R+L=J v.144

[Alia of the knife]

Agreed

You mean where we, the readers, learned the info? World Book, chapter on Aegon III.

Thanks, between books, thread, and companion pieces, I'm getting confused. :)

[Lady Darry]

Kingmonkey, what a great find!

Even names are similar and some characteristic of characters (Whent was the only member of KG who was explicitly associated with humor and Weynt was a fool...). Winter Cometh could explain what was going on in KG heads. It was often speculated that Hightower was loyal to Aerys and Dayne was fully in Rhaegar camp. And it’s the same in Winter Cometh story. It could also explain why KG stayed at the tower and why they fought Ned.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Did you miss me or something? Ran only just explained it fully around three hours ago.

The App is semi-canon, not canon, as confirmed by Ran. So I wasn't "wrong" if you wanna be technical about it, but then again all those people claiming it was canon were wrong not wrong too. It was a clarification, not a competition.

As long as wiki editors make it clear in their entries that the App is semi-canon from now on, that's fine. We can just continue on faith with this new information.

You're welcome.

Not to beat a dead horse -- and I know I am a couple days behind in responding -- but I think it is a bit simplistic just to label the information as "semi-canon" vs. "canon" as if that gives all of the relevant information regarding the reliability of the information. In other words -- in this context -- what does it mean to be "semi-canon" information? My reading of Ran's answer is that GRRM reviewed the text and approved the information based on what GRRM thought would be the case at the time of the review of the App. So the information has been confirmed by GRRM. The reason why the information may be regarded only as "semi-canon" is because GRRM reserves the right to change his mind regarding any information not included in the books explicitly. So the issue of where Lyanna died is ambiguous enough that if GRRM decides when he gets to writing the relevant chapter that he wants to move Lyanna to Starfall (or somewhere else), he is free to do so without directly contradicting prior stated information in the books. But as of the time he wrote GoT -- and up to the time he reviewed the information in the App -- GRRM assume that he would place Lyanna in ToJ at the time of her death when he eventually wrote that scene in more detail -- but he left himself room to change his mind.

With that understanding in mind, both sides of the debate were not equally "wrong" in their assessment of where Lyanna died. I understand the narrow point of saying "canon" when the official answer is "semi-canon" but here, "semi-canon" is much closer to "canon" than to "not canon." Yes, it is possible GRRM may decide to move Lyanna's death somewhere else -- but that would be based on a decision he has not yet made. As of now (or at least of the date of the App review), GRRM thinks Lyanna died in ToJ. The people who were suggesting Lyanna died in Starfall or otherwise not at ToJ were arguing that the better interpretation of the available evidence leads to the conclusion that Lyanna did not died at ToJ. We now know that argument is not correct. GRRM was not playing games by misdirecting the readers to think Lyanna died at ToJ when really he always intended to have her die elsewhere. At the time GRRM wrote GoT, he expected that readers would understand that Lyanna died at ToJ and did not intend (at least when he wrote GoT) to show later that she died elsewhere. Those who believed he was doing such a thing simply were incorrect.

As to the wiki issue -- the relevant entry footnotes the App as the source for the information of where Lyanna died. Anyone reading the wiki can see that the source is the App. People can make their own decisions on the level of "canon" that the App provides -- but we now know that it means that as of the time that GRRM reviewed the App, he intended to have Lyanna die at ToJ. For me, that is pretty much a confirmation because unlike the Targ backstory for which GRRM would have reason to change things as he explored that backstory in more detail when writing the "side" books -- but with respect to Lyanna dying, GRRM would have had to have that scene fairly well worked out at the time he wrote GoT, and I see no reason why he would change his mind now (but admitting that he is free to do so).

[Bael's Bastard]

You make a good post, but really, this person is just trolling. :)

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

The problem with this idea of Chested not being immediately succeeded by Rossart is simply that Rossart and the wildfire plan were the very reason why Chelsted was executed - presumably personally by Rossart. Thus the idea that Aerys would stand around and consider candidates for the Hand if the obvious candidate for the job - the man who was implementing his mad wildfire plan - was standing right there makes little sense to me.

Chelsted was also not appointed because he way okay with the wildfire plan - he didn't know about, and possible Aerys himself had no clue about that when he named Chested after Jon Connington's dismissal in the wake of the Battle of the Bells (that is, long before the Trident and prior to Rhaegar's return to the city).

The wildfire plan seems to me like a last solution/revenge kind of thing - something that was already in Aerys' mind prior to Rhaegar marching to the Trident - and I actually like to believe vision Aerys is talking to vision Rossart about both Robert and Rhaegar when he mentions 'the king of ashes', although it is most likely Robert specifically, and the vision dates from after the Trident when Aerys had learned about Rhaegar's death - but was only fully implemented and prepared after Rhaegar had left and the news about the Trident arrived. There wouldn't have been a general shortage of wildfire during Aerys' later years, so all the pyromancers would have done in the final weeks and days before the Sack is beginning to move their 'fruits' to the chosen locations.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure Rossart and the other alchemists had no intention of burning themselves. There would have been a plan to prepare everything in a way that would allow them to leave in time.

Rossart had already shown himself willing to help Aerys with the wildfire plan, why name him Hand as well? That's another way you can look at it..

There could have been plenty of reasons for Aerys to wait with naming a Hand.. For example, perhaps he and Rhaegar had come to an agreement, that if Rhaegar won on the Trident for Aerys, Rhaegar would be named Hand for Aerys.. Or perhaps there was another reason..

At the moment, we have nothing that gives us reason, imo, to question Jaime's memory on Chelsted's death, and Jon Darry's presence. Perhaps we might, in the future, but atm, I feel like we don't.

[SFDanny]

I know most of this question gets subsumed in trying to make the timing work, but for me one of the questions I'd dearly like Martin to answer is this, "Does Rhaegar know of his father's brutalization of his mother before he leaves for the Trident"? With Darry present with Jaime the answer seems to be yes, or at least yes, he could. If he does we have traveled into full blown Greek Tragedy territory even before the Trident and the sack happen. Just how does one deal with the decline of one's own father into that kind of madness, especially when your father is an absolute monarch? Does Rhaegar have anything to do with getting his father to agree to send his mother to Dragonstone? Would his mother even go without Viserys? I know the actual flight to Dragonstone doesn't take place until news reaches King's Landing of the Trident, but could have there been a confrontation between father and son before Rhaegar leaves? On and on, the questions of this time period wave over the reader in icy, bone jarring crashes.

I'm so ready for the next book.

[Lord Varys]

Both Rossart and Chelsted (to a lesser degree) are nobodies. The former isn't even a noble, the latter a minor lord from the Crownlands. The king could easily have fired them both to name Rhaegar Hand instead - he did not have to leave the office empty for the time being.

Also Aerys was already short on decent personal - or unwilling to consider people outside his inner circle - for the office when he appointed Chelsted, which means there wouldn't have been many alternatives to Rossart when Chelsted was burned - especially if this took place after the news about the Trident arrived as I believe.

If Rossart wasn't made Hand to have full control over the city to implement his plan there wouldn't have been any reason to name him at all.

I very much doubt that Rhaegar had any clue about what Rhaella had been suffering through at that time - either because Aerys did not only physical marks the last times (after Rhaegar had left) or because it only got as worse after Rhaegar had left. I cannot see Rhaegar standing by and allowing his father to do that - especially if he had some sort of leverage over Aerys (like refusing to raise and command the royal army). In such a scenario, I think, Rhaegar would have decided to send his mother to the safety of Dragonstone while he was still there. On the other hand, if Aerys was blackmailing not only the Martells but Rhaegar, too, he may have been as unable to help Rhaella as he was unable/unwilling to free Elia and his own children. That is really difficult to say. However, if we want to believe Rhaegar was there when Chelsted was burned it is very unlikely that the wildfire plot would have stayed a secret. Rhaegar would surely have inquired why the hell his father had burned his own Hand...

[UnmaskedLurker]

You make a good post, but really, this person is just trolling. :)

I don't get the sense it is trolling. Maybe it is, but I get the sense that the notion of Lyanna not being at ToJ made some intuitive sense to some people (ToJ being so desolate, etc.), and then as the counter-evidence kept piling up, natural defense mechanisms kicked in to defend the "contrarian" position. I simply don't think we are obligated to let anyone misrepresent the nature of the evidence or the strength of the arguments that were made. I don't necessarily expect to convince people who believe whatever they want to believe, but for those with an open mind, I think putting forth this analysis is useful. Everyone can then make up his or her own mind how to view the information.

[SFDanny]

Both Rossart and Chelsted (to a lesser degree) are nobodies. The former isn't even a noble, the latter a minor lord from the Crownlands. The king could easily have fired them both to name Rhaegar Hand instead - he did not have to leave the office empty for the time being.

Also Aerys was already short on decent personal - or unwilling to consider people outside his inner circle - for the office when he appointed Chelsted, which means there wouldn't have been many alternatives to Rossart when Chelsted was burned - especially if this took place after the news about the Trident arrived as I believe.

If Rossart wasn't made Hand to have full control over the city to implement his plan there wouldn't have been any reason to name him at all.

Chelsted is a long standing member of the King's small council, first as master of coin, and then as Hand of the King after the Battle of the Bells. He is also associated with those who made fortunes playing up the dangers of Rhaegar taking over the realm from Aerys. He sounds very much like someone from the Petyr Baelish mould of corrupt officials who knew how to make money while 'more important' men played the game of thrones. The only good thing I've seen written about the man is that when he found out about the pyromancer plot he tried to stop it. Rossart sounds very much like a Rasputin type figure who tries, and tries successfully, to tie himself to the worst fears and paranoia of sick people in power. I'm sure George has important personality traits all fleshed out for both that we will likely never find out. But you are right, LV, that it is not these men that are the important part of the discussion. Aerys could do whatever he is wish to with both men, and with both men's positions. Including leaving one of those positions open for a short period of time if he wish to. Perhaps he wanted to use the open position of the Hand as an incentive for Rossart to finish his preparations for the wildfire plan. Or perhaps he only waited until his mind was off on another paranoid delusion concerning who was the traitor of the day before actually naming Rossart to the post. We don't know. All we know is that a delay would make all the things we know to have taken place during the time period to have actually have taken place. Maybe you are right about Jaime's memory, but until we can figure that there must be an unreliable narrator involved I think it makes sense to try to find a way that work in which we assume there isn't such a source for information.

I very much doubt that Rhaegar had any clue about what Rhaella had been suffering through at that time - either because Aerys did not only physical marks the last times (after Rhaegar had left) or because it only got as worse after Rhaegar had left. I cannot see Rhaegar standing by and allowing his father to do that - especially if he had some sort of leverage over Aerys (like refusing to raise and command the royal army). In such a scenario, I think, Rhaegar would have decided to send his mother to the safety of Dragonstone while he was still there. On the other hand, if Aerys was blackmailing not only the Martells but Rhaegar, too, he may have been as unable to help Rhaella as he was unable/unwilling to free Elia and his own children. That is really difficult to say. However, if we want to believe Rhaegar was there when Chelsted was burned it is very unlikely that the wildfire plot would have stayed a secret. Rhaegar would surely have inquired why the hell his father had burned his own Hand...

I think there are many things going on here we don't know about, and I really want to find out about all of them. Whether Rhaegar knows about his mother's rape by his father, or not, is just one of those things I want to know. I will say, I think there is a tendency to overestimate Rhaegar's power in the situation. In this immediate situation, what could Rhaegar do if he knew? Bring his own army into King's Landing and seize power? Assuming his army would follow his orders, doesn't he have a rebel army marching on the capital at the same time? If he splits the army in two right before such a confrontation, doesn't he seal the fate of Targaryen power forever more? I don't think he has much choice but to try to win against the rebels, and then to try to set things right with his father after.

[Ygrain]

Not to beat a dead horse -- and I know I am a couple days behind in responding -- but I think it is a bit simplistic just to label the information as "semi-canon" vs. "canon" as if that gives all of the relevant information regarding the reliability of the information. In other words -- in this context -- what does it mean to be "semi-canon" information? My reading of Ran's answer is that GRRM reviewed the text and approved the information based on what GRRM thought would be the case at the time of the review of the App. So the information has been confirmed by GRRM. The reason why the information may be regarded only as "semi-canon" is because GRRM reserves the right to change his mind regarding any information not included in the books explicitly. So the issue of where Lyanna died is ambiguous enough that if GRRM decides when he gets to writing the relevant chapter that he wants to move Lyanna to Starfall (or somewhere else), he is free to do so without directly contradicting prior stated information in the books. But as of the time he wrote GoT -- and up to the time he reviewed the information in the App -- GRRM assume that he would place Lyanna in ToJ at the time of her death when he eventually wrote that scene in more detail -- but he left himself room to change his mind.

With that understanding in mind, both sides of the debate were not equally "wrong" in their assessment of where Lyanna died. I understand the narrow point of saying "canon" when the official answer is "semi-canon" but here, "semi-canon" is much closer to "canon" than to "not canon." Yes, it is possible GRRM may decide to move Lyanna's death somewhere else -- but that would be based on a decision he has not yet made. As of now (or at least of the date of the App review), GRRM thinks Lyanna died in ToJ. The people who were suggesting Lyanna died in Starfall or otherwise not at ToJ were arguing that the better interpretation of the available evidence leads to the conclusion that Lyanna did not died at ToJ. We now know that argument is not correct. GRRM was not playing games by misdirecting the readers to think Lyanna died at ToJ when really he always intended to have her die elsewhere. At the time GRRM wrote GoT, he expected that readers would understand that Lyanna died at ToJ and did not intend (at least when he wrote GoT) to show later that she died elsewhere. Those who believed he was doing such a thing simply were incorrect.

As to the wiki issue -- the relevant entry footnotes the App as the source for the information of where Lyanna died. Anyone reading the wiki can see that the source is the App. People can make their own decisions on the level of "canon" that the App provides -- but we now know that it means that as of the time that GRRM reviewed the App, he intended to have Lyanna die at ToJ. For me, that is pretty much a confirmation because unlike the Targ backstory for which GRRM would have reason to change things as he explored that backstory in more detail when writing the "side" books -- but with respect to Lyanna dying, GRRM would have had to have that scene fairly well worked out at the time he wrote GoT, and I see no reason why he would change his mind now (but admitting that he is free to do so).

THANK YOU.

[MtnLion]

Not to beat a dead horse -- and I know I am a couple days behind in responding -- but I think it is a bit simplistic just to label the information as "semi-canon" vs. "canon" as if that gives all of the relevant information regarding the reliability of the information.

Just my two pence, when it suits some; they take GRRM's SSMs as canon; but when it doesn't fit their POV they reject it as semi-canon or worse. Surely that poster will not say that "fever dream" is not canon, or even that Tagaryens could do as they please while they had dragons as not canon. KCDFTT, or DFTT. ;)

[Ygrain]

Just my two pence, when it suits some; they take GRRM's SSMs as canon; but when it doesn't fit their POV they reject it as semi-canon or worse. Surely that poster will not say that "fever dream" is not canon, or even that Tagaryens could do as they please while they had dragons as not canon. KCDFTT, or DFTT. ;)

Which brings us to an interesting conclusion:

old dream containing the KG, the tower and Lyanna in bed of blood = canon

non-literal fever dream = not canon

[UnmaskedLurker]

THANK YOU.

You're welcome. I am not trying to make anyone feel bad, but I am frustrated by the misrepresentation of what it means to be "semi-canon" in this context. It certainly does not mean that because it is "not canon" it can be ignored -- it cannot. Any theory that argues for a different death location -- if being honest in the analysis -- must explain why GRRM is going to change his mind about the death location (because we now know that up to the point in time of the App review, GRRM asserted that Lyanna died at ToJ).

[Avalatis]

Even questions GRRM personally answered are still semi-canon, at least for purposes of the wiki. It's not canon until it's found between the covers of a book, is George's position. :)

Makes sense. If I was an author I wouldn't wanted to be cornered in on certain facts when I still have a story to write. It's nice that the information is out there, but if the plot requires that information to be changed, it will. I would guess we can assume it is correct unless Martin decides he no longer wants it to be that way.

[Avalatis]

I'd like to add that TWOIAF should be taken as "semi-cannon" as well. The reason being is that while Martin reviewed and wrote a lot of the information from that book. It is written in a way that allows him to maneuver (as it's written from a character in story, not from an omniscient entity like the author of said story). It is very easy for Martin to claim the facts gathered were wrong for the fictional history book, or were clear lies created by the new regime.

[RumHam]

I'd like to add that TWOIAF should be taken as "semi-cannon" as well. The reason being is that while Martin reviewed and wrote a lot of the information from that book. It is written in a way that allows him to maneuver (as it's written from a character in story, not from an omniscient entity like the author of said story). It is very easy for Martin to claim the facts gathered were wrong for the fictional history book, or were clear lies created by the new regime.

This is not true. You're confusing unreliable narration with the issue of something being canon.

[Avalatis]

This is not true. You're confusing unreliable narration with the issue of something being canon.

You just ignored my post to be contrary. I'm not surprised. The unreliable narration makes it 100% "semi-cannon" as it is a fact for the universe, but Martin is not in any way obligated to stick to. So he is able to hide story elements intentionally with this method as well as potentially change these facts in the future.

[WeaselPie]

You make a good post, but really, this person is just trolling. :)

Ran took my question/concern seriously and answered thoughtfully.

[UnmaskedLurker]

This is not true. You're confusing unreliable narration with the issue of something being canon.

I basically agree -- but I think it is more than just unreliable narrators. Jon as Ned's son is canon because everyone in Westeros states this fact. These people are not "unreliable narrators" in the sense that they are misperceiving what is going on. The book could be completely 3rd person without any "POV" insight and Jon as Ned's son would still be canon because that is what everyone says. But it won't be true because the only characters who really know the truth are lying about it (or not talking -- HR, for example). So even items that appear to be "canon" may not be canon in the end and it might have little to do with unreliable narrators.

I agree that WOIAF is just as canon as the books -- but the reader needs to try to figure out which information is reliable and which is not. A "fact" that was clearly widely known by many people and where the author has no reason to lie, the "fact" is not only "canon" but almost certainly reliable. For example, the statements about the Pact of Ice and Fire -- that was a public agreement and there is no reason to think anyone is lying about it. So it is both canon and almost certainly something the readers can rely on having happened.

GRRM putting the location of death in a family tree that he gives to Ran and Linda is semi-canon in that if GRRM changes his mind, he does not need any other explanation. Whereas, anything stated in the books as "canon" (including Jon as Ned's son) can only turn out not to he true (absent a "mistake" in the text) if there is an explanation for why the books said one thing before and another later (and such an explanation will be there for RLJ). Here, similarly, an explanation would be needed for why GRRM said one thing before and will say something different later -- even as a semi-canon source and even if the only reason is that he changes his mind. So the person putting forth the theory needs to explain -- did GRRM change his mind (allowed to do for semi-canon) -- but why he changed his mind needs to be explained. Was it misdirection? If so, explain why the clues are so subtle as only semi-canon sources provided them, and what purpose the misdirection serves. In any event, whether canon or semi-canon -- some explanation for the change later in the text needs to be explained. It is just that different explanations would be needed for different changes.

[RumHam]

You just ignored my post to be contrary. I'm not surprised. The unreliable narration makes it 100% "semi-cannon" as it is a fact for the universe, but Martin is not in any way obligated to stick to. So he is able to hide story elements intentionally with this method as well as potentially change these facts in the future.

I don't know why you seem to take my disagreeing with you so personally. I was not ignoring your post or trying to be contrary. You just happen to be wrong about the worldbook being semi canon

• Canon: Primary canon, consisting of works written by or with primary involvement of George R.R. Martin, such as A Song of Ice and Fire, the Dunk and Egg novellas, and The World of Ice and Fire, but excluding his TV show scripts which are written to the TV show canon as established by the showrunners, and writings expressly placed outside of canon such as hisCage Match 2010 write-ups.

• Semi-Canon: Secondary canon, consisting of information verified as having been given by George R.R. Martin outside of the published works. This includes information given to officially licensed third parties, such as the television show and roleplaying games, and information given through correspondence with fans, readings and signings, statements in interviews, samples or excerpts from unpublished manuscripts, etc. Please note the "verified" qualifier -- origin with Martin must be an established fact, not simply assumed, and must clearly refer to his series as opposed to the canon of any derivative works. If two pieces of secondary canon appear to contradict each other, it should generally be assumed that the most recently given information is correct.

Yes there are statements in the book that are inaccurate, that doesn't have anything to do with canon as we've been talking about it. There are inaccurate statements in the novels as well, but obviously they're still canon.

snip

:agree: