Jump to content

R+L=J v.144


Angalin

Recommended Posts

SFDanny,



my point with Chelsted and Rossart was that there was no reason for Aerys to consider their feelings/nobility/standing within the Realm as he very much owned these two. He could have unmade them as quickly as he made them - which would have been not as easy if he had replaced Connington with, say, Mace Tyrell.



But I'm with you that Chelsted could have been a Littlefinger-type of character insofar as his wealth and influence at court was concerned by the time he was made Hand. But the transition from Chelsted to Rossart seems immediate to me - because of the wildfire plan. A different Hand could have come to the same conclusion as Chelsted, and why the hell name somebody else (or consider it) if the most important thing at hand was the wildfire plan anyway? Just name the guy who is in charge of the whole thing and everything will go smoothly. The obvious other candidate for the Handship after Chelsted's death would have been Varys - the fact that he wasn't name suggests that Aerys chose Rossart quickly rather than slowly.



As to what Rhaegar could have done:



As Aerys' son and heir he had access to/lived in Maegor's during his stay there. What about paying his father a visit in the night to discuss stuff with him? Say, with Jaime at his side? Arresting the king and confining him to his quarters shouldn't have been that difficult. That is, if Rhaegar was actually in charge of his own army and Aerys and his cronies needed him rather than having fun forcing him to do their bidding - but the latter seems very unlikely to me. We know that Aerys had powerful factions of courtiers - as well as the average guy in Westeros - on his side prior to Harrenhal. But Harrenhal pretty much destroyed Aerys' image as a sane and nice man - he was disgusting to look upon.



Now, by the time of Rhaegar's return the Targaryen dynasty was pretty much in trouble. The rebels had won a lot of battles, and there was a good chance that they would be winning. I'm pretty sure that the bulk of the Targaryen loyalists in KL was actually loyal to Rhaegar at this point, not to 'King Scab'. A mad and disgusting looking king is one thing when there is peace you don't need him as a public figurehead in a war, but a completely different thing during wartime.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Well said.

Maybe I misread, but I also understood Ran's answers as significantly damaging to the argument that Lyanna died somewhere other than the ToJ. While it's never explicitly stated that she was there, it's also bloody obvious that's what was communicated to us in Game. So, GRRM wrote that she died there in AGoT, then reaffirmed it multiple times. The fact that the info is old does not make it less reliable. In fact, the opposite would seem to be true. Consistently, for ~20 years now, Lyanna died at the ToJ. I really fail to see how that casts doubt on the location of her death. If people need to be spoon fed information in order to believe it that is their right, but not all of us do.

RLJers are often accused of reading too much into certain lines, and seeing what we want to see, twisting certain passages to read as RLJ evidence, etc. But then we deal with stuff like this. I mean, really?

All this fuss over canon/semi-canon, and one of the oft cited reasons for doubting the Lyanna-related info in Ned's fever dream is an interview (semi-canon!) where GRRM warns that the fever dream is not literal. Which segues nicely, I think, into MtnLion's post.

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. ;)

Fully agreed.

I think one thing that is really telling about the solution to the mystery of Jon's parentage is that there is no consensus non-RLJ theory. Instead what we get are a bunch of arguments that "inform us" that we can't really be sure something else didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFDanny,

my point with Chelsted and Rossart was that there was no reason for Aerys to consider their feelings/nobility/standing within the Realm as he very much owned these two. He could have unmade them as quickly as he made them - which would have been not as easy if he had replaced Connington with, say, Mace Tyrell.

But I'm with you that Chelsted could have been a Littlefinger-type of character insofar as his wealth and influence at court was concerned by the time he was made Hand. But the transition from Chelsted to Rossart seems immediate to me - because of the wildfire plan. A different Hand could have come to the same conclusion as Chelsted, and why the hell name somebody else (or consider it) if the most important thing at hand was the wildfire plan anyway? Just name the guy who is in charge of the whole thing and everything will go smoothly. The obvious other candidate for the Handship after Chelsted's death would have been Varys - the fact that he wasn't name suggests that Aerys chose Rossart quickly rather than slowly.

And my point, LV, is that we have too few bits of evidence to base any real solid picture, and even less so if we start questioning some of the few points we are given. I don't say you can't be right, LV, you might be so, but with what little we have to go on here it makes sense to me to try to construct our picture of events based on all of what we have.

As to what Rhaegar could have done:

As Aerys' son and heir he had access to/lived in Maegor's during his stay there.

I don't know that we know this, LV. It's not outrageous to assume this might be true, but It also maybe that during the time Rhaegar is near King's Landing assembling his new army he resides in camp, not in the capital. And who knows what restrictions Aerys has for access to Maegor's Keep?

What about paying his father a visit in the night to discuss stuff with him? Say, with Jaime at his side? Arresting the king and confining him to his quarters shouldn't have been that difficult.

Again, that all sounds good on the surface, but it also might be the best way to have Elia and her children put into the black cells, if not hurt or killed. Also, let's say along with Jaime, Ser Barristan or Darry is with Aerys? What happens then when Rhaegar threatens his father with violence? I don't think we know which side Darry or Selmy would take in such an encounter. Nor do we know the loyalty of the gold cloaks. Or what other troops were allowed within the city or the Red Keep.

That is, if Rhaegar was actually in charge of his own army and Aerys and his cronies needed him rather than having fun forcing him to do their bidding - but the latter seems very unlikely to me. We know that Aerys had powerful factions of courtiers - as well as the average guy in Westeros - on his side prior to Harrenhal. But Harrenhal pretty much destroyed Aerys' image as a sane and nice man - he was disgusting to look upon.

Now, by the time of Rhaegar's return the Targaryen dynasty was pretty much in trouble. The rebels had won a lot of battles, and there was a good chance that they would be winning. I'm pretty sure that the bulk of the Targaryen loyalists in KL was actually loyal to Rhaegar at this point, not to 'King Scab'. A mad and disgusting looking king is one thing when there is peace you don't need him as a public figurehead in a war, but a completely different thing during wartime.

I agree that Aerys had decided he needed Rhaegar, at least by the point of when he appointed Connington, and certainly after he replaced Connington. Rhaegar was a charismatic figure loyalists could be rallied to, and the dynasty possibly saved. I don't think that means Aerys trusted him. In fact, I'd argue that trust was lost long before that through the manipulation of Tywin Lannister when at the siege of Duskendale Lord Tywin announced that "what if they kill Aerys, we have a better dragon here" and pointed to Rhaegar in front of a small council full of Aerys's loyalists. Nor do I think that Tywin didn't know what he was doing when he made those remarks. He was trying to split son from father, and it worked. At least as the father was concerned. For Rhaegar it seems to be a longer process of deciding that something had to be done with his father. When that was exactly, I don't know, but I'd bet Aerys using Elia and her children as hostages forced him to recognize the depths of Aerys's madness. Hearing the news of the treatment of Lord Rickard and Brandon Stark's party should have been a clue as well, but just when Rhaegar makes the decision to try to replace Aerys, I don't yet know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFDanny,



well, the fact that Jaime seems to be thinking that Rhaegar is calling the shots which Kingsguard is going with him or staying with Rhaegar is a big hint to the amount of Rhaegar's power, is it not? Surely Jaime would not have begged Rhaegar to allow him to go with him if Rhaegar had not been able to grant him that wish - and certainly Jaime would have known if Rhaegar was under Aerys' thumb and consequently Jaime would have begged Aerys to allow him to accompany Rhaegar.



I agree that it is not confirmed that Rhaegar was allowed to live in the Red Keep or Maegor's - however, if this was the case, then the Targaryens would actually sow more discontent/doubt among their remaining loyalists as this would clearly show to everyone that father and son weren't on the same page. The same would be true if Aerys openly used Elia and her children against Rhaegar as hostages - this does not mean that he did not do this behind closed doors. But again - if this was the case, this would not have changed after Rhaegar had returned from the Trident. If Rhaegar did not have some/a lot of power with the Targaryen men - within and without the city - the idea of him deposing Aerys after the Trident makes little sense.



Jaime seems to recall that Rhaegar wasn't in the city to uncover the wildfire plot prior to Chelsted's discovery - which would sort of support your conclusion. However, Rhaegar certainly would have visited his father following his actual return from the south. I doubt that Aerys was only communication with him via messenger (although this certainly is also a possibility).



In the end, Darry and Selmy also fought for and with Rhaegar at the Trident. At this point I doubt that many people would have been willing to side with Aerys had it come to blows between Rhaegar and him. But I agree that we don't know that.



As to Tywin's intentions: I imagine that remark about Rhaegar was an honest statement that had little to do with manipulation. In fact, Tywin most likely believed Aerys would never see the light of the next day, and consequently dared to say something like that. And we don't know how Rhaegar reacted to that if he overheard it - at that point, his father wasn't yet in the condition he was after Duskendale so I very much doubt he was happy with that. Rhaegar's apparent reluctance to openly act against his father is a strong sign that he on his part wasn't eager to move against him.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFDanny,

well, the fact that Jaime seems to be thinking that Rhaegar is calling the shots which Kingsguard is going with him or staying with Rhaegar is a big hint to the amount of Rhaegar's power, is it not? Surely Jaime would not have begged Rhaegar to allow him to go with him if Rhaegar had not been able to grant him that wish - and certainly Jaime would have known if Rhaegar was under Aerys' thumb and consequently Jaime would have begged Aerys to allow him to accompany Rhaegar.

ar's apparent reluctance to openly act against his father is a strong sign that he on his part wasn't eager to move against him.

Recalling Selmys description of the kingsguard. "...counsel him (the king) when counsel was requested and keep silent when it was not..." aDwD page 857

Jamie's begging Rhaegar would be Jamie's only option unless Aerys asked Jamie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you can ask the king's permission to ask him a question? Especially if the whole thing involves assignments and the like. After all, at one point it would have been decided which KGs would accompany Rhaegar to Trident and who stayed at KL.



And Jaime goes to Rhaegar about that, suggesting that he knew that Rhaegar made that decision. If this was not the case Rhaegar could have done nothing but ask his father in Jaime's name to allow him to go with him to the Trident. But Jaime's memory suggests that Rhaegar had the power to actually decide this thing without consulting the king first - in fact, what dissuades Rhaegar to grant Jaime's request is that he does not want to steal Aerys the crutch Jaime is to him (i.e. a feeling of safety since he could be used as hostage against Tywin). This generally does not suggest Rhaegar was not calling the shots - at least as to who was going to join his army and who had to stay in KL.



If this was not the case then Rhaegar would most likely have answered something like: 'That's for my father to decide. Go ask him, I cannot help you in this.'


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you can ask the king's permission to ask him a question? Especially if the whole thing involves assignments and the like. After all, at one point it would have been decided which KGs would accompany Rhaegar to Trident and who stayed at KL.

And Jaime goes to Rhaegar about that, suggesting that he knew that Rhaegar made that decision. If this was not the case Rhaegar could have done nothing but ask his father in Jaime's name to allow him to go with him to the Trident. But Jaime's memory suggests that Rhaegar had the power to actually decide this thing without consulting the king first - in fact, what dissuades Rhaegar to grant Jaime's request is that he does not want to steal Aerys the crutch Jaime is to him (i.e. a feeling of safety since he could be used as hostage against Tywin). This generally does not suggest Rhaegar was not calling the shots - at least as to who was going to join his army and who had to stay in KL.

If this was not the case then Rhaegar would most likely have answered something like: 'That's for my father to decide. Go ask him, I cannot help you in this.'

I think Rhaegar was smart enough to put two-and-two together. At ToH, when Rhaegar saw Jaime being knighted and swear the oath of Kingsguard, seeing Tywin was not there as well, must have led him to believe that this was his Father being spiteful to Tywin. To take Tywin's true heir, was a big punch to the gut by Aerys. It was in light of this that Rhaegar openly, but right to the point, said to Jaime that he felt that although he's a Kingsguard, he's more of a hostage. Just like he saw Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon, as hostages to insure Dorne's continuing loyalty.

Rhaegar felt that he needed to contain, if not, win the war, with the battle at the Trident against the rebels. The last thing he needs is more distraction (on top of worrying for Lyanna, who is pregnant with child back at the tower) with trying to give his Father further doubt and madness and by taking Jaime along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:agree:

Canon: In fiction, canon is the material accepted as part of the story in an individual universe of that story. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. The alternative terms mythology and continuity are often used, with the former being especially to refer to a richly detailed fictional canon requiring a large degree of suspension of disbelief (e.g. an entire imaginary world and history).

Semi-canon: Is not an actual term. I took Ran's use of it as saying it can change and is not set in stone. This allows the author leeway as it is not a stated fact.

An unreliable narrator (even from the main books) is canon in the sense that they made the statements or that the book actually exists in their world. But what I meant (and you danced around) is what they are referencing is not necessarily canon. As a lie from a character does not support continuity of the world (the fact that they lied is canon, what the subject/material of said lie is not).

So Robert tells us that Rhaegar abducted and raped Lyanna. This is semi-canon (as in what was used by Ran). The base readers have no reason to suspect this unreliable narrator is wrong on its surface. Those in this thread have dug deeper and found evidence that points to this chain of events is probably not what actually happened. So when we're dealing with the continuity of the history of Westeros both "facts" are not canon. That they were stated are canon.

We can go off on Jon being a bastard. Which everyone in the story believes to be so. But when the book series is all done the official "canon" for the story *could* be that he was the true born son of Lyanna and Rhaegar. Just because it is stated in multiple sources that Jon is a bastard and the unreliable narrators of the story confirm this, doesn't make *the fact* canon.

Needless to say an unreliable narrator and "semi-canon" are not mutually exclusive as your post suggests. The term itself is a play off of "canon" which has nothing to do with primary and secondary material. Though individuals might refuse to look at secondary material as official canon (even if it came from the Author). That is completely up to them.

As for me taking it personally it's your method of disagreement. Opening with "you're wrong" and following it up with ignoring my explanation. This method comes of as contrary, not just disagreeing. Had you opened with "I don't agree with your use of semi-canon" I would have been more receptive to the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canon: In fiction, canon is the material accepted as part of the story in an individual universe of that story. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. The alternative terms mythology and continuity are often used, with the former being especially to refer to a richly detailed fictional canon requiring a large degree of suspension of disbelief (e.g. an entire imaginary world and history).

Semi-canon: Is not an actual term. I took Ran's use of it as saying it can change and is not set in stone. This allows the author leeway as it is not a stated fact.

An unreliable narrator (even from the main books) is canon in the sense that they made the statements or that the book actually exists in their world. But what I meant (and you danced around) is what they are referencing is not necessarily canon. As a lie from a character does not support continuity of the world (the fact that they lied is canon, what the subject/material of said lie is not).

So Robert tells us that Rhaegar abducted and raped Lyanna. This is semi-canon (as in what was used by Ran). The base readers have no reason to suspect this unreliable narrator is wrong on its surface. Those in this thread have dug deeper and found evidence that points to this chain of events is probably not what actually happened. So when we're dealing with the continuity of the history of Westeros both "facts" are not canon. That they were stated are canon.

We can go off on Jon being a bastard. Which everyone in the story believes to be so. But when the book series is all done the official "canon" for the story *could* be that he was the true born son of Lyanna and Rhaegar. Just because it is stated in multiple sources that Jon is a bastard and the unreliable narrators of the story confirm this, doesn't make *the fact* canon.

Needless to say an unreliable narrator and "semi-canon" are not mutually exclusive as your post suggests. The term itself is a play off of "canon" which has nothing to do with primary and secondary material. Though individuals might refuse to look at secondary material as official canon (even if it came from the Author). That is completely up to them.

As for me taking it personally it's your method of disagreement. Opening with "you're wrong" and following it up with ignoring my explanation. This method comes of as contrary, not just disagreeing. Had you opened with "I don't agree with your use of semi-canon" I would have been more receptive to the argument.

I was not saying that unreliable narration and something being semi-canon (which is a term by the way, even if it was coined by Ran) are mutually exclusive, I was saying the opposite. A book can be canon or semi-canon and make use of an unreliable narrator or otherwise have incorrect information. Robert telling us Rhaegar abducted and raped Lyanna is fully canon, even if it's not true. "Canon" is different from "true."

I'm legitimately sorry if I offended you by saying "This is not true." I was not trying to attack or insult you, I was just stating a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canon: In fiction, canon is the material accepted as part of the story in an individual universe of that story. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. The alternative terms mythology and continuity are often used, with the former being especially to refer to a richly detailed fictional canon requiring a large degree of suspension of disbelief (e.g. an entire imaginary world and history).

Semi-canon: Is not an actual term. I took Ran's use of it as saying it can change and is not set in stone. This allows the author leeway as it is not a stated fact.

An unreliable narrator (even from the main books) is canon in the sense that they made the statements or that the book actually exists in their world. But what I meant (and you danced around) is what they are referencing is not necessarily canon. As a lie from a character does not support continuity of the world (the fact that they lied is canon, what the subject/material of said lie is not).

So Robert tells us that Rhaegar abducted and raped Lyanna. This is semi-canon (as in what was used by Ran). The base readers have no reason to suspect this unreliable narrator is wrong on its surface. Those in this thread have dug deeper and found evidence that points to this chain of events is probably not what actually happened. So when we're dealing with the continuity of the history of Westeros both "facts" are not canon. That they were stated are canon.

We can go off on Jon being a bastard. Which everyone in the story believes to be so. But when the book series is all done the official "canon" for the story *could* be that he was the true born son of Lyanna and Rhaegar. Just because it is stated in multiple sources that Jon is a bastard and the unreliable narrators of the story confirm this, doesn't make *the fact* canon.

Needless to say an unreliable narrator and "semi-canon" are not mutually exclusive as your post suggests. The term itself is a play off of "canon" which has nothing to do with primary and secondary material. Though individuals might refuse to look at secondary material as official canon (even if it came from the Author). That is completely up to them.

As for me taking it personally it's your method of disagreement. Opening with "you're wrong" and following it up with ignoring my explanation. This method comes of as contrary, not just disagreeing. Had you opened with "I don't agree with your use of semi-canon" I would have been more receptive to the argument.

This debate is getting a little bogged down in semantics. The problem with the normal terms like "canon" and "semi-canon" is that usually they are used in situations in which the entire work is finished. In that context, ideas like fan fic vs. canon are more concrete distinctions because there can be no more new source of canon. But semi-canon is still possible -- like Rowling saying that Dumbledore was gay -- never stated in the books, but stated by the author and really unlikely to ever be contradicted by the author -- so it should be accepted as true, even though technically not canon.

But here, where the series is not finished, the terms get a bit confusing. Jon as Ned's son being "canon" is accurate IF one views canon as anything generally accepted as fact in the series to date. But because the series is not complete, new information might clarify this "fact" that was previously canon. Yes, I agree that technically, one could argue that the only thing that is canon is that people state that Jon is Ned's son -- but using that formulation means that almost any statement of "fact" needs to be qualified that people in-universe state it to be a fact rather than merely stating it as a fact. I think that the way that most people around here use the term canon -- Jon as Ned's son is canon -- even though it will turn out not to be true in the end. But again, that is an issue of semantics -- as most people who consider it "canon" still agree it will end up not being "canon" by the end of the series due to RLJ.

For me, the important point regarding "semi-canon" is the precise context in which it is used. Ran uses it in a very precise way which is perhaps different than other situations. Ran uses it to mean something that GRRM has stated or indicated to be the case -- BUT has not appears explicitly in the books and thus is subject to GRRM changing his mind. That is Ran's definition, as I understand it, so we should use it the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Which I thought I had covered in my original post. The "facts" might not be canon, so they are semi-canon. People being wrong and what they believed is canon. Unreliable narration automatically falls under semi-canon as my understanding of canon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is regarding companion pieces to the book such the WB and the app., and even the Dunk & Egg series, is that they provide a backdrop for the books to fall into place.

The App. has confirmed theories and debunked theories, but it is semi-canon because of the potential spoilers of the book that are involved. What we know:

- Lyanna died at the TOJ.

-Lyanna died. Period. What it doesn't confirm is did she die without having children.

- Brandon died BEFORE having sons. Says nothing about she-wolves

- Rhaegar died.

- Lyannas name was indeed on Rhaegars lips.

- Arianne and Darkstar did have a sexual relationship, (no kidding).

- Ashara is dead.

- Castle Black and KL are said to be the places of death for Jon and Aegon, though it says nothing about them being dead.Its the same tricksy language that Varys uses in his introduction of the return of Aegon to Kevan. He introduces him as just "Aegon," but never Rhaegars son.

While I am 99% sure Aegon is dead, GRRM absolutely confirmed Rhaenys death, but always left the question open about the return of "Aegon." He may die without us never knowing the truth even as we do know the truth about Jon.

But there are a lot of things Martin is not going to speak to because of spoilering, and that is what we have to be careful not to take as certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which I thought I had covered in my original post. The "facts" might not be canon, so they are semi-canon. People being wrong and what they believed is canon. Unreliable narration automatically falls under semi-canon as my understanding of canon.

Again -- semantics. While some might use the term semi-canon in that manner, that use of the term is not the way Ran is using the term semi-canon -- so I think we should stick to his term usage (as I laid out in post #110). Basically, if a "fact" is stated in the books, it is canon (even if eventually proven not to be true and no longer canon) and nothing directly from the books can be semi-canon. A character's "opinion" is not really canon (other than it is canon that it is the character's opinion), but commonly accepted facts in Westeros generally are viewed as canon (even if they might turn out to be false and no longer canon later in the series). Ran's usage of the terms "semi-canon" limits the term "semi-canon" only to information coming from GRRM other than the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate is getting a little bogged down in semantics. The problem with the normal terms like "canon" and "semi-canon" is that usually they are used in situations in which the entire work is finished. In that context, ideas like fan fic vs. canon are more concrete distinctions because there can be no more new source of canon. But semi-canon is still possible -- like Rowling saying that Dumbledore was gay -- never stated in the books, but stated by the author and really unlikely to ever be contradicted by the author -- so it should be accepted as true, even though technically not canon.

But here, where the series is not finished, the terms get a bit confusing. Jon as Ned's son being "canon" is accurate IF one views canon as anything generally accepted as fact in the series to date. But because the series is not complete, new information might clarify this "fact" that was previously canon. Yes, I agree that technically, one could argue that the only thing that is canon is that people state that Jon is Ned's son -- but using that formulation means that almost any statement of "fact" needs to be qualified that people in-universe state it to be a fact rather than merely stating it as a fact. I think that the way that most people around here use the term canon -- Jon as Ned's son is canon -- even though it will turn out not to be true in the end. But again, that is an issue of semantics -- as most people who consider it "canon" still agree it will end up not being "canon" by the end of the series due to RLJ.

For me, the important point regarding "semi-canon" is the precise context in which it is used. Ran uses it in a very precise way which is perhaps different than other situations. Ran uses it to mean something that GRRM has stated or indicated to be the case -- BUT has not appears explicitly in the books and thus is subject to GRRM changing his mind. That is Ran's definition, as I understand it, so we should use it the same way.

I guess I'm approaching this from a completed work perspective (which it is not yet). So semi-canon is something that is "canon" but could be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm approaching this from a completed work perspective (which it is not yet). So semi-canon is something that is "canon" but could be changed.

One more time -- semantics. Semi-canon could mean what you suggest is means -- but that is not how Ran uses it, so I think it is confusing to start using the term that way. Others are likely to misunderstand what you mean because Ran has been pretty clear on how he uses it, and it is different than how you are suggesting it should be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again -- semantics. While some might use the term semi-canon in that manner, that use of the term is not the way Ran is using the term semi-canon -- so I think we should stick to his term usage (as I laid out in post #110). Basically, if a "fact" is stated in the books, it is canon (even if eventually proven not to be true and no longer canon) and nothing directly from the books can be semi-canon. A character's "opinion" is not really canon (other than it is canon that it is the character's opinion), but commonly accepted facts in Westeros generally are viewed as canon (even if they might turn out to be false and no longer canon later in the series). Ran's usage of the terms "semi-canon" limits the term "semi-canon" only to information coming from GRRM other than the books.

Well yes this is semantics. My point was that TWOIAF book information shouldn't be taken as irrefutable and could be changed by the author. Canon has a specific meaning I was going off of. I wasn't aware there was a specific meaning to "semi-canon" besides the obvious meaning.

edit: To clarify as there is no point in dragging this out. I don't agree with Ran's use of "semi-canon" (though it's not a real term) but it is completely pointless. My point from the original post still stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes this is semantics. My point was that TWOIAF book information shouldn't be taken as irrefutable and could be changed by the author. Canon has a specific meaning I was going off of. I wasn't aware there was a specific meaning to "semi-canon" besides the obvious meaning.

So there's the confusion then. To be clear I was never arguing that everything claimed in The World of Ice and Fire is the immutable truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes this is semantics. My point was that TWOIAF book information shouldn't be taken as irrefutable and could be changed by the author. Canon has a specific meaning I was going off of. I wasn't aware there was a specific meaning to "semi-canon" besides the obvious meaning.

I am not sure how TWOIAF information is any different than any other information from the main series that is told by a character to the readers (as opposed to scenes the readers actually "see" happen). I used the example of the information about the Pact of Ice and Fire. That information is not only canon, in my opinion, but reliable canon. The pact was a public agreement and the maesters have no reason to lie about it. So that information is canon. Where the maesters speculate on possible alternative explanations for something -- obviously none of the alternatives is canon because none is stated as the actual explanation. TWOIAF is intentionally written in a way to minimize the number of issues that can be called canon by the continual use of terms like "it was said" or "one possible explanation" type language. But another example in TWOIAF is the scene in which Aerys insults Joanna's breasts at the tourney. It was done in public and the maesters have no reason to lie -- so it is both canon and reliable. On the other hand, the statement that Nettles is dragonseed is stated explicitly and thus canon -- but could prove to be untrue and no longer canon. Each statement that is termed "canon" in an uncompleted work needs to be further examined to determine whether the "fact" really is reliable or may turn out not to be true.

On the other hand, as noted above, based on the way Ran uses the term, "semi-canon" can only be information from GRRM that comes from a source outside the books (including both the main books and the side books). Nothing stated in the books can be semi-canon -- even if unreliable. As I understand his use of the terms, either the information is canon (but subject to change if shown not to be true later) if it comes from one of the books or semi-canon if from a GRRM source outside the books -- or something else (such as a statement from a character that clearly on its face is not intended to be understood by the reader to be a fact -- which is neither canon or semi-canon -- other than that it is "canon" that the character said what he or she said).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canon doesn't have to be true to be canon. Canon consists of the stuff George R.R. Martin designates as such - for instance, the short story about the fight between Jaime and Cthulhu on his NAB is not canon despite the fact that it is written by George and set in Martinworld - although with TWoIaF such a scenario has become much more likely than it was before its publication (when we had no reason to believe that the old Krakenhead actually might live there).



Lies, half-truths, and errors in the books aren't semi-canon sources - they are lies, half-truths, and errors within canon.



In regards to TWoIaF it is stupid to play the 'unreliable narrator' card every time you stumble upon a fact you don't like if you have no good reason Yandel might err at that point. The POVs in the main series make mistakes, too, and many of them are intentional - people misremember stuff (for instance, Penny doesn't remember Oswell Kettleblack's name correctly). But the fact that they do is still canon. And whatever is told as truth in the novels is the truth in canon as well - Jon Snow is Ned Stark's son until proven otherwise, for instance.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...