Jump to content

Archived

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

SFDanny

R+L=J v147

Recommended Posts

Are you saying Rhaegar was planning to be killed at Trident?

No. I wouldn't totally reject the possibility, but that's a whole other issue. An interesting hypothesis could be constructed that Rhaegar was intentionally replaying the Bael story, but I don't see much evidence for it other than the closeness of the parallels. I'd consider it far more likely that the Bael story-within-a-story is a literary device Martin used to drop some pretty major hints about the story proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that no convincing alternate to RLJ exists.

Convincing...What does it take to convince?

Have you honestly looked another alternative?

Have you honestly looked at the "support" for RLJ?

I say "convincing" because there is no size able support for any alternate theory.

Support does not make a theory convincing or not... It also does not make it right.

Even the anti-RLJ'ers cannot agree on what is the next most likely scenario.

or facts... or what is in the text... or where the books end and fan fiction begins... or what canon is..

There is no other strong case.

Is the strength of case based solely on popularity?

Cases based on reason and text are stronger than those that are based on fabrication and popular opinion.

.There is no case that has gained any traction with the thousands and even million of people scrutinizing ASOIAF

Read and repeat apparently passes for scrutiny...

Still the support of a theory does not make it valid....

All attempts to explain the blue rose =/= RLJ, including very good efforts by folks on this thread, have fallen short. Far short.

One cannot prove a negative.... explain how the blue rose (actually a flower) does not equal Sam Tarly.... it can't be done.

You can provide a stronger case as an alternative, that does nothing to explain why he is not.

This is kinda brilliant. You assess the viability of LmL's assertions without actually attacking Jon's being Rhaegar and Lyanna's son per se. Ability to argue that is still open (unless I'm reading you wrong--then correct me). Huh. Well done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work KingMonkey... I still need to comment on Eddard in wonderland, that was a terrific essay. Hats off to you

Bael's Bastard I'm in the same boat as you. we all know the books aren't done and that we can't be "sure" about anything, but with that said, there are five books worth of stuff to draw conclusions from, and with a mystery novel, you are NOT supposed to wait for the end to figure out what happened!! That's the whole point, of course, is to read the foreshadowing. The skilled mystery author leaves enough clues to put it together, but not to prove anything conclusively, because that would spoil the fun. So at the end of the day, what really matters is not whether RLJ is 90% solid or 99% solid - it's whether any other theory has any kind of realistic chance, whether any other competing theory can be compelling enough to consider. Is there another theory which can adequately explain the various symbols? The blue rose is the obvious one, of course, so we are focusing on that, but all the other RLJ evidence need be accounted for also.

The bottom line is that no convincing alternate to RLJ exists. I say "convincing" because there is no size able support for any alternate theory. Even the anti-RLJ'ers cannot agree on what is the next most likely scenario. There is no other strong case. There is no case that has gained any traction with the thousands and even million of people scrutinizing ASOIAF. All attempts to explain the blue rose =/= RLJ, including very good efforts by folks on this thread, have fallen short. Far short.

LMLB the idea that the explanation of the blue rose has fallen short is YOUR opinion. I believe my explanation is very very valid considering where it could lead.When I say there is a propensity to confound the arguement here I mean that.

You guys are already working from the conclusion that Rhaegar is Jon's father and what he did was some romantic gesture.So every arguement relies on an element in dispute.Let me explain further.

What we know from the legend. Bael did not kidnap the Stark maiden, she never left.

what he did take was her virginity unasked.He deflowered so he replaced what he took with something he considered just as rare. His reasons for his actions was to humiliate Lord Stark

We have cultural context for the Starks so again why was Brandon and Ned displeased with Rhaegar's gesture? What was he saying to them by doing that to Lya?

To this moment none of you have answered an honest question.That is a perfect meaning for the rose because that's basically what the story is saying.

This has nothing to do with Jon Snow directly, but its part of a dialogue that explains what happened. So for you to act the authority on what is solid or not is just amazing. I do not find the assertion that Jon Snow equates Blue rose at all convincing.The reasoning behind it is flawed.

One incident with the blue rose has a cultural bearing on another and it is a shameful one, but you guys ....wow you dont see that in the larger picture!!!!

You all see Bael actions and use Rhaegar's actions to explain it.instead of the other way around.You look at Bael's actions and not the root, you look at Rhaegar's actions and think it can only mean something romantic when the original wasn't even that. It was about humiliation. Lastly, you no one is considering why the Starks were upset and that Lya coming from the sam cultural mindset would BE pleased?

LMLB you haven't seen all the arguements.I have seen some of late that are much better.You all at times weigh down the evidence with things that aren't evidence, or maybe means something else.

And you LMLB I dig you but seriously dude you are not sn authority on this you are one voice in a sea of thousands.You have an opinion, I have an opinion. You say you haven't seen any evidence that explains the blue rose I just gave you one. Without superimposing any conclusion except letting the evidence speak.

King Monkey I am looking forward to your essay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the alternate theories to RLJ die when tested by "Why the hell did Ned hide the truth about Jon's parents?"


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the alternate theories to RLJ die when tested by "Why the hell did Ned hide the truth about Jon's parents?"

Indeed, why the hell did Ned hide the truth about Jon's parents? I mean, even when one assumes RLJ, the answer is not so clear. Most popular assumption is "he tried to keep boy safe. Robert would kill any remaining Targaryens." Another, not so popular, but still quite discussed in the wild of the forum is "Catelyn would kill him to keep her children safe from wrath of anti-Targaryens." While both options are feasible, they are not rock solid. Of course, there is no need to announce in public "Jon Snow is Jon Targaryen First of His Name" as this could definitely can call enemies attention, but Catelyn is another story. I find it quite surprising that Ned haven't told her anything. Jon's life would been much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basics:

Rhaegar sings, Lyanna cries, Rhaegar gives wreath to Lyanna (reasons to be determined), Rhaegar and companions (including Arthur) take Lyanna (reason to be determined), all same as Bae. Twist: Arthur and Lyanna become lovers (reason to be determined) and Arthur=daddy. The rest stays the same, and Jon=blue rose at ice Wall.

In your twist scenario, do you mean that Arthur and Lyanna become lovers after she was abducted? No story or connection before that, just that they fell in love during the abduction period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why some people seem so anxious for Ned to be a promise-breaker or to betray a secret, no matter what it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the alternate theories to RLJ die when tested by "Why the hell did Ned hide the truth about Jon's parents?"

A few things:

1. Novels don't yet say why Ned hid the truth. Or even that he hid the truth.

2. Novels say Lyanna begged Ned for a promise. And that Ned remembers this often. And that he thinks of promises and the price he's paid to keep them.

3. Novels don't yet say what the promise(s) were.

4. Not unreasonable to assume that Ned would try to keep the promises no matter what.

Bottom line: lying about Jon's paternity because Rhaegar=daddy makes sense. It really does. It's not given in text, but makes sense. But if Lyanna asked Ned to lie about the father, regardless of who it was, Ned would probably have tried to keep that promise. No matter the cost. Period. So, neither the "promise" nor the "lie" (assuming it happened) can be a trump card. Not yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are already working from the conclusion that Rhaegar is Jon's father and what he did was some romantic gesture.So every arguement relies on an element in dispute.Let me explain further.

Wrong. We arrived at the conclusion that Rhaegar was the father.

I do believe that it was a romantic gesture on Rhaegar's part, and about the furthest that he would have gone, had Elia been able to birth a third child, but it is possible that others are right and that there was no romance back then, only a recognition of Lyanna's valour as KotLT. However, the way the QoLaB crown recurs means that even if it was not a romantic gesture, it was one that had a huge impact on Lyanna's fate

What we know from the legend. Bael did not kidnap the Stark maiden, she never left.

Oh? The girl disappeared from her bed in her father's house, that's not kidnapping? The fact that they were hiding nearby=/=never left. They were just, uh, hiding in almost plain sight. We say, it's darkest under the candlestick.

what he did take was her virginity unasked.

And you know that how? And why did she committed suicide after Bael's death?

His reasons for his actions was to humiliate Lord Stark.

Perhaps. But that doesn't exclude other motivation, especially concerning the daughter.

To this moment none of you have answered an honest question.That is a perfect meaning for the rose because that's basically what the story is saying.

No idea what you are talking about here. What question, and what meaning?

One incident with the blue rose has a cultural bearing on another and it is a shameful one, but you guys ....wow you dont see that in the larger picture!!!!

If you mean that especially Brandon took an offence at it, we are all aware of that. Note, though, that we don't have Lyanna's reaction, but we know that she clutched dried roses even on her deathbed. Most possibly, blue roses, perhaps even the crown itself. Doesn't look exactly like something that she was ashamed of.

Lastly, you no one is considering why the Starks were upset and that Lya coming from the sam cultural mindset would BE pleased?

Lyanna from the same cultural background did a lot of things that she was not supposed to do; what makes you think she would conform in this particular case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things:

1. Novels don't yet say why Ned hid the truth. Or even that he hid the truth.

2. Novels say Lyanna begged Ned for a promise. And that Ned remembers this often. And that he thinks of promises and the price he's paid to keep them.

3. Novels don't yet say what the promise(s) were.

4. Not unreasonable to assume that Ned would try to keep the promises no matter what.

Bottom line: lying about Jon's paternity because Rhaegar=daddy makes sense. It really does. It's not given in text, but makes sense. But if Lyanna asked Ned to lie about the father, regardless of who it was, Ned would probably have tried to keep that promise. No matter the cost. Period. So, neither the "promise" nor the "lie" (assuming it happened) can be a trump card. Not yet.

Novels do not say anything about Jon's mother. Ned definitely hid that truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, why the hell did Ned hide the truth about Jon's parents? I mean, even when one assumes RLJ, the answer is not so clear. Most popular assumption is "he tried to keep boy safe. Robert would kill any remaining Targaryens."

Not entirely incorrect, but still. Robert would certainly want Jon dead but he wouldn't be the one dirtying his hands, he would just turn away. Lannisters are you men here.

Another, not so popular, but still quite discussed in the wild of the forum is "Catelyn would kill him to keep her children safe from wrath of anti-Targaryens."

Never heard this one. The one I find as having most consensus is that Catelyn would indeed perceive him as a threat and it would make her life, and by extension Jon's, even more miserable, not to mention the whole part about making her complicit in treason. Best said with Ned himself: some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those one loves and trusts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Novels do not say anything about Jon's mother. Ned definitely hid that truth.

Wylla. Twice actually. And strong suspicions for Ashara by several characters. Plus TFD.

Novels do not say anything about Lyanna being the mother, nor that her baby, if she was indeed pregnant, was born healthy, alive or male. Or was named Jon Snow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. We arrived at the conclusion that Rhaegar was the father.

Well said. I said this before, it's not like we took the books and before reading them said "so RLJ, now let's see for clues".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your twist scenario, do you mean that Arthur and Lyanna become lovers after she was abducted? No story or connection before that, just that they fell in love during the abduction period?

Possibly--not too picky on this, cause it was meant to prove a point re: trump cards. Seems to have gotten off that track.

The connection would be that Arthur is with Rhaegar. So, if Lyanna met Rhaegar, could also presumably have met Arthur. The abduction (or running off) scenarios frequently presented never seem to assume Rhaegar was alone. Arthur's being part of whatever went down seems reasonable. So, the "Bael the bard as single operator" is probably off the table. Am just asserting that if they are working together to "take Lyanna" (probably per Rhaegar's "request," or even per Aerys')--could still get to baby Jon with rose symbol--Jon=blue rose at Wall.

But fully concede it's convoluted. And that Rhaegar is easier. My main point is that asserting that RLJ must be true at present, in an unfinished work, doesn't seem like a viable position. Probably true, likely true--absolutely. Must be true? not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wylla. Twice actually. And strong suspicions for Ashara by several characters. Plus TFD.

Not all of those people can be Jon's mother at once.

Ned definitely hid the truth about Jon's mom or do you have a quote where Ned tells who was his mother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Novels do not say anything about Jon's mother. Ned definitely hid that truth.

Yes--if Lyanna=mother--which I fully believe. But, if getting impossibly picky, novels don't say Lyanna=Jon's mama, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all of those people can be Jon's mother at once.

Ned definitely hid the truth about Jon's mom or do you have a quote where Ned tells who was his mother?

I was simply pointing out that your statement that "Novels do not say anything about Jon's mother" is incorrect, and giving examples why.

Ned's hiding something, on that we can agree.

Do I really need to post the convo Ned had with Robert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was simply pointing out that your statement that "Novels do not say anything about Jon's mother" is incorrect, and giving examples why.

Ned's hiding something, on that we can agree.

Do I really need to post the convo Ned had with Robert?

No need because Ned did not admit Wylla was the mother there. Plus, if Wylla was the mother, why the hell did he not tell anybody, Jon most of all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need because Ned did not admit Wylla was the mother there. Plus, if Wylla was the mother, why the hell did he not tell anybody, Jon most of all?

Fair point--Ned doesn't correct him.

But, why Ned would cover it up? RLJ does make sense re: lie, even though it isn't stated why Ned isn't stating who Jon's mother is.

But still think there's evidence to suggest Ned would cover it up, if Lyanna asked him to, no matter the reason. So, the cover-up can't be proof per se. Suggestive, yes. Even supportive--but absolute proof? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said. I said this before, it's not like we took the books and before reading them said "so RLJ, now let's see for clues".

Really, I don't get why this simple fact needs to be stated and re-stated over and over, yet it eventually gets thrown at us again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×