The Heresy essays: X+Y=J- Howland + Lyanna=Jon

[SFDanny]

About the black sails, I have been thinking about that and was interested in your opinion on the following:

 

Is it possible that either Viserys has mixed two stories into one when telling Dany the story, or that Dany has mixed two into one when remembering them? While she speaks about being a quickening in Rhaella's womb and fleeing KL, she also mentions that Viserys was eight.. born in 276 AC, Viserys would have fled KL for Dragonstone at the age of seven, not eight. He would have been eight, on the other hand, when Darry took the children and fled to Braavos, mid 284 AC... Something which Darry had to do in secret, hence the black sails and the need to travel at midnight.

That's a very, very good point. It's certainly possible Dany is remembering two different stories told to her over the years and conflating the two. The age difference between how old Viserys is when he leaves King's Landing and in Dany's memory is always something I've just given over to one of Martin's mistakes, purposeful or otherwise. It would explain that. Excellent thinking, RT!

Of course, that still doesn't support a secret voyage to Dorne and an elaborate masquerade for nine months in Dragonstone.

[kimim]

1. Does the Princes Pass have a flower garden we dont know about?

2. With battles happening all over the Kingdom and i think Martin said on the borders as well you think it wise to send riders periodically distances to replenish Lya's room with flowers.

 

Where ever she was ,was either near a garden or safe access to flowers.

People have gone through this, over and over again. I'm not going to rehash their arguments. I suggest you read through this thread, and the other thread that was closed.

There's no textual evidence that Lyanna was ever at the Tower of Joy, why must this be disproven?

Because there is evidence: Ned's dream. "He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood."

An "old dream," implies a single dream, obviously, and something Ned's been dreaming for a while; this is not a one-time feverish creation of Ned's troubled psyche. Ned's old dream has three components: three knights, a tower, and Lyanna.

If you wish to accept the three knights and the tower, but separate Lyanna and place her thousands of miles away in the Riverlands, in a setting and under circumstances that have nothing to do with those three knights and the tower, then you need evidence, from the text.

[Taenqyrhae]

 

People have gone through this, over and over again. I'm not going to rehash their arguments. I suggest you read through this thread, and the other thread that was closed.

Because there is evidence: Ned's dream. "He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood."

An "old dream," implies a single dream, obviously, and something Ned's been dreaming for a while; this is not a one-time feverish creation of Ned's troubled psyche. Ned's old dream has three components: three knights, a tower, and Lyanna.

If you wish to accept the three knights and the tower, but separate Lyanna and place her thousands of miles away in the Riverlands, in a setting and under circumstances that have nothing to do with those three knights and the tower, then you need evidence, from the text.

the aauthor himself has addressed that this was a fever dream and that we cannot take it as the literal truth.  The affirmative must be proven, what is the proof that this dream only includes events that all took place at one place and time?  I see no reason to believe the fevered and drugged dream of a tormented man about events long past described an accurate accounting of one scene.

 

[Regular John Umber]

A fundamental question is: if Jon is Howland's son, why did Ned take him?

 Yeah, that's a tricky one, and will always be a hole in any non-RLJ theory, because RLJ has an answer lined up in the barrel every time for why Ned takes Jon: because Robert would kill any Targaryens.

 

 However, we don't know enough about Ned's last conversation with Lyanna: did he tell her Robert was killing babies these days? What did she ask him to promise her? I would be deep into fan fiction land if I tried to answer that, but the fact that it is open-ended means that there could be other explanations.

 

 

Now you may be asking what this has to do with the Prince that was Promised, since as we are led to believe that TPTWP is from the line of Aerys and Rahella, and Rhaegar believed himself to be TPTWP until he decided his son carried the mantle.  Well like most things in ASOIAF death and sacrifice comes in threes.  Two kings to wake the dragon and then a third sacrifice or a prince that was promised.  Three sacrifices to solve the ultimate riddle for the Targaryen family: the Valyrian Sphinx.  But I'll address this later in further detail.

Plus as I find the time, I'll address the main issue, what does this have to do with Howland Reed, and Jon Snow? And most interestingly the events of the place that Rhaegar named the tower of joy.

 Come on dude, find the time! :-) that damned sphinx is something I'd like discussed.

 

This is a secondhand quote that originated with Mel, who really doesn't seem to know what she is doing. After all, on Dragonstone she was proposing to sacrifice Edric Storm in an attempt to wake a stone dragon. He was not a king; he simply had king's blood. Two sacrifices were not considered necessary. The quote above occurred at the Wall, where there is no stone dragon to wake.  The lack of consistency would seem to indicate that Mel is not working from a known text of a prophesy. In fact, we don't know where she is getting this, but she seems to be rather confused.

Comparing any of Mel's plans to Aegon V's is undoubtedly an error. Egg wasn't planning to sacrifice anyone, from what we can tell. His family was gathered in order to bond the seven dragons he was planning to hatch.

 

 

 I think the point is that it increases the amount of kings blood you have at hand, if you do it in that way - thus increasing the efficacy of whatever blood magic you're weaving. You will essentially have two kings; worth.

 

#2 -

Any hypothesis that suggests that Jon and Meera are twins fails rather badly when we realize that, if it were true, Meera should have a direwolf. Jon should have found two pups instead of just Ghost. 

 

 This assumes we know both how and why the direwolves came into the story; we don't. 

 

 

-- You must prove that Lyanna was not at the tower to begin making the argument that Reed was Jon's father. For this, you must offer some evidence from the text that she was elsewhere. Dismissing the dream as a "fever dream" is not evidence. Without this, the essay is pointless.

 

 Following this logic, Oberyn Martell was at the tower, because I can't prove he wasn't elsewhere? The dream itself doesn't show Lyanna at the tower in any way whatsoever.

 

---Contradictory use of evidence: You dismiss Lyanna-Rhaegar by stating that they could not have met after Harrenhal. You try to prove that Lyanna-Reed is possible by saying that "perhaps" they met after Harrenhal. If the difficulty of meeting disproves Lyanna-Rhaegar, then it also disproves Lyanna-Reed.

 No, it doesn't: there's more opportunity for Lyanna and Howland to meet post-Harrenhal than for Rhaegar and Lyanna, given what we know of Rhaegar's movements during that time.

 

 It's not evidence at all of a relationship, but it does make one more credible than the other.

 

--Reed as Jon's father offers difficulties for GRRM. If Jon's kingship is through Reed's dubious family lines, which are themselves a result of your guesswork, GRRM will need to pile exposition upon exposition. Not an ideal situation for an author.

 He may not have to literally be a king at all. 

 

--The point of Queenscrown is that Bran and Jon almost meet (in the text) and that Bran's wolf fights to save Jon (in the text). An accidental meeting between these two is key, not that oh, wow, Meera almost met Jon! Twisting the scene around to make Meera central is stretching the text to the extent that it might need hospitalization to survive.

 

 

 That's one, point, sure. But there can be more than one point to a passage.

 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

That's a very, very good point. It's certainly possible Dany is remembering two different stories told to her over the years and conflating the two. The age difference between how old Viserys is when he leaves King's Landing and in Dany's memory is always something I've just given over to one of Martin's mistakes, purposeful or otherwise. It would explain that. Excellent thinking, RT!

Of course, that still doesn't support a secret voyage to Dorne and an elaborate masquerade for nine months in Dragonstone.

Of course not. But then again, I personally don't think any of the bolded happened.

[Ygrain]

the aauthor himself has addressed that this was a fever dream and that we cannot take it as the literal truth.  The affirmative must be proven, what is the proof that this dream only includes events that all took place at one place and time?  I see no reason to believe the fevered and drugged dream of a tormented man about events long past described an accurate accounting of one scene.

This again? Literal =/= false. The dream is an elaboration of Ned's memory of Lyanna's death, contains the same elements which we know from the memory to be true - blood, roses, the promise; there is Howland Reed whom we again know to have been present, we know that the fight and its outcome is true, we know that Ned killed Arthur... In other words, all the elements constituting the gist of the dream are true. There is zero logic in assuming that all of a sudden, one element of the dream is untrue when there is zero textual evidence for this.

[SFDanny]

Of course not. But then again, I personally don't think any of the bolded happened.

Yeah, I understood you didn't but thought I'd make it clear for others.

The more I think on your point about Daenerys's memory of the story she has been told of the "midnight flight" to Dragonstone really being the midnight flight from Dragonstone the more I like it. When one gets hooked on trying to figure out these ages and timelines the more these little details gnaw at you. I'm glad to have another way of trying to sort that one out.

Had a horrible time with Renly's age until I finally figure out the discrepancy was Martin's way of telling us Ned was just horrible with remembering children's ages. Throw out Ned's estimates of Renly's age during the rebellion and it makes sense. 

[corbon]

 

Is it possible that either Viserys has mixed two stories into one when telling Dany the story, or that Dany has mixed two into one when remembering them? While she speaks about being a quickening in Rhaella's womb and fleeing KL, she also mentions that Viserys was eight.. born in 276 AC, Viserys would have fled KL for Dragonstone at the age of seven, not eight. He would have been eight, on the other hand, when Darry took the children and fled to Braavos, mid 284 AC... Something which Darry had to do in secret, hence the black sails and the need to travel at midnight.

It doesn't even need this level of complication. Dany is recalling stories Viserys told her, not his memories. Stories get embellished, that is their very nature. "Midnight" flight and evocative black sails might be accurate, but they also can be pure embellishment for the sake of the story, so there is no need to take them seriously - its not exactly as if they are critical details, so ignore them and move on IMO.
This is Visery-the-ever-so-reliable. Telling stories to his little sister. Not some clear and accurate recount of the facts.

[Ygrain]

It doesn't even need this level of complication. Dany is recalling stories Viserys told her, not his memories. Stories get embellished, that is their very nature. "Midnight" flight and evocative black sails might be accurate, but they also can be pure embellishment for the sake of the story, so there is no need to take them seriously - its not exactly as if they are critical details, so ignore them and move on IMO.
This is Visery-the-ever-so-reliable. Telling stories to his little sister. Not some clear and accurate recount of the facts.

Indeed. Embellishment for the sake of the drama. Beware of guys who like to embellish.

[SFDanny]

It doesn't even need this level of complication. Dany is recalling stories Viserys told her, not his memories. Stories get embellished, that is their very nature. "Midnight" flight and evocative black sails might be accurate, but they also can be pure embellishment for the sake of the story, so there is no need to take them seriously - its not exactly as if they are critical details, so ignore them and move on IMO.
This is Visery-the-ever-so-reliable. Telling stories to his little sister. Not some clear and accurate recount of the facts.

What you say is very true, corbon, but then that wouldn't explain the problem with Viserys different ages at the time of the flight from Dragonstone. RT's way does. There is no way to tell which is true, but for two people obsessed with character ages, her way offers a possible explanation over a very minor inconsistency. Tolerate our level of obsession. 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

Following this logic, Oberyn Martell was at the tower, because I can't prove he wasn't elsewhere? The dream itself doesn't show Lyanna at the tower in any way whatsoever.

 

No, the dream itself doesn't show that but the dream doesn't have to. The description of it, which is not part of the dream because it's Ned's conscious mind speaking, clearly does show that though. The dream is about 3 knights in white cloaks, a tower long fallen and Lyanna in her bed of blood.

This description actually strengthens the idea that Lyanna was at the tower of joy, because it's not part of the dream. Ned was not in a poppy-induced, dream state when the description of the dream - the "plot" of it, if you will - was recalled.

 

[Ser Leftwich]

 

 Yeah, that's a tricky one, and will always be a hole in any non-RLJ theory, because RLJ has an answer lined up in the barrel every time for why Ned takes Jon: because Robert would kill any Targaryens.

 

 However, we don't know enough about Ned's last conversation with Lyanna: did he tell her Robert was killing babies these days? What did she ask him to promise her? I would be deep into fan fiction land if I tried to answer that, but the fact that it is open-ended means that there could be other explanations.

That does not make any sense, and is, frankly, a cop-out answer to this very specific scenario.

In this case Howland and Lyanna are married and love each other and had a son. Why should Ned take Howland's legitimate son?

What Ned promised is not necessarily relevant, if Jon is Howland's son. It is completely unreasonable that Ned could promise to Lyanna that Ned would raise the son AND Ned stay friends with Howland.  "Sorry Howland, I have to keep the boy because Lyanna asked me to." That is absurd.

[kimim]

the aauthor himself has addressed that this was a fever dream and that we cannot take it as the literal truth.  The affirmative must be proven, what is the proof that this dream only includes events that all took place at one place and time?  I see no reason to believe the fevered and drugged dream of a tormented man about events long past described an accurate accounting of one scene.

 

The author himself, in his novel, describes the dream as an "old dream": "He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood." This would mean that Ned has a habit of dreaming this particular dream, with these particular components. This is not surprising at all, as we know Ned's obsessed by Lyanna's death, and a promise he made to her.

Anyhow, in this particular case, Ned dreams his "old dream," while feverish. So certainly, we can question the dream, but not the components of the dream, which are not part of Ned's fever. The dream always involved Lyanna, tower, and the knights. It would be kind of silly to assume that, in this particular dream, Ned combined the tower and the knights with Lyanna, dying under completely unrelated circumstances in the Riverlands. These three things are related.

 

[Kingmonkey]

The author himself, in his novel, describes the dream as an "old dream": "He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood." This would mean that Ned has a habit of dreaming this particular dream, with these particular components. This is not surprising at all, as we know Ned's obsessed by Lyanna's death, and a promise he made to her.

This idea that Ned's dream is one that Ned dreams frequently doesn't hold up to examination. An old dream means he's had the dream before, but very possibly not for a long time, and for all we know he's only ever had it once before.  

The fever dream comment can't just be dismissed. It's unlikely GRRM would have said it if he intended the dream to be unaffected by Ned's feverish state. I think the only reasonable way to look at this is that the dream as receive it is feverish and weird, but a fevered version of a dream that Ned has had before, presumably in an unfevered state. 

The details of the dream Ned has will be distorted. That's what makes it a fever dream. But the content can't be so far away that it's unrecognisable, or it wouldn't be the old dream that Ned recognises. Our dream narrative does not include Lyanna, despite the narrative claim that it's a dream about "three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood." From this it's pretty clear that Ned recognises the fever dream, and that the old version of the dream contained all those three elements, even though the fevered version does not. Thus while we should be suspicious of the details of the fever dream, that doesn't apply to the presence of Lyanna in the dream. 

[kimim]

This idea that Ned's dream is one that Ned dreams frequently doesn't hold up to examination. An old dream means he's had the dream before, but very possibly not for a long time, and for all we know he's only ever had it once before.  

The fever dream comment can't just be dismissed. It's unlikely GRRM would have said it if he intended the dream to be unaffected by Ned's feverish state. I think the only reasonable way to look at this is that the dream as receive it is feverish and weird, but a fevered version of a dream that Ned has had before, presumably in an unfevered state. 

The details of the dream Ned has will be distorted. That's what makes it a fever dream. But the content can't be so far away that it's unrecognisable, or it wouldn't be the old dream that Ned recognises. Our dream narrative does not include Lyanna, despite the narrative claim that it's a dream about "three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood." From this it's pretty clear that Ned recognises the fever dream, and that the old version of the dream contained all those three elements, even though the fevered version does not. Thus while we should be suspicious of the details of the fever dream, that doesn't apply to the presence of Lyanna in the dream. 

It doesn't matter if Ned dreams this dream frequently or dreamt it once fifteen years ago. imo both are possible; you believe not. Point is, Ned's had this dream before. Lyanna is indirectly in this particular dream, btw; Ned hears her screaming, sees rose petals, whatever. It could be that he's wakened before the dream is done, could be that she intrudes in an untimely manner because he's feverish, in pain. 

ita with the bolded, though. YES we should be suspicious of the details of the fever dream. The suspicion should not extent to the presence of Lyanna. It also shouldn't extend to the presence of the knights and the tower. In the "old dream" these three things go together.

[Kingmonkey]

ita with the bolded, though. YES we should be suspicious of the details of the fever dream. The suspicion should not extent to the presence of Lyanna. It also shouldn't extend to the presence of the knights and the tower.

Exactly. It's the dream that's feverish, not the description of the dream. We know what the dream should be about, it's right there in the narration. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

This idea that Ned's dream is one that Ned dreams frequently doesn't hold up to examination. An old dream means he's had the dream before, but very possibly not for a long time, and for all we know he's only ever had it once before.  

The fever dream comment can't just be dismissed. It's unlikely GRRM would have said it if he intended the dream to be unaffected by Ned's feverish state. I think the only reasonable way to look at this is that the dream as receive it is feverish and weird, but a fevered version of a dream that Ned has had before, presumably in an unfevered state. 

The details of the dream Ned has will be distorted. That's what makes it a fever dream. But the content can't be so far away that it's unrecognisable, or it wouldn't be the old dream that Ned recognises. Our dream narrative does not include Lyanna, despite the narrative claim that it's a dream about "three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood." From this it's pretty clear that Ned recognises the fever dream, and that the old version of the dream contained all those three elements, even though the fevered version does not. Thus while we should be suspicious of the details of the fever dream, that doesn't apply to the presence of Lyanna in the dream. 

I'd say that it most certainly has been a while since he last dreamed that dream..  

He did not think it omened well that he should dream that dream again after so many years.

[SFDanny]

This idea that Ned's dream is one that Ned dreams frequently doesn't hold up to examination. An old dream means he's had the dream before, but very possibly not for a long time, and for all we know he's only ever had it once before.  

The fever dream comment can't just be dismissed. It's unlikely GRRM would have said it if he intended the dream to be unaffected by Ned's feverish state. I think the only reasonable way to look at this is that the dream as receive it is feverish and weird, but a fevered version of a dream that Ned has had before, presumably in an unfevered state. 

The details of the dream Ned has will be distorted. That's what makes it a fever dream. But the content can't be so far away that it's unrecognisable, or it wouldn't be the old dream that Ned recognises. Our dream narrative does not include Lyanna, despite the narrative claim that it's a dream about "three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood." From this it's pretty clear that Ned recognises the fever dream, and that the old version of the dream contained all those three elements, even though the fevered version does not. Thus while we should be suspicious of the details of the fever dream, that doesn't apply to the presence of Lyanna in the dream. 

Yes. I agree and along with others have said as much over many years. I would also include that the fact Ned hears the scream of "Eddard!" in Lyanna's voice, not in the voice of any of his companions or his foes, is further evidence of her presence at the Tower.

Then when we look at the appendices of A Game of Thrones we see this entry for Lyanna:

-{LYANNA}, his younger sister, died in the mountains of Dorne. (AGoT 678)

Especially given that there is no exact location for the tower given until the publication of the maps in A Dance with Dragons, this is also strong evidence supporting the dream inclusion of Lyanna at the Tower of Joy.

Then we have the app. What the app does is furthers the idea that this is just a fact. It states under Lyanna's entry, 

"At the war's end, Lyanna Stark was found dying by her brother Eddard, and by Howland Reed, in the red mountain of Dorne, at the place Rhaegar called the tower of joy." bold emphasis added.

With the inclusion of the name Rhaegar gives to the tower which we know from AGoT, and putting her death explicitly at the tower, this entry brings together all we know up to this point and places Lyanna's death at the tower as a non-controversial fact readers would have reached given all the evidence so far.

The point is not that this can't be questioned. It can and it should be - If there is evidence that contradicts this evidence. So far, all we have is conjecture based on hopes, not on any real evidence pointing to another place for Lyanna's death.

Given the fact this conclusion concerning Lyanna's place of death really has no bearing on R+L=J or any other theory, I can only observe that the reason for trying to object to this evidence has more to do with what I think is an absurd debate over "canon" vs. "semi-canon" than it has to do with what the evidence itself tells us. 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

Given the fact this conclusion concerning Lyanna's place of death really has no bearing on R+L=J or any other theory, I can only observe that the reason for trying to object to this evidence has more to do with what I think is an absurd debate over "canon" vs. "semi-canon" than it has to do with what the evidence itself tells us. 

I think you're right. But I think also that there is more to this than just a debate over canon versus semi-canon. I think a number of people will try to poke a hole in any small aspect of a theory (not just R+L=J) in the hopes that that poke-hole will make the whole theory fall down. In the case of R+L=J, sometimes people might think that knocking down one pin means that they have bowled a strike.

 

[kimim]

Exactly. It's the dream that's feverish, not the description of the dream. We know what the dream should be about, it's right there in the narration. 

Yup! OK English is my second language, so thank you for bearing with me.