interesting idea. This thread, on the other hand, has had a lot of, "Uch, you're just trying to disprove R+L=J again. What a waste of time."

All fair points, to be sure. I said my piece, I'm satisfied with that. You're absolutely right that you never know where a thread may go, and I'm not trying to stop it. I guess my point was, its not as if these ideas haven't already been explored, ad nauseum. It's not as if the tyranny of RLJ believers has prevented the other crowd from having the space to explore alternate ideas. They've had that space, and many years, and I just think if there was anything to them than they would be screaming it from the mountain tops. But I do agree that the the Wiki should be very accurate, and adding in qualifying statements in certain cases does make them more accurate. For example, I was reading about the Ghiscari Wars, and based only on Dany's fuzzy statement of "Old Ghis had fallen five thousand years ago, if she remembered true," the wiki definitively states that the fifth and final Ghiscari war took place 5,000 years ago. I'd say a qualifying statement of "according to Dany's recollection" would make the wiki more accurate. So I get the distinction here - I guess I just accept that the wiki isn't always precise and move along to talking about there being any sensible argument that Lyanna was not at the ToJ. But for purely technical accuracy, I do agree that we don't have an explicit statement of her presence at the tower... it's just really, really strongly implied.

[Amoracchius]

But what were they doing there, and why were they fighting, if it wasn't

- for Ned to gain access to Lyanna

- for the KG to protect/prevent access to Lyanna and Jon?

The Tower of Joy is one of a handful of structures along the Prince's Pass, one of the few overland routes into and out of Dorne. There are literally thousands of possible reasons why these two separate groups would each be traveling through the Prince's Pass and might encounter each other, especially if Lyanna and her newborn were hiding (or being held) in Dorne. Once they came across each other, I think a conflict was inevitable.

Again, I am of the belief that the most likely scenario is still that Lyanna was at the Tower of Joy and that's where Ned found her "in her bed of blood," but the novels are ambiguous, so let's see if other possibilities lead us anywhere interesting. Maybe it won't, but it could be fun. Yay, fun! :cheers:

[Ser Leftwich]

P = Lyanna was at the ToJ.

Q = R+L=J

If P, then Q.

P is false.

Therefore, Q is false. (This is not actually true.)

This is the fallacy fallacy, known by other names.

All great historical and philosophical arguments have probably been fallacious in some respect... If the argument is a single chain, and one link fails, the chain itself fails with it. But most historians' arguments are not single chains. They are rather like a kind of chain mail which can fail in some part and still retain its shape and function.
—David Hackett Fischer, Historians' fallacies

ETA: OP is implying the fallacy fallacy. All of the material of the books needs to be taken into account, as well as other sources. Including the "it can be figured out with only AGoT" piece of information.