The Heresy essays: X+Y=J : Arthur + Lyanna=J

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

It is possible Lyanna was there. But the text flat out says it goes three men in white cloaks (fight with KG), tower long fallen (pulls down tower after fight), then Lyanna in her bed of blood. 

So either she's not in the tower, or Ned found her in the rubble where he was pulling out stones for the cairns.

Or we have to twist the text.

Easiest answer that matches the text? Lyanna wasn't in the tower. 

As for Wylla--if she's at Starfall when Jon is born, she might be as loyal to the Daynes as Wylla Manderly is to the Starks. 

I have alway read that as the tower being long fallen at the time of Ned's dream. Because if the tower had already been fallen at the time of the fight, there would be no reason for Ned to pull it down anymore, yet we know from memory that that is what he did.

[Regular John Umber]

I have alway read that as the tower being long fallen at the time of Ned's dream. Because if the tower had already been fallen at the time of the fight, there would be no reason for Ned to pull it down anymore, yet we know from memory that that is what he did.

 

 I think I must agree with you here. The 'long fallen' seems to apply to the 'now' of Ned dreaming it, not the 'now' of the event he dreamed about.

[StarkofWinterfell]

GRRM said dream was false, thus Ned is wrong

[Ygrain]

GRRM said dream was false, thus Ned is wrong

Wrong, GRRM said no such thing. What he did say was that dreams are not always literal.

 

 I've always interpreted Martin's comment here as being a comment on how Lyanna is apparently screaming when the fight begins. It's clearly not literal, and a 'mashup' of two different events. That's why I'm so certain that Lyanna was not at the tower.

Yes, Lyanna screaming is apparently one of those things that never happened (unless there was a considerable passage of time between the fight and her death, she was too weak to even speak at a normal volume). Yet, Ned describes the dream as one in which Lyanna belongs - a dream of the tower, the knights AND Lyanna, which means that these three things belong together. You can also ask yourself why it is that Ned's subconsciousness connects someone adressing him urgently by name (Vayon Poole trying to wake him because Robert wants to talk to him) and Lyanna.

 

[Melifeather]

 

 

Well, you aren't reading it in english. perhaps you are reading it in rudeness instead?
They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed.
In english thats called a sentence. This one has three parts:
i) They had been seven against three
ii) only two had lived to ride away
iii) Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed
The first part is the 'main clause' and is linked to the second part by a comma and the conjuctive 'yet'. That makes the second part a 'subordinate clause'. The third part is linked to the second by a semicolon and is thus bonded to it (by context its clearly an explanation of who the two were).
You can't read the subordinate clause independently of the main clause. You insist on doing so but thats not english. The 'only two" are by definition connected only to the 10 of the main clause (7vs3), not to the wider world. Its one sentence with the only two being a subordinate of the 10, not an independent.

 

 

 

 

You've lost all credibility with me. I can't take you seriously.

 

Commas don't work that way, and the Oxford comma is just a matter of house style, it doesn't have a special meaning. 

The comma separated list indicates three separate elements to that list. Such a list could be sequential or parallel. The subject of the list is the dream, so the list denotes elements of that dream. There's nothing in the grammar to imply a sequence rather than parallel or concurrent elements. 

 

The Oxford comma's very purpose is to eliminate confusion. It is not grammatically necessary to use it, but writers will employ it for clarification. I agree that a list can be sequential or parallel, but in this instance it is definitely meant as a list of subsequent events.

If Lyanna was in the tower he could have written something like, He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen where Lyanna lay in her bed of blood", but he didn't write it that way. GRRM employed not only the Oxford comma, he stresses the word "and" twice. The actual paragraph reads: "He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, AND a tower long fallen, AND Lyanna in her bed of blood."  It doesn't get much clearer than that.

[LmL]

Commas don't work that way, and the Oxford comma is just a matter of house style, it doesn't have a special meaning. 

The comma separated list indicates three separate elements to that list. Such a list could be sequential or parallel. The subject of the list is the dream, so the list denotes elements of that dream. There's nothing in the grammar to imply a sequence rather than parallel or concurrent elements. 

Thank you. Sometimes I can't even comment on the parsing and extreme-counter intuitiveness that goes on around all things RLJ. I for one wouldn't be surprised to learn that the "they" in "they found him there" to be an accident, a literary expression. I do think Martin is usually very specific with words but there should be other evidence to corroborate a specific reading of a sentence which suggests counter-intuitive things. The debate about the three KG somehow not being at the ToJ even though it's clearly stated every time the event comes up baffles me. Perhaps if there were a bunch of clues that they weren't there, you could begin torturing the phrasing to read that they weren't, but without any such clues, it seems like word-torture. So to with the idea that these three dream elements must be sequential: I mean, maybe, you could read it like that, but it by no means must be read that way. 

What I am trying to say is that phrase-parsing like this is always thin evidence, and needs to be supported by harder evidence to matter much. In my opinion, of course. 

[LmL]

I don't, you completely missed the point.

Those three elements, they aren't part of the dream. They are Ned's description of his old dream, what its about not scenes in it.
As the description of his old dream, they are not fever or poppy affected. Unlike the contents of the current dream.

 

To Ned the connection is clear and he makes it even though you try to deny it. You (collectively) are adding the dis-connect because you don't want to acknowledge the connection. The dream is about those three things. We didn't get to see Lyanna's bed of blood in the dream, but the dream is nonetheless about Lyanna's bed of blood just as much as it is about 3 white cloaks and a tower long fallen.

 

It should be noted that when Ned wakes he is rushed into events by Vayon Poole (indeed, the very dream is interrupted to do so) and his thinking is connected primarily to those events. Martyn Cassel comes up because he needed to call for Jory due to real world events.

Corbon I agree 100% with your logic here and in most of your other posts, fwiw. All of this phrase parsing around the ToJ seems contorted to support specific agendas and theories. No offense to anyone; that's just how it looks to my eyes. I don't have a skin in the game as far as Jons parents - Jon Dayne would fit most of Jons symbolism that I have analyzed. But I am reading things exactly as you are, and I don't see any separation of the three elements of the dream, at least none that seems intended by the author. 

Plus... three KG guarding an empty tower? Has anyone suggested an explanation for this? Were they actually guarding some other important thing which has never been mentioned or hinted at? 

Lets put this another way: so Lyanna wasn't at the ToJ, and no KG were at the ToJ. It's just a random place Ned went and fought three random dudes for no reason. So why the hell would Ned keep dreaming of this damn place if nothing happened there and nobody important was there? That's puzzling level of counter-intuitiveness that I just can't see any literary sense in. 

[Sly Wren]

I seem to recall a similar discussion based on the use of the Oxford, or serial comma. It's the last comma in a list of three or more separate items. Where is JNR when needed? 

There is an Oxford comma after "tower long fallen", so the three events are definitely separate.

Someone tried to create an argument based around punctuation? They are far more ambitious than I am. I think it's a lot easier than that to argue.

Commas don't work that way, and the Oxford comma is just a matter of house style, it doesn't have a special meaning. 

The comma separated list indicates three separate elements to that list. Such a list could be sequential or parallel. The subject of the list is the dream, so the list denotes elements of that dream. There's nothing in the grammar to imply a sequence rather than parallel or concurrent elements. 

I'm not going to try to pretend I could make an argument for succession with grammar. My middle school english teacher be damned.

But as far as sequence vs. concurrence, there has to be some kind of sequence unless Ned really is a superhero and can fight three KG, and hold Lyanna in his arms as she dies, and pull a tower down all at once. Which would be amazing. And you know HBO would try to film it.

But given what we've seen of Ned, the three things listed really seem to indicate some succession, no?

We know the round tower is felled by Ned to make cairns after the fight. Felled by Ned because of the fight--causal link and succession. So, in Ned's list, the second follows from the first. That leaves finding Lyanna in her bed of blood.

So, if I'm understanding right, the question is:

A. Did Ned list things out of order, which would allow for the events to go 3 men, then Lyanna, then felling the tower; or even find Lyanna, then 3 KG, then felling tower (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that no one's suggesting Ned found Lyanna in the tower after felling it. . . though that would be quite the twist)?

Or B: Did Ned remember and list things in order?

The text is scant enough to allow for either A or B.

But, if we go with A, we have to take the elements out of the given order AND add in people who are not currently mentioned in the events.

If we go with B, Ned gives the three elements in that order because that's the order in which they happened. And no one not mentioned at the tower has to be inferred.

This is what I mean when I say that B is the reading that requires the least twisting/changing/altering of the text. Does that mean Martin will go with it? No. Just means it leaves the text as written. Nothing added or re-ordered.

[Sly Wren]

I have alway read that as the tower being long fallen at the time of Ned's dream. Because if the tower had already been fallen at the time of the fight, there would be no reason for Ned to pull it down anymore, yet we know from memory that that is what he did.

 I think I must agree with you here. The 'long fallen' seems to apply to the 'now' of Ned dreaming it, not the 'now' of the event he dreamed about.

I apparently completely suck at getting my point across. Because this is exactly what I meant. The fight with the KG comes first. Then Ned fells the tower to make cairns as a result of the fight with the KG. It's a succession.

[Sly Wren]

I see what you are saying here. I can't agree. You are breaking up those three things and separating them, then saying the dream has separate parts. But they aren't separated and they aren't in order (bear with me on that statement). Its cheating to separate them and them remove all of the dream part thats relevant to one of them. No actually two of them, because a fallen tower never appears either. The dream GRRM shows us is then no longer about Lyanna's bloody bed.

I think its more honest of GRRM, and of us reading what he's written, to accept that the dream itself is about one thing that is represented by all three things Ned mentions in the descriptor - 3 white cloaks, a tower and Lyanna's bed of blood (note I just say a tower, because I think the fallen part is not part of the dream, thats just Ned's describing the tower then, that now is long fallen and no longer exists (because he ripped it down)).

Corbon, I will continue our discussion re: Edric when I get back.

But for now, my best way to explain what I'm actually arguing re: the three things is my post to Kingmonkey here.

[anonnyscouse]

And the dream scream? Thats not even Lyanna. Thats Vayon Poole bleeding into the dream. Lyanna calls Ned 'Ned', not 'Lord Eddard'.

 

 

That's actually the biggest argument against the rest of your post: The only indication we have that Lyanna was actually in the Tower during the fight is Ned hearing her scream. As you correctly point out the screaming was not Lyanna but was Poole from outside the dream. Without the screaming what in the text puts Lyanna at the Tower? There is the question as to why the KG were there exactly, but as the Tower was on a main pass through the mountains it might have simply been chance that they met there.

[Melifeather]

Someone tried to create an argument based around punctuation? They are far more ambitious than I am. I think it's a lot easier than that to argue.

I'm not going to try to pretend I could make an argument for succession with grammar. My middle school english teacher be damned.

But as far as sequence vs. concurrence, there has to be some kind of sequence unless Ned really is a superhero and can fight three KG, and hold Lyanna in his arms as she dies, and pull a tower down all at once. Which would be amazing. And you know HBO would try to film it.

But given what we've seen of Ned, the three things listed really seem to imply some succession, no?

We know the round tower is felled by Ned to make cairns after the fight. Felled by Ned because of the fight--causal link and succession. So, in Ned's list, the second follows from the first. That leaves finding Lyanna in her bed of blood.

So, if I'm understanding right, the question is:

A. Did Ned list things out of order, which would allow for the events to go 3 men, then Lyanna, then felling the tower; or even find Lyanna, then 3 KG, then felling tower (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that no one's suggesting Ned found Lyanna in the tower after felling it. . . though that would be quite the twist)?

Or B: Did Ned remember and list things in order?

The text is scant enough to allow for either A or B.

But, if we go with A, we have to take the elements out of the given order AND add in people who are not currently mentioned in the events.

If we go with B, Ned gives the three elements in that order because that's the order in which they happened. And no one not mentioned at the tower has to be inferred.

This is what I mean when I say that B is the reading that requires the least twisting/changing/altering of the text. Does that mean Martin will go with it? No. Just means it leaves the text as written. Nothing added or re-ordered.

I agree they are three separate events that Ned associates together, but it is possible that they did not happen in that order. My opinion is that Ned has had to create lies based on factual events and then repeat the lies many times over the years. It only seems reasonable to me that it could have an effect on his dreams.

[LmL]

Someone tried to create an argument based around punctuation? They are far more ambitious than I am. I think it's a lot easier than that to argue.

I'm not going to try to pretend I could make an argument for succession with grammar. My middle school english teacher be damned.

But as far as sequence vs. concurrence, there has to be some kind of sequence unless Ned really is a superhero and can fight three KG, and hold Lyanna in his arms as she dies, and pull a tower down all at once. Which would be amazing. And you know HBO would try to film it.

But given what we've seen of Ned, the three things listed really seem to imply some succession, no?

We know the round tower is felled by Ned to make cairns after the fight. Felled by Ned because of the fight--causal link and succession. So, in Ned's list, the second follows from the first. That leaves finding Lyanna in her bed of blood.

So, if I'm understanding right, the question is:

A. Did Ned list things out of order, which would allow for the events to go 3 men, then Lyanna, then felling the tower; or even find Lyanna, then 3 KG, then felling tower (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that no one's suggesting Ned found Lyanna in the tower after felling it. . . though that would be quite the twist)?

Or B: Did Ned remember and list things in order?

The text is scant enough to allow for either A or B.

But, if we go with A, we have to take the elements out of the given order AND add in people who are not currently mentioned in the events.

If we go with B, Ned gives the three elements in that order because that's the order in which they happened. And no one not mentioned at the tower has to be inferred.

This is what I mean when I say that B is the reading that requires the least twisting/changing/altering of the text. Does that mean Martin will go with it? No. Just means it leaves the text as written. Nothing added or re-ordered.

I don't agree here, Sly, that there is any intended sequence. There are three items presented in a list - this does not imply any kind of sequence based on the order of the list.

"Remember that concert we went to last year at that club that got closed down, the one with the fat guy puking everywhere and the those cute girls?"

Obviously the run in with the girls and the guy puking have a sequence - one probably happened before the other - but the order in which these details appear doesn't imply which one happened before the other. Trying to read a specific sequence into the list just doesn't hold water. I think it's fair to interpret that the tower fell after the the fight - Ned says as much and the reverse makes no sense, just as we can assume the club in my example closed down sometimes after the concert I'm referring too. But the point you're trying to make is that the list implies finding Lyanna's bed of blood happened after the tower fell, and this doesn't make sense to me. I don't think that implication is there, at all.

[Sly Wren]

I don't agree here, Sly, that there is any intended sequence. There are three items presented in a list - this does not imply any kind of sequence based on the order of the list.

"Remember that concert we went to last year at that club that got closed down, the one with the fat guy puking everywhere and the those cute girls?"

Obviously the run in with the girls and the guy puking have a sequence - one probably happened before the other - but the order in which these details appear doesn't imply which one happened before the other. Trying to read a specific sequence into the list just doesn't hold water. I think it's fair to interpret that the tower fell after the the fight - Ned says as much and the reverse makes no sense, just as we can assume the club in my example closed down sometimes after the concert I'm referring too. But the point you're trying to make is that the list implies finding Lyanna's bed of blood happened after the tower fell, and this doesn't make sense to me. I don't think that implication is there, at all.

1. The things must have some sequence, no?

2. When Ned wakes after the dream, we are explicitly told that he pulled down the tower after Martyn died in the fight.

3. This means that the list of things in the dream also has the first two things listed in sequence.

4. As I said, this leaves the options I stated above.

5. Both sets of options are allowable by the text--absolutely. But if Lyanna in her bed of blood is in the tower, then we have to add people to the text which the text at present does not include. We can include them, but the text does not do it for us.

6. Or, the text not only listed the things in the dream. It also listed them in order. And we don't have to add anyone not included.

7. My point: was answering complaints upthread that questioning whether Lyanna was in the tower was adding problems to the text. But my answer: putting Lyanna in the tower is adding things not given in the text. Therefore, if she's not in the tower, it does not require to add things that aren't currently stated. The bonus: it means Martin told us all along what the order was. Not just content, but order.

8. And, as I said above, both sets of readings are allowable by the text. The question is: do we read what's there, or do we add?

[Melifeather]

I don't agree here, Sly, that there is any intended sequence. There are three items presented in a list - this does not imply any kind of sequence based on the order of the list.

"Remember that concert we went to last year at that club that got closed down, the one with the fat guy puking everywhere and the those cute girls?"

Obviously the run in with the girls and the guy puking have a sequence - one probably happened before the other - but the order in which these details appear doesn't imply which one happened before the other. Trying to read a specific sequence into the list just doesn't hold water. I think it's fair to interpret that the tower fell after the the fight - Ned says as much and the reverse makes no sense, just as we can assume the club in my example closed down sometimes after the concert I'm referring too. But the point you're trying to make is that the list implies finding Lyanna's bed of blood happened after the tower fell, and this doesn't make sense to me. I don't think that implication is there, at all.

 

While I agree that the list of events does not have to be in sequence, I still assert that they were three separate events. The use of commas and the way the sentence is structured indicate to me that the author meant to communicate that they were separate.

 

"He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood."

 

 

It seems very deliberately written to me.

 

1. The things must have some sequence, no?

2. When Ned wakes after the dream, we are explicitly told that he pulled down the tower after Martyn died in the fight.

3. This means that the list of things in the dream also has the first two things listed in sequence.

4. As I said, this leaves the options I stated above.

5. Both sets of options are allowable by the text--absolutely. But if Lyanna in her bed of blood is in the tower, then we have to add people to the text which the text at present does not include. We can include them, but the text does not do it for us.

6. Or, the text not only listed the things in the dream. It also listed them in order. And we don't have to add anyone not included.

7. My point: was answering complaints upthread that questioning whether Lyanna was in the tower was adding problems to the text. But my answer: putting Lyanna in the tower is adding things not given in the text. Therefore, if she's not in the tower, it does not require to add things that aren't currently stated. The bonus: it means Martin told us all along what the order was. Not just content, but order.

8. And, as I said above, both sets of readings are allowable by the text. The question is: do we read what's there, or do we add?

 

You reason very well, and there are more than a few points that I am in agreement with. It is not in the text that Lyanna was found in the tower. It is not in the text that the Kingsguard was holding her captive. It is not in the text that she is Jon's mother. It's not even in the text that the "tower long fallen" is the same tower Ned pulled down. And it can be argued that the three men at the tower of joy were only ordinary men as signified by Ned's use of the word "yet", when he was comparing the details of the dream to "as in life". The only thing I don't agree with is that the list is in sequence. It could very well turn out to be in sequence, but it doesn't necessarily need to be so. Sometimes people naturally recall things in sequence, but they can also start with the most striking detail, and maybe to Ned killing Arthur Dayne was remarkable. Not to say that he didn't love his sister, but isn't there text to the effect that Arthur Dayne wielding Dawn was undefeatable? Ned even credits Howland Reed for helping him.

[Ygrain]

Lets put this another way: so Lyanna wasn't at the ToJ, and no KG were at the ToJ. It's just a random place Ned went and fought three random dudes for no reason. So why the hell would Ned keep dreaming of this damn place if nothing happened there and nobody important was there? That's puzzling level of counter-intuitiveness that I just can't see any literary sense in. 

...and Rhaegar randomly called it "tower of joy".

That's actually the biggest argument against the rest of your post: The only indication we have that Lyanna was actually in the Tower during the fight is Ned hearing her scream. As you correctly point out the screaming was not Lyanna but was Poole from outside the dream. Without the screaming what in the text puts Lyanna at the Tower? There is the question as to why the KG were there exactly, but as the Tower was on a main pass through the mountains it might have simply been chance that they met there.

Wrong. It is stated plainly, in Ned's account of the dream, that the KG fight, the tower and Lyanna belong together, and there is further connection through Lyanna, roses and "promise me" to Ned's recollection of the scene of her death - Ned responds to Vayon Poole's adressation, which his subconsciousness ascribes to Lyanna, with "I promise", meaning that Ned places Lyanna there.

 

 

[LmL]

Sly, the dream does put Lyanna in the tower - he hears her scream and sees her rose petals as he fights the KG in front of the tower long fallen. Now, granted, the reliability of dreams and all that. But to say the dream doesn't put Lyanna there is wrong, IMO. Her scream places her there, her rose petals place her there, and the description of the much-discussed three elements of Neds recurring dream include her bed of blood. I think it's the people who want to cut her out of that scene who are going against the implication of the text... not that anyone cares what I think, but there you have it.  

I think the fact that this is a recurring dream needs to be discussed also. It's called "an old dream," and when he wakes he thinks it's a bad omen that he should "dream that dream again" or whatever. The fact that he has the dream repeatedly lends some measure of credibility to it in my mind. I think when George talks about the unreliability of dreams, he's probably referring to dialogue. It makes sense that he would remember the emotions of what went on there as dialogue, but it's not necessarily what was said exactly. The dialogue is so poetic there, so it seems likely that's the thing that is a bit altered. Obviously the imagery of the storm of rose petals and a blood sky seems a bit stylized, but no more so than many of Martin's descriptions of sunsets and whatnot. In any case, this wasn't just a fit of hallucination brought on by milk of the poppy - it's an "old dream" that he's dreamed before. The dream is about 3 KG, a tower, and a bed of blood. 

Also, Neds men appearing as wreaths is clearly stlyized, but reliable in the general sense. That's typical dream language, I think we'd all agree. The things that are clear in the dream are the things he remembers the most. He remembers those three KG very well, clearly, and the blood and roses and the promise me Ned. He remembers the tower. But again, I have to conclude that the dream - however reliable it is - does put her there, and removing her from the scene of the dream is going against the implication of the text. To do so, you need other evidence indicating we should go against the implication - and some people think that evidence exists, some call it scanty. But I don't think it's right to say that people are "inserting her" into the dream - she's there in the tower, in her bed of blood, screaming "Eddard!" with her rose petals blowing out of the window. That's what the dream describes, to whatever extent we want to treat it as credible. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I apparently completely suck at getting my point across. Because this is exactly what I meant. The fight with the KG comes first. Then Ned fells the tower to make cairns as a result of the fight with the KG. It's a succession.

Ned, in 298 AC, in his dream, refers to the tower as 'a tower long fallen', but that does not tell us anything about when the tower was pulled down. Now, from the rest of the text, we learn that the tower was pulled down after the fighting was done, but how much time was there in between? We are not told, and thus, Lyanna in her bed of blood could easily have been in the tower, before it was pulled down. 

Especially considering Ned is referring to the tower (that, currently, is a tower 'long fallen', hence the description).. He refers the three men he faced, the location where he faced them, and the person he found within.

But the fact that he calls the tower 'a tower long fallen' before mentioning Lyanna, doesn't mean he pulled the tower down before coming face to face with Lyanna. It is a tower that is now, in the present, 'long fallen'...

 

Because even if Ned fought the three KG, first pulled the tower down, and then found Lyanna elsewhere, that tower would not have been long fallen. Ned returned to Winterfell within months of the Sack, there would be no 'long fallen' tower, if the tower had been pulled down before finding Lyanna.

[anonnyscouse]

...and Rhaegar randomly called it "tower of joy".

Wrong. It is stated plainly, in Ned's account of the dream, that the KG fight, the tower and Lyanna belong together, and there is further connection through Lyanna, roses and "promise me" to Ned's recollection of the scene of her death - Ned responds to Vayon Poole's adressation, which his subconsciousness ascribes to Lyanna, with "I promise", meaning that Ned places Lyanna there.

 

 

It is said Rhaegar named it the Tower Of Joy, said by whom? People who believed Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna? Until we know why "It is said" that it was named by Rhaegar then that is meaningless.

You are taking everything in the dream as literal, something GRRM has said shouldn't be done. As GRRM has said we shouldn't take the dream as literal at least something in that dream is misleading, the most logical aspect that could be misleading is Lyanna's presence, which is mainly signified by the screams that were actually Vayon Poole bleeding into the dream.

[Melifeather]

"Tower of joy" doesn't necessarily have to mean it was a happy place. He could have named it sarcastically.

It seems convenient for Ned to know what Rhaegar named it, because by the time Ned arrived there Rhaegar would have been dead. Did Rhaegar tell everyone when he arrived at the Trident, because when would he have had time to tell anyone? If it was only just named 9 months before he died, there wasn't a lot of opportunity to spread the word.