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

[LmL]

 

I can see the point, I just can't agree with it.
So what if the dream is foggy, unreliable etc. Not relevant. Its not the contents of the dream that primarily place Lyanna in her bed of blood at the tower. Its that Ned categorises this old dream (ie not the dream we see, but the regular dream he has had before without poppy or fever) as the dream about X,Y and Z. And its a dream with deep emotional resonance, but X and Y have no inherent emotional resonance of their own, so the emotional resonance comes from Z. The dream is about Z - X and Y are just identifiers that help uniquely identify that particular dream. As a writer you can't label the dream about something and then not show anything connecting directly to that something in the dream. You aren't giving the readers the information they need if you do that, you are just screwing with them for the sake of screwing.

I'll use the ferrari /beach idea again, but explain it more fully. Say a character lost his kids in an accident when a ferarri lost control, left the road, crashed onto a beach and killed his kids playing on the sand during their school holiday. But the readers don't know that. So the character has a recurring dream about a ferrari that has deep emotional resonance. As a writer, you can't tell the readers that the character is having 'the ferrari dream' again, just show the kids finishing the last day of school ... and then end the dream. There is no connection to the ferrari there at all, or anything apparent of deep emotional significance. So you are screwing with the reader by deliberately withholding the necessary information they need to connect the title of the dream in any way with the substance of the dream. Its screwing for the sake of screwing unless you have something seen in the dream connect with the title.
Even showing the kids playing on the beach is not enough. Because you've told the readers the dream is about a ferrari and there is still no connection. As a writer you'd need to show a car approaching at least, or the sound of it even, but you have to have something to connect the scenes in the dream with the description of the dream you gave the readers. They have hints of a mystery, not a totally unrelated mess.

GRRM told us the dream was about Lyanna in her bed of blood - which as we know from his waking thoughts elsewhere is her death scene. Something in the dream must be a connection, a very close connection, to Lyanna's death.
The discussion at ToJ, even fighting at ToJ, even killing Lyanna's baby-daddy Arthur, does not satisfy this. I can't see anything that does, unless its that this is the location and time, more or less, of her death, and the whole thing is one death scene, just starting very early on.
I am open to other suggestions. But they have to be good enough - killing Arthur is not.

Agreed. the thrust of the dream is Lyanna's bed of blood - that is the emotional core. But the thrust of the limited scene we see is the KG and Ned not understanding why they are there.

 

I spoiler'd your comments for brevity, but I 100% agree with you. I was just trying to acknowledge that I understand the claim they are making... I definitely don't see any merit in it. 

[Sly Wren]

It is Ned who first uses the word "fled" in describing Ser Willem Darry, Rhaella, and Viserys, and it may well be he also supplies the dream response of the Kingsguard not fleeing. In fact the oath tells them they must do whatever it takes to safeguard the king. That includes fleeing, dying, and hiding - among many other kinds of actions. Assuming, for the moment, this is really what the Kingsguard said in response then it is quite a stretch to make it into a rebuke of Darry's action. If any or all of them were ordered to go with the Queen and Viserys and to protect them from harm they would have done the same as Darry without question. So, I think you're reading something into the dialogue that's not there.

This is what's on the page:

“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”

“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

Ned calls it "fled" first. But they say it second. That's what the clearest people in the dream (while everyone else is a wraith) say. Which is unfair to Darry. But they are mad--Oswell softens things a bit by noting that Darry really is a good man. But Die Hard Hightower makes it clear that he sees it as fleeing to leave the King in King's Landing. Even to protect the queen and the Prince.

The KG swear all kinds of vows. They do not say which one they reference. But they only reference one king, one sworn brotherhood, one usurper--King Aerys. The false sworn brother to Aerys. And the Usurper who usurped Aerys.

No one else is mentioned. Nothing. To infer anything else requires adding things in vs. what's on the page. We can do that. The text does not prohibit it. But does NOT give it.

Problem here is that by fighting Ned they show they think him a threat. What changes Arthur's mind during the course of being beaten by Howland and Ned that makes him think it is a good idea to entrust Lyanna and Jon's location to this rebel general? It makes much more sense if he dies refusing to tell Ned anything about Lyanna.

But a threat to whom? The only king they mention is Aerys. Where does it say they are trying to protect anyone? They are pissed that they couldn't end Robert on the Trident. And protect Aerys from Jaime. That's what they wanted. No one else is mentioned. And though other lords might bend the knee when all is lost, Aerys' KG will not.

Aerys' kingsguard are face to face (how this happened is not shown) with the Usurper's dogs. And FIGHT!! Nothing else is given. We can infer--but we have to add things in.

Again--the text doesn't say we can't. But it doesn't say we should, either.

And once the fight is done, the KG who couldn't save their king are all gone. The King is all gone. Chance to do anything about it? Gone. All that's left in the hypothetical scenario--family.

As it was with Jon once the fight at the Wall is done. And he sends Mance to save Arya.

[wolfmaid7]

I can't seem to quote you SFDanny but I'm not ignoring evidence. The app represents common thinking that's it.And no matter how hard you all try to argue this you get refuted on it.

Ned's showdown with the kgs guard at said tower is verified by his waking recollection. The notion that Lyanna was also there at that time in that space is not verified by his waking memory. At all.

She could have been close? Where has access to flowers?

We are not pulling this out of nowhere

[The Ned's Little Girl]

This is what's on the page:

“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”

“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

Ned calls it "fled" first. But they say it second. That's what the clearest people in the dream (while everyone else is a wraith) say. Which is unfair to Darry. But they are mad--Oswell softens things a bit by noting that Darry really is a good man. But Die Hard Hightower makes it clear that he sees it as fleeing to leave the King in King's Landing. Even to protect the queen and the Prince.

First, there is more than one meaning to "flee". It doesn't automatically mean "run like a craven coward with your tail between your legs". Its more usual meaning is "to decamp in a hurry and move quickly", which is certainly what was necessary after the disaster on the Trident. So I really don't see much indication, even beyond the one word "flee" that the KG are angry with Darry for accompanying Rhaella and Viserys to Dragonstone.

Second, their reference to him as "a good man and true" isn't them damning with faint praise - it's endorsing what he did. They think he did the correct thing. Die Hard Hightower makes it clear that fleeing would be anathema for the Kingsguard. Ser Willem is "not of the Kingsguard"; that stricture does not apply to him. Again, there really isn't a hint of condemnation of Darry in Hightower's comment.

Third, as far as the KG at the Tower knew, Aerys was not deserted at all by the KG. When Rhaegar left to return to Kings Landing, Aerys was guarded by four members of the KG. By remaining at the Tower, they were not in dereliction of their KG duty (that particular duty at any rate). They had no way to know that Rhaegar would take three of the four Kingsguard with him to the Trident and leave only Jaime with Aerys - or that Jaime was the exact wrong one to leave there. Nobody could have foreseen that.

I don't believe that these three KG had any issues with Darry, nor with their own actions. That's why they are emphasizing their status as Kingsguard.

 

[Sly Wren]

First, there is more than one meaning to "flee". It doesn't automatically mean "run like a craven coward with your tail between your legs". Its more usual meaning is "to decamp in a hurry and move quickly", which is certainly what was necessary after the disaster on the Trident. So I really don't see much indication, even beyond the one word "flee" that the KG are angry with Darry for accompanying Rhaella and Viserys to Dragonstone.

They don't have to be mad at Darry. They are mad at the situation: Woe to the Usurper had we been there. If we had been in King's Landing, Aerys would sit the throne and our false brother would burn in 7 hells. They are angry that they were far away and could do nothing.

But they still say Darry fled. 

Second, their reference to him as "a good man and true" isn't them damning with faint praise - it's endorsing what he did. They think he did the correct thing. Die Hard Hightower makes it clear that fleeing would be anathema for the Kingsguard. Ser Willem is "not of the Kingsguard"; that stricture does not apply to him. Again, there really isn't a hint of condemnation of Darry in Hightower's comment.

They clearly seem to respect Darry. And from what we know of him, they should. But Hightower does say he fled. As opposed to them. Darry is the Master of Arms. A professional warrior. Hightower is implying he fled--even though Ned clearly says Darry went with the queen and the prince.

This isn't rational. This is anger and frustration. These men are Aerys' KG. Who were "far away" from where they were needed and now it's all been shot to hell. So, Hightower's saying Darry fled fits--they know he's a good man. They know he went with the queen and prince. But they couldn't be where they were needed. A place Darry left.

So what they say about Darry matches their anger at not being where they were needed. It's not fair to Darry. It's not rational. But Hightower, so hardcore that he tells Jaime not to judge Aerys' "burning people is fun" parties, has lost everything. Has completely failed his king. Because he was "far away." These men are pissed and frustrated.

Third, as far as the KG at the Tower knew, Aerys was not deserted at all by the KG. When Rhaegar left to return to Kings Landing, Aerys was guarded by four members of the KG. By remaining at the Tower, they were not in dereliction of their KG duty (that particular duty at any rate). They had no way to know that Rhaegar would take three of the four Kingsguard with him to the Trident and leave only Jaime with Aerys - or that Jaime was the exact wrong one to leave there. Nobody could have foreseen that.

I don't believe that these three KG had any issues with Darry, nor with their own actions. That's why they are emphasizing their status as Kingsguard.

Agree with the first paragraph. Fits what we know--though we don't yet know if the KG were ever "staying" at the tower. But on Darry, Hightower says what he says. Far as we know. And it fits his anger and frustration. And the KG's focus on Aerys in the dream.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

Well, we all have our interpretations. I simply don't see anger and frustration. Sadness and grieving, yes. Resignation and regret, yes.

 

[Sly Wren]

Well, we all have our interpretations. I simply don't see anger and frustration. Sadness and grieving, yes. Resignation and regret, yes.

With information this scanty in an unfinished work, no way around multiple interpretations.

And I agree on sadness--Arthur's smile is sad, according to Ned.

But on resignation: the KG do not flee. Then or now--sounds like they are asserting their intent vs. resigning.

And on anger: Woe to the Usurper and false brother would burn in 7 hells. They don't seem over it quite yet.

But without more information, or even the rest of the dream, exactly how much more context or information we might be missing seems impossible to discern.

[SFDanny]

This is what's on the page:

“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”

“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

Ned calls it "fled" first. But they say it second. That's what the clearest people in the dream (while everyone else is a wraith) say. Which is unfair to Darry. But they are mad--Oswell softens things a bit by noting that Darry really is a good man. But Die Hard Hightower makes it clear that he sees it as fleeing to leave the King in King's Landing. Even to protect the queen and the Prince.

The KG swear all kinds of vows. They do not say which one they reference. But they only reference one king, one sworn brotherhood, one usurper--King Aerys. The false sworn brother to Aerys. And the Usurper who usurped Aerys.

No one else is mentioned. Nothing. To infer anything else requires adding things in vs. what's on the page. We can do that. The text does not prohibit it. But does NOT give it.

Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I know the dialogue, and I know that in this dream dialogue the Kingsguard respond with "The Kingsguard does not flee." My point, from an earlier post, is that not only that is is ok to question if this dialogue really happened in this way, it is also possible it didn't happen at all. In other words, all of it comes from Ned's mind. The dialogue reflects, in my opinion, at the minimum the concerns Ned is still dealing with fifteen years after his encounter with these three men. He may be supplying both sides of the conversation in his dream state by imagining the questions he wanted to ask these men, and also imagining what their responses would have been.

The fact that so much of the dialogue reflects reality, as Ned would know it, does not necessarily mean it is not made up. He knows from his own experience the sequence of events he asks about, so it is no surprise this is reflected in his dream. All I'm saying here is that we have to accept as a possibility that the Kingsguard never said these things, but Ned is imagining what they would have said.

 

But a threat to whom? The only king they mention is Aerys. Where does it say they are trying to protect anyone? They are pissed that they couldn't end Robert on the Trident. And protect Aerys from Jaime. That's what they wanted. No one else is mentioned. And though other lords might bend the knee when all is lost, Aerys' KG will not.

Aerys' kingsguard are face to face (how this happened is not shown) with the Usurper's dogs. And FIGHT!! Nothing else is given. We can infer--but we have to add things in.

Again--the text doesn't say we can't. But it doesn't say we should, either.

And once the fight is done, the KG who couldn't save their king are all gone. The King is all gone. Chance to do anything about it? Gone. All that's left in the hypothetical scenario--family.

As it was with Jon once the fight at the Wall is done. And he sends Mance to save Arya.

We know Ned's encounter with these men takes place after he accepts the surrender of the Tyrells and the Redwynes at Storm's End. We know it takes place after the sack of King's Landing. We know it takes place after the flight of Rhaella, Viserys, and Ser Willem to Dragonstone. And we know it takes place after the battle at the Trident. I don't think these facts are really debatable, but I've been surprised before on what people think is debatable, so let me know if you disagree.

The reason I say this is you ask the question "a threat to whom?" and I think it is clear the fight between Ned and the Kingsguard does not take place because the trio think Ned and his men are a threat to any of the Targaryens who are already dead at the time of the encounter. Ser Arthur does not die protecting Aerys, Rhaegar, Elia, Rhaenys, or Aegon (assuming for the moment Aegon dies in the sack.) Their job, under this scenario, could not be clearer. They should be getting their butts to Dragonstone to protect Viserys and Rhaella. That's what their oaths tell them to do. It is clear in what we are told of the Kingsguard oath in other sections of the text.

So, if we accept the three men are motivated in their decision to fight Ned by either vengeance or by the need to protect their families from Ned, then they have decide to forsake their vows. No problem with that. In fact I think they have indeed decided to forsake their oath to protect Viserys, but my reasons for them staying and fighting Ned are very different than yours. 

You have them both fighting for vengeance and fighting to protect their families. Fighting to stop Ned from getting to Lyanna makes sense. Turning around and then telling Ned where he can find Lyanna makes no sense. Fighting to kill the "usurper's dogs" make some kind of sense, but to then decide to tell him how to find Lyanna after not being able to kill him makes no sense either. In both cases the trio has decided Ned and his companions are a threat. Either a threat to their families, or to the realm by having usurped the crown. Telling Ned Lyanna's location just doesn't follow from either case, however.

[SFDanny]

I can't seem to quote you SFDanny but I'm not ignoring evidence. The app represents common thinking that's it.And no matter how hard you all try to argue this you get refuted on it.

Ned's showdown with the kgs guard at said tower is verified by his waking recollection. The notion that Lyanna was also there at that time in that space is not verified by his waking memory. At all.

She could have been close? Where has access to flowers?

We are not pulling this out of nowhere

Have we ever had a discussion on the app, wolfmaid? I know all the nonsense being spouted about "semi-canon" vs. "canon" and how this means one is valid and anything from the other is not. There are things within the text or "canon" that are clearly untrue, and there are things within the "semi-canon" that give us special insight into what is going on - especially statements from the author. All of it needs to be weighed for bias, for a unreliable source, and to see if the author decides to change things. Martin's own distinction between the two classifications seems to be only that he does not want to have readers of his comments to be pissed off because he decides he wants to later change things up. The fetish that some posters make about rejecting all semi-canon information misses the point of looking for bias, unreliable sources, and changes in all cases. In this particular instance we have two direct sources in the text that support Lyanna being found at the Tower of Joy. We have the semi-canon source of the app that supports both of the direct sources from the text. All are evidence. All of which you seem to ignore in sweeping statements of there being no evidence to support Lyanna being at the tower.

[wolfmaid7]

The info is based on common knowledge so show me that the common knowledge is correct SFDanny

[Sly Wren]

Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I know the dialogue, and I know that in this dream dialogue the Kingsguard respond with "The Kingsguard does not flee." My point, from an earlier post, is that not only that is is ok to question if this dialogue really happened in this way, it is also possible it didn't happen at all. In other words, all of it comes from Ned's mind. The dialogue reflects, in my opinion, at the minimum the concerns Ned is still dealing with fifteen years after his encounter with these three men. He may be supplying both sides of the conversation in his dream state by imagining the questions he wanted to ask these men, and also imagining what their responses would have been.

The fact that so much of the dialogue reflects reality, as Ned would know it, does not necessarily mean it is not made up. He knows from his own experience the sequence of events he asks about, so it is no surprise this is reflected in his dream. All I'm saying here is that we have to accept as a possibility that the Kingsguard never said these things, but Ned is imagining what they would have said.

We know Ned's encounter with these men takes place after he accepts the surrender of the Tyrells and the Redwynes at Storm's End. We know it takes place after the sack of King's Landing. We know it takes place after the flight of Rhaella, Viserys, and Ser Willem to Dragonstone. And we know it takes place after the battle at the Trident. I don't think these facts are really debatable, but I've been surprised before on what people think is debatable, so let me know if you disagree.

The reason I say this is you ask the question "a threat to whom?" and I think it is clear the fight between Ned and the Kingsguard does not take place because the trio think Ned and his men are a threat to any of the Targaryens who are already dead at the time of the encounter. Ser Arthur does not die protecting Aerys, Rhaegar, Elia, Rhaenys, or Aegon (assuming for the moment Aegon dies in the sack.) Their job, under this scenario, could not be clearer. They should be getting their butts to Dragonstone to protect Viserys and Rhaella. That's what their oaths tell them to do. It is clear in what we are told of the Kingsguard oath in other sections of the text.

My apologies--I misunderstood your intent.

1. I agree that the KG's going to an heir makes perfect sense. For all of the reasons you give.

2. But to make it work that these KG have this motivation, we have to ignore, re-work, or add to the dialogue in the dream.

3. Which makes sense--it's a dream, for pity's sake.

4. BUT: the faces of the 3 KG burn clear. In the dream they are the clear thing. Ned notes that his friends whom he knew well are only wraiths in the dream. No distinctions. And, at the end of the dream, a rush of steel and shadow, a blood-streaked sky, rose petals, and Lyanna's screams--is she there, screaming from the tower? Is his dream combining things? Unclear. But the faces of the KG burn clear.

5. Ned remembers Arthur's sad smile. What the KG are doing. The conversation, while formal and terse, isn't nonsense. If we read it straight, it makes sense. It's hands down the clearest part of the dream fragment.

6. So, to assert that the KG must have actually been thinking about supporting an heir because that makes sense, we have to alter what Martin tells us is the clearest part of the dream.

7. It's a dream fragment in an unfinished work. Multiple readings are currently allowable in the text. But at least one on the table has to be that Martin tells us the men's faces burn clear because this is the clearest part of the dream. Wraiths and the rest of it? Figurative. But this really might be straight. 

So, if we accept the three men are motivated in their decision to fight Ned by either vengeance or by the need to protect their families from Ned, then they have decide to forsake their vows. No problem with that. In fact I think they have indeed decided to forsake their oath to protect Viserys, but my reasons for them staying and fighting Ned are very different than yours. 

You have them both fighting for vengeance and fighting to protect their families. Fighting to stop Ned from getting to Lyanna makes sense. Turning around and then telling Ned where he can find Lyanna makes no sense. Fighting to kill the "usurper's dogs" make some kind of sense, but to then decide to tell him how to find Lyanna after not being able to kill him makes no sense either. In both cases the trio has decided Ned and his companions are a threat. Either a threat to their families, or to the realm by having usurped the crown. Telling Ned Lyanna's location just doesn't follow from either case, however.

Apologies again. I wasn't clear--not fighting Ned to protect their families. Fighting Ned because the are Aerys' KG and he is the Usurper's dog. 

The family comes in afterwards--Ned is Lyanna's family. As Arya is Jon's. Jon can't go to Arya for a number of reasons, so he sends Mance. An enemy. Making common cause in the face of bigger problems. In the hypothetical, I'm thinking Arthur might do something similar.

If Ned would have died but for Howland--did Howland do something underhanded? Jon tells Mance "you owe me." Would Ned think he owed Arthur if the death was unfair? Or if he was just told the truth?

[SFDanny]

The info is based on common knowledge so show me that the common knowledge is correct SFDanny

First, the phrase "common knowledge" usually means known to everyone, or at least to most. There is nothing in this example that says it is what most people of Westeros know. So, I think you're mistaken there. We don't know to whom Ned has told where he found Lyanna, but given his reluctance to talk about the subject, my assumption it is something known to few.

For the reader of the series, who also read the app entry, it is a reinforcement of the first two pieces of evidence I cited (the dream and the appendices.) It also places Lyanna's death in the Red Mountains of Dorne, and it specifically agrees with the dream scream to place Lyanna at the tower. That all three pieces of evidence agree with each other strongly supports the idea Lyanna was there. That there are no hints left in the text or in other sources that she was elsewhere when Ned found her gives support to the idea this is a noncontroversial bit of information the author is giving us. That the author chooses to be more specific in the app than he was in the appendix also supports the idea he doesn't think he is giving away something he doesn't consciously want to.

The problem occurs when a group of posters, by which I mean yourself and others, reject out of hand any information from semi-canon sources. This argument has become, as I said, something of a fetish on the part of yourself and others. It doesn't really make much sense at all. Evaluate the evidence from wherever it comes for bias, unreliability, and the author's changes and we have no problem. Trying to make readers ignore evidence because you try to rule the source out without evaluation to support such a thing is just silly. Or at least is seems so on the surface. My instinct tells me there is more to it and this argument has more to do with Elio and Linda's access to Martin and the degree to which they have collaborated with him. It sounds more like envy than a reasoned argument over what really shouldn't be that controversial of a subject. The evidence points to Lyanna being in the Tower. Evaluate the evidence to show it is not true and show why, but no one gets to rule out whole categories of evidence for other readers.

[corbon]

All of which you seem to ignore in sweeping statements of there being no evidence to support Lyanna being at the tower.

Don't forget the sweeping statements that there is plenty,plenty of evidence that disputes that she was at the tower. Its not just denial here...

[corbon]

 

Wow, how I have I not noticed / heard anyone talk about this before?

It doesn't even say "she is said to have died" - just "died in the mountains of Dorne"

Its been discussed before, can't remember if it was in this thread or not.
Starfall has been qualified by the deniers as also being in the mountains of Dorne. Its hard to argue with that as a get out to be honest.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

Don't forget the sweeping statements that there is plenty,plenty of evidence that disputes that she was at the tower. Its not just denial here...

I'm actually still waiting for the plenty, plenty of evidence that disputes that she was at the tower.

So far, the evidence seems to consist of:

1) The text doesn't say unequivocally that she was there, and

2) Ned's dream is a fever dream and not literal.

 

[corbon]

I'm actually still waiting for the plenty, plenty of evidence that disputes that she was at the tower.

So far, the evidence seems to consist of:

1) The text doesn't say unequivocally that she was there, and

2) Ned's dream is a fever dream and not literal.

 

Neither of which is evidence disputing she was at the tower...

[wolfmaid7]

First, the phrase "common knowledge" usually means known to everyone, or at least to most. There is nothing in this example that says it is what most people of Westeros know. So, I think you're mistaken there. We don't know to whom Ned has told where he found Lyanna, but given his reluctance to talk about the subject, my assumption it is something known to few.

For the reader of the series, who also read the app entry, it is a reinforcement of the first two pieces of evidence I cited (the dream and the appendices.) It also places Lyanna's death in the Red Mountains of Dorne, and it specifically agrees with the dream scream to place Lyanna at the tower. That all three pieces of evidence agree with each other strongly supports the idea Lyanna was there. That there are no hints left in the text or in other sources that she was elsewhere when Ned found her gives support to the idea this is a noncontroversial bit of information the author is giving us. That the author chooses to be more specific in the app than he was in the appendix also supports the idea he doesn't think he is giving away something he doesn't consciously want to.

The problem occurs when a group of posters, by which I mean yourself and others, reject out of hand any information from semi-canon sources. This argument has become, as I said, something of a fetish on the part of yourself and others. It doesn't really make much sense at all. Evaluate the evidence from wherever it comes for bias, unreliability, and the author's changes and we have no problem. Trying to make readers ignore evidence because you try to rule the source out without evaluation to support such a thing is just silly. Or at least is seems so on the surface. My instinct tells me there is more to it and this argument has more to do with Elio and Linda's access to Martin and the degree to which they have collaborated with him. It sounds more like envy than a reasoned argument over what really shouldn't be that controversial of a subject. The evidence points to Lyanna being in the Tower. Evaluate the evidence to show it is not true and show why, but no one gets to rule out whole categories of evidence for other readers.

SFDanny the info is known to most everyone.It doesn't mean everyone in Westeros has heard this,but at the time this was the story told bt that's not really important. Look your not saying anything except griping about people think.I'm not about that this is becoming anorm now anytime someone raises an opposition the personal attacks start.SFDanny the app is NOT evidence it is a belief that has not been verified,No one is rejecting 'evidence' please stop calling it evidence if it has not been verified and enough clues exist that calls into question the common belief.That's what you and so many others aren't getting and get upset at those of us who question these acconts in a story that the author is filled with the unreliable narrator.

You keep saying over and over that there is evidence that Lyanna was at the tower so where is it? I've seen none of it and again the app is not evidence.

Don't forget the sweeping statements that there is plenty,plenty of evidence that disputes that she was at the tower. Its not just denial here...

Hmmmm.

1.Ned's waking recollection disputes it and that's all that was needed.His waking memory to blow a lot of that away.

2. Common sense and human behavior under certain situations disputes it.

 

What you all got?

1.A dream with literal and symbolic components

2.App on what is commonly believed.

I'm sorry and hate to laugh but i'm likeing my odds

[corbon]

No one is rejecting 'evidence' please stop calling it evidence if it has not been verified and enough clues exist that calls into question the common belief.

We know the difference between evidence and proof just as well as you do, so when you misuse the two terms to suit yourself you don;t fool anyone.
You have seen evidence, fairly strong evidence as even Sly Wren has admitted.

 

1.Ned's waking recollection disputes it and that's all that was needed.His waking memory to blow a lot of that away.

Show how.
It doesn't remotely. His waking memory does not show any scenes identifiably at the tower, let alone a complete record so it can't possibly exclude Lyanna on the grounds she isn't in those non-existent scenes. Nor does it show her death scene at a non-tower location.

2. Common sense and human behavior under certain situations disputes it.

What?

So your opinions on common sense and human behavior, combined with your interpretations of events, are evidence?

[wolfmaid7]

Show how.
It doesn't. At all.

What?

Oh thats right. Your opinions are evidence, I forgot.

I just did Corbon.

1. In Ned's waking state while recalls everything that he did after the fight with the kgs.Pulling down the round tower,building 8 cairns on the ridge.He doesn't mention what he did with Lyanna's body and this isn't a useless ommission at all.

2. Ned in the tomb then gives us the story of finding Lyanna in her bed of blood after he dies memory takes a dive he remembers none of it.

So explain that descrepancy.Explain- if the death of Lyanna and the death of the kgs happened at relatively the same time-Ned's statement.

Explain how in an environment of war in an environment that is the desert of Dorne te roses.Think about it Corbon you see what i'm getting at.

All you guys have and that's the truth is 

1. A dream 

2. And app

 and now this new statement prove that she isn't there. She isn't there because Ned's waking memory doesn't put her there,nor the environment she's in if she's at that said tower.

[corbon]

I just did Corbon.

No, you completely failed to even do a semblance of trying. But you are trying now, so thats something.

1. In Ned's waking state while recalls everything that he did after the fight with the kgs.Pulling down the round tower,building 8 cairns on the ridge.He doesn't mention what he did with Lyanna's body and this isn't a useless ommission at all.

You have one freaking sentence that covers what he did after the fight and its specific context is Jory Cassel having to lie beside his grandfather because his father is buried in the south. Lyanna not being mentioned here it utterly irrelevent to whether she was there or not - Howland was there and he isn't mentioned either!
"I gave them over to the silent sisters, to be sent north to Winterfell. Jory would want to lie beside his grandfather."
It would have to be his grandfather, for Jory's father was buried far to the south. Martyn Cassel had perished with the rest. Ned had pulled the tower down afterward, and used its bloody stones to build eight cairns upon the ridge.

He didn't recall everything he did. He hardly recalled anything in fact, just a few isolated details.
He didn't even recall the doing of the things he did recall.

Its still not anything that disputes Lyanna being there. So you have utterly failed the brief. A brief you set with your claims.

2. Ned in the tomb then gives us the story of finding Lyanna in her bed of blood after he dies memory takes a dive he remembers none of it.

Still not showing anything. He's finds her in the room, she dies, he stops remembering stuff after that. Nothing there shows the room directly was or directly or indirectly was not at the tower.
So you've failed your brief again. You haven't provided any evidence that disputes her being at the tower.

So explain that descrepancy.Explain- if the death of Lyanna and the death of the kgs happened at relatively the same time-Ned's statement.

There is no discrepancy. Can you say what discrepancy you think there is? Can you say "here it says this, there it says that, and these two things cannot both be true"?

Explain how in an environment of war in an environment that is the desert of Dorne te roses.Think about it Corbon you see what i'm getting at.

I did. 1) Its not the desert, and 2) roses don't just stop growing because there is a war on. There is no discrepancy there.
If I'm honest about what I see, I'll get banned. Its sad.

All you guys have and that's the truth is 

1. A dream 

The description of what a dream is about. The dream itself is lesser evidence.

 and now this new statement prove that she isn't there. She isn't there because Ned's waking memory doesn't put her there,nor the environment she's in if she's at that said tower.

So not only is absence of the specific evidence you want now evidence of absence, its actually proof of absence?