R+L=J v.146

[BearQueen87]

I'm convinced that even when the book confirms R + L = J, there's going to be people who won't accept it as fact.

For example, I expect R+L=J to be confirmed in book 6. So what some will argue is that's just red herring and GRRM will reveal the REAL TRUTH in the last book.

Oh it's totally going to happen this way. *sigh*

[Sly Wren]

GRRM's editor saying that she thinks that she's figured out GRRM's strategy is not evidence that GRRM employs such a strategy. She says in the very quote that you provided that GRRM doesn't tell her things and doesn't want her to know things compared to his readers. This would only be confirmation that Martin employs such a reveal system if she was saying that Martin had told her that that's how he writes. She doesn't say this she says that this is the system that she's personally realized that he uses. Which is just a guess when you get down to it without GRRM saying that he does such a thing.

GRRM does foreshadow things though. But you can't say that we know how he does it, based on the quote you provided. Anne admits she has pretty much no more knowledge than we do. It would be akin to me saying that GRRM employs a 7 stage reveal system because that's how I feel that Martin reveals his secrets. Neither of us actually knows though as neither has been told by GRRM that that is the case

Yes. Well stated. Though I think RLJ is the likeliest conclusion, the idea that there is a formula for figuring it out baffles me. There is, at present, no trump card, no perfect math, no one-size-fits-all interpretive formula, whether you think RLJ is likely or not. We're all still just readers, interpreting the same unfinished text. We're all in the same boat.

Disclaimer: I don't know Sorahb's overall views concerning RLJ, but I think the above quote applies whatever views one holds on the theory. It is a theory at present, not a fact. My apologies to Sorahb if I've misappropriated your views.

[IceFire125]

GRRM's editor saying that she thinks that she's figured out GRRM's strategy is not evidence that GRRM employs such a strategy. She says in the very quote that you provided that GRRM doesn't tell her things and doesn't want her to know things compared to his readers. This would only be confirmation that Martin employs such a reveal system if she was saying that Martin had told her that that's how he writes. She doesn't say this she says that this is the system that she's personally realized that he uses. Which is just a guess when you get down to it without GRRM saying that he does such a thing.

GRRM does foreshadow things though. But you can't say that we know how he does it, based on the quote you provided. Anne admits she has pretty much no more knowledge than we do. It would be akin to me saying that GRRM employs a 7 stage reveal system because that's how I feel that Martin reveals his secrets. Neither of us actually knows though as neither has been told by GRRM that that is the case

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc... it's steps of revealing, of revelation, as more clues and hints are added--further proving/strengthening a theory.

This is consistent with all of what Martin have said publicly. He will not change midstream (compare to some writers when fans have figured things out), as clues and hints he placed in the beginning of the series will lose its value and retconning will add more confusion.

[stateofdissipation]

There is a difference between not agreeing with RLJ and not agreeing with dubious support of RLJ.

Take Jon as king for example.... all the references...

They can be seen as a history for RLJ

and

They can be seen as foreshadowing of the Robb's will and the red wedding...

another example---

Cat thinks of Ned in relation to a man protecting a king's son from another king.

This can be seen as Ned protecting Jon, (minus the son of a king)

and

This can be seen as Ned protecting Dany (minus the son of a king)

The support of RLJ has two sides at least. If there were not at least two sides, it would be proof instead of support,

Ignoring viable alternatives is dubious.

[Stubby]

[MOD]

A poster's gender has nothing to do with content posted on this forum. It is totally irrelevant.

As a result, a derail about the gender of a poster has been deleted.

Please keep to the topic.

[/MOD]

[wolfmaid7]

There is a difference between not agreeing with RLJ and not agreeing with dubious support of RLJ.

Take Jon as king for example.... all the references...

They can be seen as a history for RLJ

and

They can be seen as foreshadowing of the Robb's will and the red wedding...

another example---

Cat thinks of Ned in relation to a man protecting a king's son from another king.

This can be seen as Ned protecting Jon, (minus the son of a king)

and

This can be seen as Ned protecting Dany (minus the son of a king)

The support of RLJ has two sides at least. If there were not at least two sides, it would be proof instead of support,

Ignoring viable alternatives is dubious.

The bolded is an excellent point and something that should be taken into consideration before looking at everything through the glasses of RJL.Its something i've pointed out more than once on this thread.......The iron throne isn't the only throne to sit in this story and a crown of gold,silver,bronze embedded with gems not the only crown to be worn.This is plato's cave right here and when you get stuck in it you ignore other themes that subtly run seemless through the narrative.

[Eurybia]

There is a difference between not agreeing with RLJ and not agreeing with dubious support of RLJ.

Take Jon as king for example.... all the references...

They can be seen as a history for RLJ

and

They can be seen as foreshadowing of the Robb's will and the red wedding...

another example---

Cat thinks of Ned in relation to a man protecting a king's son from another king.

This can be seen as Ned protecting Jon, (minus the son of a king)

and

This can be seen as Ned protecting Dany (minus the son of a king)

The support of RLJ has two sides at least. If there were not at least two sides, it would be proof instead of support,

Ignoring viable alternatives is dubious.

I agree with you on the first one. The foreshadowing of Jon as a king could just as easily be about some future as king in the North, without any parentage reveals in play.

I disagree on the second. I will admit, I love that passage comparing Ned, Penrose, and Roose Bolton, mostly because it was my "aha!" moment with RLJ. I think it's a fairly deft comparison that is also pretty specific. It's set up as a three way comparison, talking about men and bastard children. Ned is compared with two men, Cortnay Penrose and Roose Bolton. The first is NOT the father of the boy in question but protects him valiantly from someone who might want him killed for his blood. The second is the father of the boy and dismisses his "death" with ease. Ned is compared to the former, despite the surface similarities to the latter. It's not the last time Jon and Ramsay will be paralleled in weird, inverted ways (the question of legitimization, the question of Winterfell, the whole "grey girl" and fArya business). It's not like the situations are exactly the same, obviously, but the analogy made is pretty much Ned:Jon::Penrose:Edric. I agree that for the comparison to work, Jon wouldn't need to be the son of a king. But he would have to be needing protection from something, kept safe from something. And we know in the north, people hide from kings under Snow. (The capitalization is mine, the reference from AGOT.)

And I do agree that ignoring viable alternatives is dubious. But to me, the other theories of his parentage don't hold with analysis of the text, whether factual (Ned claims to always keep his vows a page before thinking of his bastard son?) or with regards to foreshadowing, thematics, motif...

[Shiny!!]

These 'little hints' do not count for people that refuse to accept RLJ, so don't bother. Which is sad, actually, they do not recognize Martin's eloquent writing. The so-called planting of the seeds, sprinkling hints after hints through out the novels, is lost on them, OR they refuse to believe until it's actually stated in the texts plainly.

Is true. We call these types of people's Valenki. No bother, brother in arms, for these Valenki will soon suffer their mistakes when truth revealed in writing. When they see they are tricked, you will have triumphed!

Because we know that Martin does have such revelation strategy.

His editor, Anne Groell calls it, the three-fold revelation method:

Question: Anne, although you're the envy of many a GRRM fan, do you ever wish you didn't have to edit the books so that you could be surprised by them all at once along with the rest of us?

Anne Groell: No. As above, he doesn’t tell me a lot. He feels I am most effective at my job if I am surprised along with everyone else. And it is easier to tell when he’s overplaying a hand and revealing things too early if you don’t actually know going in what will happen. That said, now that I’ve realized his three-fold revelation strategy, I see it in play almost every time. The first, subtle hint for the really astute readers, followed later by the more blatant hint for the less attentive, followed by just spelling it out for everyone else. It’s a brilliant strategy, and highly effective. http://universe.suvudu.com/q-and-a/anne-groell#.U4erogUsR6s.twitter

1. Her breath frosted the air in small nervous puffs. “They say the king gives justice and protects the weak.” She started to climb off the rock, awkwardly, but the ice had made it slippery and her foot went out from under her. Jon caught her before she could fall, and helped her safely down. The woman knelt on the icy ground. - ACOK Jon III

2. When Gilly entered, she went at once to her knees. Jon came around the table and drew her to her feet. “You don’t need to take a knee for me. That’s just for kings.” - ADWD Jon II

3. So, in A Dream of Spring, will we see Gilly enter Jon's castle, find him sitting on his throne and wearing his crown, then as she approached him, she bends her knees to the king of the realm for all (including the readers) to see?

-

It was a good story, Bran decided after thinking about it a moment or two. “Then what happened? Did the Knight of the Laughing Tree win the tourney and marry a princess?” - ASOS Bran II

**The Knight of the Laughing Tree did marry. She married the Prince of Dragonstone, who won the tournament in the end.

-

“And why would that be? I’ve had lords before. They’re made the same as other men.”

“Have you ever had a prince?” he asked her. “When you’re wrinkled and grey and your teats hang past your belly, you can tell your children’s children that once you loved a king.”

“Oh, is it love we’re talking now? And here I thought it was just cocks and cunts.”

“Is it love you fancy?” He’d decided that he liked this wench, whoever she was; her sharp wit was a welcome respite

from the damp gloom of Pyke. “Shall I name my longship after you, and play you the high harp, and keep you in a tower room in my castle with only jewels to wear, like a princess in a song?” - ACOK Theon II

**So, was Lyanna a princess? ;)

Please explain this coding of 3? 5 books we have, were clue 3 hidden in book 3? How many mystery codes have found you?

[idio]

Yeah, I agree that Rhaegar doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would abandon everything to go on some long vacation in Dorne. There must be more to the story that we just don't know yet.

Yah gee..... I wonder what on Planetos it could be..... It's not as if Rheagar had become obsessed with a prophecy he came to believe that he was a part of that would save the entire existence of humans.

Can't be it.

[IceFire125]

And I do agree that ignoring viable alternatives is dubious. But to me, the other theories of his parentage don't hold with analysis of the text, whether factual (Ned claims to always keep his vows a page before thinking of his bastard son?) or with regards to foreshadowing, thematics, motif...

Even if people argue that there are, they can still post and discuss those alternate theories in their respective threads. I don't know why people stop. Why should fans of RLJ have to bend over backwards, considering feelings and thoughts of other fans that have strong disapproval of RLJ as a theory and expect to give equal weight to other theories, when in their minds/hearts feel that RLJ is the 'most' correct. It's like we can't fully enjoy discussing the theory without getting bombarded long essays declaring that there are gaps, that we must consider other theories first because of those gaps, as if, we haven't done that already. :dunno:

Why can't some people see that some RLJ fans became fans in the first place, because of those very hints, clues and foreshadowing of Jon's royal heritage. And from there, it is not far fetched at all to conclude that Martin would place Jon on SOME throne in the end as the king. Especially, of how similar Martin is fashioning and molding Jon like Tolkien's Aragorn. Will that be a mistake? of course, Martin could kill Jon somehow and never ever wear a crown at all, in the end, but until that's stated, then to be dissuaded that "Martin will not do that trope with Jon," is not strong enough for me.

Please explain this coding of 3? 5 books we have, were clue 3 hidden in book 3? How many mystery codes have found you?

It's my interpretation that Martin will revealed Jon as king in plain text in the 7th book, by "just spelling it out for everyone else" to see.

[The Twinslayer]

The bolded is an excellent point and something that should be taken into consideration before looking at everything through the glasses of RJL.Its something i've pointed out more than once on this thread.......The iron throne isn't the only throne to sit in this story and a crown of gold,silver,bronze embedded with gems not the only crown to be worn.This is plato's cave right here and when you get stuck in it you ignore other themes that subtly run seemless through the narrative.

I agree with this. The hints that Jon may be a king start after Robb signs his will.

There has always been a hint of a parallel between Rhaegar and Theon, though, and it may be a little stronger in light of the confirmation in the World Book that Aerys was thinking about disinheriting Rhaegar. Here is Theon, who is very active with a number of women but (so far as we know) does not frequent brothels, when he thinks he is a Crown Prince, and is about to be disinherited by the king. This is what he tells the Captain's daughter after suggesting that she is probably pregnant and telling her he is leaving her with her father:

"It's not every man who has the honor of raising a king's bastard."

[idio]

I am confused. Being semi canon, one sentence is being objected to as "subjective"?

Weird but I'm pretty sure GRRMs name is on TWOIAF..............

[Eira Seren]

There are good reasons to believe that the blue roses are a symbol for Stark maidens (and maybe that they are associated with the women's deaths), not for their sons. Here is what Ygritte says about Bael the Bard.

There are various theories about why Dany would see a vision relating to a Stark maiden at the Wall. One got some recent support when GRRM's original plan for the series was released.

If GRRM still intends to do this, or if he still intended to do it when he wrote Dany's HOTU vision, the blue rose may be a reference to Arya rather than Jon.

This is the quote that convinces me that Connington does not believe that Rhaegar had a second wedding.

That doesn't sound like he is remembering one of two weddings.

He also says that Aegon cannot marry because he has to be "free to marry" Daenerys if she returns to Westeros, which implies that Connington does not believe that polygamy is an option.

As far as calling Aegon the "firstborn son of Rhaegar, Prince of Dragonstone, by Princess Elia of Dorne," I think that just means that Rhaegar and Elia had no other sons before Aegon. It doesn't mean that Connington thinks Rhaegar had another wife. And, even if you read it to imply that Rhaegar had another son, it doesn't imply that Connington believes that the younger son is trueborn.

So if arya is the blue rose, and not a male Stark, then why will she be at the wall? And why will Dany see her? His seems to imply that Arya will die.

And I am inclined to agree about aegon not being polygamous, and possibly you make a case for Rhaegar not marrying again either.

[Mother of Dragons]

Even if people argue that there are, they can still post and discuss those alternate theories in their respective threads. I don't know why people stop. Why should fans of RLJ have to bend over backwards, considering feelings and thoughts of other fans that have strong disapproval of RLJ as a theory and expect to give equal weight to other theories, when in their minds/hearts feel that RLJ is the 'most' correct. It's like we can't fully enjoy discussing the theory without getting bombarded long essays declaring that there are gaps, that we must consider other theories first because of those gaps, as if, we haven't done that already. :dunno:

Why can't some people see that some RLJ fans became fans in the first place, because of those very hints, clues and foreshadowing of Jon's royal heritage. And from there, it is not far fetched at all to conclude that Martin would place Jon on SOME throne in the end as the king. Especially, of how similar Martin is fashioning and molding Jon like Tolkien's Aragorn. Will that be a mistake? of course, Martin could kill Jon somehow and never ever wear a crown at all, in the end, but until that's stated, then to be dissuaded that "Martin will not do that trope with Jon," is not strong enough for me.

It's my interpretation that Martin will revealed Jon as king in plain text in the 7th book, by "just spelling it out for everyone else" to see.

The impression that some "doubters" seem to get is that when they start a new thread about a different parentage theory, it tends to get locked. I know of someone who specifically asked a mod about this, and even suggested modifying the OP in RLJ to specify that this is a pro RLJ thread- if that is the intent. If alternate theory threads weren't locked up so quickly, people might be more inclined to discuss their other ideas over yonder.

But maybe before the next iteration, this group could brainstorm about expectations people may have about participants so it's clear what the house rules are here.

[idio]

Why would Aegon not be polygamous as a rule?

I don't think that follows at all.

Targs are polygamous typically IN POWER. Aegon isn't in power, he needs Dany for that.

It would be dumb politics to be like, "Hey Dany wanna get married? Oh his old ring?? Don't mind that it's my first wife. Want to be lucky #2? Btw we can share the Dragunz???"

It makes sense for him to not be married now, I don't think it informs anything for his future or his overall stance on polygamy.

[Mother of Dragons]

Why would Aegon not be polygamous as a rule?

I don't think that follows at all.

Targs are polygamous typically IN POWER. Aegon isn't in power, he needs Dany for that.

It would be dumb politics to be like, "Hey Dany wanna get married? Oh his old ring?? Don't mind that it's my first wife. Want to be lucky #2? Btw we can share the Dragunz???"

It makes sense for him to not be married now, I don't think it informs anything for his future or his overall stance on polygamy.

Hasn't been a polygamous Targ in power in 200 years, and I think there were only 2 or 3- I can't remember the exact number. Polygamy wasn't the norm for Targs. Rhaegar wasn't in power either, for that matter.

[idio]

I think Jon being represented by the blue rose is a poetic inversion of past history that mirrors Dany's inversion as a female Blood of the Dragon which has often been associated with men of her ancestry.

[idio]

Hasn't been a polygamous Targ in power in 200 years, and I think there were only 2 or 3- I can't remember the exact number. Polygamy wasn't the norm for Targs. Rhaegar wasn't in power either, for that matter.

I don't mean Rhegar was King, but Rheagar was certainly in power in Westeros.

There also haven't been dragons for a pretty long time.

Edit: I'm not making the case he WILL be, just that I don't believe we can draw a conclusion he isn't as a rule.

[Mother of Dragons]

I don't mean Rhegar was King, but Rheagar was certainly in power in Westeros.

There also haven't been dragons for a pretty long time.

True, but dragons were the norm for Targs before their extinction; hence their dragon sigil. I don't know how much power Rhaegar had, because if he married Lyanna, I don't understand why it would be kept secret if he had much power. However, I agree with you with the fact that he must of had some influence. There seemed to be undercurrents of support for him vs. Aerys. Take for example Duskendale. If I'm not mistaken, Tywin was ready to leave Aerys there and crown Rhaegar.

[Eira Seren]

I think Jon being represented by the blue rose is a poetic inversion of past history that mirrors Dany's inversion as a female Blood of the Dragon which has often been associated with men of her ancestry.

Wouldn't this make them opposites?

Might be kind of hard for Jon to be a Targ then, if this is a song of ice (stark) and fire (Targ). I've never seen Dany as very Starkish.