Jump to content

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


wolfmaid7

Recommended Posts

Right, that was a point I intended to make but I didn't get around to - the added length of a bastard sword is in the handle, not the blade - so the part that extends below the waist and would drag on the ground would be no longer than a longsword.  I'm guessing that swords made for Jon in the past, in the Winterfell forge, were on the short side of average for a longsword - there is room for a lot of variation in size while still being considered the same type of sword.  Longclaw was his first "Big Boy" sword and he was too short to wear it properly.
The author TWICE said things that implied he was unusually short.  How many other characters have had their height commented on in the series?  Tyrion, Meera, Jojen, and the Mad Mouse are the only ones I can recall.  Howland is referred to as little in a tale told about him, too.  Does that mean that none of the characters in the book are short, or that being short is not really seen as embarrassing or worthy of comment in Westeros?  

Edited to add:  You reminded me, when Slynt is talking trash about Jon, doesn't he refer to him as a child or something akin to that?  That may have been a reference to his small stature as well as his young age (which is not THAT young, he should be considered a man grown).

Sansa at thirteen is as tall as Lysa was at seventeen.

The number of height references is not the point, though - what matters is that people notice extremes. There is an average height span which hardly anyone ever bothers to comment on, and then there are those drawing attention at either end of the scale - those who are shortER than the acceptable norm (you might want to add Olenna Tyrell to your list, and GoHH). Not referencing something like that is completely implausible.

Given my post above, I took liberty of tracking mentions of Longclaw in ADWD:

So Jon Snow is still wearing it on his back as recent as the most recent book that features him in it, implying he's still too short to wear it at his hip.

...or he is simply used to wearing it on his back and doesn't feel any need to change his ways.

What the quotes do show, though, is that GRRM doesn't know much about blades because, as I said above, it is impossible to draw a long blade from a scabbard worn on back, human arm is simply not long enough. So, once again: the author doesn't know such a basic fact, but is knowledgeable enough to make calculations about the length of the weapon versus the body height? Forgive me if I remain completely unconvinced.

This makes it seem even more obvious that GRRM intends for Jon to be short but is trying not to accentuate it.  If he decided that Jon had a growth spurt, or if he changed his mind about Jon being THAT short, or if he had just forgotten that he had Jon as a short kid in the book he wrote a couple of decades before, he would have Jon drawing his sword just like everybody else does - but in GRRMs mental image, Jon still wears the bastard sword on his back.  He's not growing very fast - because his facial features may come from his mother but his build is from his father.
Of course he doesn't have people still commenting on his height…it would be a dead giveaway as to his parentage - who was short and with Ned at the Tower of Joy?..only one extremely obvious option, made more obvious when Reed sends his other children north and we are introduced to other characters described as very short, one of which is the exact same age as Jon.

Alright then, let's presume that your scenario of GRRM keeping the information about Jon's short stature from the reader is valid and that, after  5 books, we suddenly learn that Jon has a crannogman's height, i.e. like a kid of, say, twelve. Do you honestly believe that this would be an honest writing technique, and not something on the level of a detective story where the culprit is identified by having red hands, which, however, the author failed to mention until the very end of the book? I say BS. I might be convinced that this may be the case with Lemore's eyes if she is indeed Ashara, but there is a huge difference not noticing the colour of someone's eyes, and not commenting on height far shorter than average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sansa at thirteen is as tall as Lysa was at seventeen.

The number of height references is not the point, though - what matters is that people notice extremes. There is an average height span which hardly anyone ever bothers to comment on, and then there are those drawing attention at either end of the scale - those who are shortER than the acceptable norm (you might want to add Olenna Tyrell to your list, and GoHH). Not referencing something like that is completely implausible.

...or he is simply used to wearing it on his back and doesn't feel any need to change his ways.

What the quotes do show, though, is that GRRM doesn't know much about blades because, as I said above, it is impossible to draw a long blade from a scabbard worn on back, human arm is simply not long enough. So, once again: the author doesn't know such a basic fact, but is knowledgeable enough to make calculations about the length of the weapon versus the body height? Forgive me if I remain completely unconvinced.

 

 

Alright then, let's presume that your scenario of GRRM keeping the information about Jon's short stature from the reader is valid and that, after  5 books, we suddenly learn that Jon has a crannogman's height, i.e. like a kid of, say, twelve. Do you honestly believe that this would be an honest writing technique, and not something on the level of a detective story where the culprit is identified by having red hands, which, however, the author failed to mention until the very end of the book? I say BS. I might be convinced that this may be the case with Lemore's eyes if she is indeed Ashara, but there is a huge difference not noticing the colour of someone's eyes, and not commenting on height far shorter than average.

A scabbard worn on the back would not be strapped to the back so that the sword had to be drawn straight up, parallel to the spine, for the entire length of the scabbard.  When you grabbed the hilt and pulled forward, the scabbard would tilt up so it was pointing behind and to the left (for a right-handed wielder), and once the sword was clear of the scabbard gravity would cause the scabbard to drop back down parallel to the back.  Where are you getting the information that scabbards were never worn on the back?  I checked the wikipedia article and there are contemporary illustrations of samurai wearing scabbards on their back, and it's written that some Celtic tribes wore scabbards on their back - re: the Parisi - "the sword was sometimes worn across the back and therefore had to be drawn over the shoulder from behind the head."

And the great thing about the subtle hints GRRM has dropped about Jon's height is that if and when the other readers learn that Jon has a crannogman's height because it's stated more clearly later, they can't say it's a dishonest writing technique or that information was kept from them because this information was very clearly given in the first book, and the last book referred to one of the clues that Jon is short to show that he has not grown that much since then.  Do you expect the author to give the full physical details of each character every book?  And there doesn't have to be any more references to his height at all…if it's revealed that Howland Reed is his father, the book doesn't need to say "This is true because Jon is really short!", his father can just be revealed, and the people who didn't notice the references to Jon's diminutive stature will just assume that Jon took after his mother's side of the family, and the people who caught the height references can feel smug about having noticed this detail before the reveal.  It's not like Lemore where a detail was left out - it would be like if Lemore's eyes were referred to twice as being unusual and then this wasn't mentioned again.

You can be sure that if Jon's height was referred to clearly across multiple volumes, Jon being the son of Howland Reed would be one of the most popular theories, probably taken as a given by most people.  It would be a true case of "That's supposed to be a surprise?  We all realized that Jon was half crannogman when the author kept mentioning how short he was over 5 volumes" - it would be like if Jon had Targaryan looks that were referred to all the time for the R+L=J theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we want to say that Rhaegar was sireing the 3 heads.He looks straight at Dany when he says there must be one more then that could imply her being his child.

If we want to say well Rhaegar was putting together siblings of which he was one,not TPTWP but a wing man then the "Aegon" in the dream would be a sibling.

All this to say again our premises may be right and we should consider the above.Our premise is wrong and Rhaegar was just putting together babies with Dragon blood how much? Anything along that lines would be guessing as to how strong the Targ blood needs to be.

Seeing as it seems to fall in the category of prophecies and such, that Rhaegar was looking at Dany does not have to mean that she is one of the three heads Rhaegar had invisioned. Rhaegar is dead, and at least one of the three we assume he saw as one of the 'heads of the dragon' is dead.

Perhaps, Rhaegar looking at Dany is a way to tell her she is one of the heads. Or, perhaps, it is his way of telling her she had to birth three heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I've included is quite relevant and the whole point of Meera's telling of the story. Why would Meera and Jojen tell Bran a story about Lyanna? Their whole purpose is to collect Bran and bring him to Bloodraven, make him aware that his wolf dreams are warging, that Bran himself is a warg with a special purpose, and part of that purpose is the power of greenseers and the old gods. And you think this is a story about Lyanna dressed up as a mystery knight in order to teach Bran about honor???

No. Its not to teach Bran anything. He asked for a story about knights. For entertainment because he was bored while they travelled in silence (he's being carried remember). He got one.
They climbed without speaking for a long time, following a crooked game trail over the high saddle between two stony peaks. Scrawny soldier pines clung to the slopes around them. Far ahead Bran could see the icy glitter of a stream where it tumbled down a mountainside. He found himself listening to Jojen's breathing and the crunch of pine needles under Hodor's feet. "Do you know any stories?" he asked the Reeds all of a sudden.
...
"You could tell one," said Bran. "While we walked. Hodor likes stories about knights. I do, too."

And as we saw where I already quoted, what Bran came away from it thinking about was knights and killing the bad guys and winning the tourney and naming the QoLaB. Thats what he said to Jojen and Meera and they didn't correct him or nudge his thinking in any way.
And even when after that, in his thoughts, he includes the possibilities of green men having magic powers etc, he's thinking of them in the context of turning him into a knight, as he thinks (wrongly, like much he misunderstood in that story) they turned the crannogman into one.
Not even the slightest hint of warging in there either BTW.
 

Yes it's a story involving Bran's family, but that is not the purpose of the telling. Bran is being educated and enlightened by Meera and Jojen and he doesn't need to be taught "honor", but he does need to be educated on wargs, greendreams, greenseers, and old gods in preparation for when he meets Bloodraven. Bran was brought up believing greenseers, old gods, and wargs are only in the distant past and he doesn't know anybody that is one in the current story, nor does he even know these things are real. He's only been told stories by Nan, who even Ned dismisses as "stories"...in other words, basically fairy stories that aren't real, so yes, he needs to learn that these stories were real and that they really did happen and can happen again.

This is so much pure fantasy on your part. Bran clearly doesn't understand thats what it was about and makes that obvious with his telling them how the story should have ended. Neither Meera nor Jojen make any effort to correct him or explain further.

He asked for a story about knights. The crannog men have some, but only a few, since knights are not their thing. They told him one that had connection for both them and him, as is natural. ANd as they clearly demonstrated with their insistence that he must have heard this knight story before.

 

We don't know why Ned never told his children the story of the Knight of the Laughing Tree and we can only speculate as to the reason why.

Just because Meera and Jojen are surprised that he's never heard it before doesn't mean that we're supposed to interpret anything about Lyanna from it. It was told on the journey north to find Bloodraven and to prepare Bran for what lies ahead.

Bullshit. It was instigated by Bran, who asked for a story about knights. He got one.

What purpose would having it be about honor or about his family serve as a lesson for Bran?

Its not a lesson. Its something to pass the time. And they expected, deeply seriously thoroughly expected, Bran to have been told this story, so its clearly integral to and about his family, not integral to and about 'weird shit his family doesn't believe in'.

Your own explanations counter each other. It can't be both a teaching tool about stuff he hasn't been exposed to before and a deeply expected family story.

 

...or he is simply used to wearing it on his back and doesn't feel any need to change his ways.


It is (the blade) half a foot longer than the swords he is used to, after all. And a shoulder carry is common in GRRMs writing.
These aren't slender rapiers, where a longer sword can be worn at hip because they use an angled carry even there. Its a big frikken blade, three fullers, half a foot longer than usual, etc etc.

I've seen some out there arguments in my time, but this whole one about Jon being short is right up there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.. Are they inconsistencies, though? Jaime is speaking of the day Rhaella left for Dragonstone, and that he last saw her that morning, climbing into the wheelhouse. But that doesn't mean that the ship itself took off in the morning as well, does it?

I assume that it won't have taken Rhaella an entire day to ride from the Red Keep to the harbor, of course, but nothing here implies that the ship took off as soon as Rhaella arrived. So Jaime can have seen Rhaella late in the morning on th eday that she left, with the ship itself leaving closer towards the evening, with Viserys remembering (most vividly) the part of the journey where the sun had gone down.

After all, the trip to Dragonstone will take a few days. And calling it a 'midnight flight' won't cover all of that. 

 

But I don't think these two passages necessarily contradict each other. They seem to simply be describing a different part of the same day.

First and this is something i brought up many times.We aren't psychic the author knows we have no glass candles and we can only judge and analyze what he's given us instead of a million possibilities i.e the Captain getting drunk in an alley and Rhaella's ship had to leave at night instead. That path is a path of folly,we will find ourselves on a Hampster wheel arguing things and scenarios we can't see instead of what he chose to give us.

So back to the point i find it unlikely narrative wise given the clues that the ship stayed docked until night.You and i had a conversation recently about the author having characters give statements,and overt 'clues' that might seem to be pointing to the obvious conclusion( the one everyone tells in the end) but then he gives us the subtle clues.

Lets go down to the nitty gritty.Do i think that the flight to DS happened at Midnight who the hell knows? Viserys might have put a bit of juice romanticizing it by saying midnight.Do i think he's mistaken that the fled at night....No.

And on the topic again of fleeing it's all in the subtly of the language look how Jamie describes it.

The last time he saw the Queen:

"Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after thatthe morning of the day she left for DragonstoneThe queen had been cloaked and hooded as she climbed inside the royal wheelhouse

Do you see the difference. First an observation Viserys is missing. Secondly,Jamie's description of the Queen's departure was rather...well Blah. No sense of urgency in her departure,no panic will dash etc. She was not fleeing she just left to go to Dragonstone.

Compare to Viserys's description they "fled" at night,armies were advancing....His description evokes a sense of urgency,panic they "fled".

GRRM gves us ambiguity also in who Jamie saw we aren't sure if he actually saw the Queen,he saw who he believed was the Queen a figure " cloaked and hooded" climb into the royal wheel house so obviously he assumed the queen.Who may have left KL well before that why because Aerys was a kinda paranoid.How many times did he keep Rhaeglla and Viserys separate? He kept Viserys very close to him paranoid that out of his sight people would hurt him.

It is safe to assume Rhaeglla and Viserys did not leave KL at the same time.Which would make sense you don't want to keep your Queen and son in the same basket in case crap hits the fan.

Seeing as it seems to fall in the category of prophecies and such, that Rhaegar was looking at Dany does not have to mean that she is one of the three heads Rhaegar had invisioned. Rhaegar is dead, and at least one of the three we assume he saw as one of the 'heads of the dragon' is dead.

Perhaps, Rhaegar looking at Dany is a way to tell her she is one of the heads. Or, perhaps, it is his way of telling her she had to birth three heads.

And this overall is part of the point i was making about not assuming that he 'wanted' to father the 3 heads.He may have,or he may have been possibly trying to gather those with Dragon blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bran's takeaway from the story was hope that the green men could help him walk again, even if it were for one day.

If the little crannogman could visit the Isle of Faces, maybe I could too. All the tales agreed that the green men had strange magic powers. Maybe they could help him walk again, even turn him into a knight. They turned the little crannogman into a knight, even if it was only for a day, he thought. A day would be enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Lets go down to the nitty gritty.Do i think that the flight to DS happened at Midnight who the hell knows? Viserys might have put a bit of juice romanticizing it by saying midnight.Do i think he's mistaken that the fled at night....No.

This is Viserys. I don't think truth, fact or mistaken come into it. Viserys lives in a fantasy world and everything in it is about his amazingness. I don't trust anything he says if it paints a romantic, tragic, or heroic picture in his favour. He's that deluded. Its not even about lying, or misremembering, he really is that deluded.

And on the topic again of fleeing it's all in the subtly of the language look how Jamie describes it.

The last time he saw the Queen:

"Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after thatthe morning of the day she left for DragonstoneThe queen had been cloaked and hooded as she climbed inside the royal wheelhouse

Do you see the difference. First an observation Viserys is missing. Secondly,Jamie's description of the Queen's departure was rather...well Blah. No sense of urgency in her departure,no panic will dash etc. She was not fleeing she just left to go to Dragonstone.

Right. Eye witness. Sensible, source has no reason to embellish in either direction, fits with what we know otherwise. Slightly vague, just like a real eye-witness. Seems fine to me.

Compare to Viserys's description they "fled" at night,armies were advancing....His description evokes a sense of urgency,panic they "fled".

Yeah, and like most of what he says, its not worth a fig. I'll take Jaime's description every time.

Bran's takeaway from the story was hope that the green men could help him walk again, even if it were for one day.

 

Sheesh.
If the little crannogman could visit the Isle of Faces, maybe I could too. All the tales agreed that the green men had strange magic powers. Maybe they could help him walk again, even turn him into a knight. They turned the little crannogman into a knight, even if it was only for a day, he thought. A day would be enough.

Bran is still the kid wanting to be a knight. He asked for a knight story. At the end he said they told it wrong and explained how to make it more knight-like. And his thought focus is not that the green men have magic but that it could be used to make him a knight as he desires.
He only has one focus here, before and after the story.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A scabbard worn on the back would not be strapped to the back so that the sword had to be drawn straight up, parallel to the spine, for the entire length of the scabbard.  When you grabbed the hilt and pulled forward, the scabbard would tilt up so it was pointing behind and to the left (for a right-handed wielder), and once the sword was clear of the scabbard gravity would cause the scabbard to drop back down parallel to the back.  Where are you getting the information that scabbards were never worn on the back?  I checked the wikipedia article and there are contemporary illustrations of samurai wearing scabbards on their back, and it's written that some Celtic tribes wore scabbards on their back - re: the Parisi - "the sword was sometimes worn across the back and therefore had to be drawn over the shoulder from behind the head."


And the great thing about the subtle hints GRRM has dropped about Jon's height is that if and when the other readers learn that Jon has a crannogman's height because it's stated more clearly later, they can't say it's a dishonest writing technique or that information was kept from them because this information was very clearly given in the first book, and the last book referred to one of the clues that Jon is short to show that he has not grown that much since then.  Do you expect the author to give the full physical details of each character every book?  And there doesn't have to be any more references to his height at all…if it's revealed that Howland Reed is his father, the book doesn't need to say "This is true because Jon is really short!", his father can just be revealed, and the people who didn't notice the references to Jon's diminutive stature will just assume that Jon took after his mother's side of the family, and the people who caught the height references can feel smug about having noticed this detail before the reveal.  It's not like Lemore where a detail was left out - it would be like if Lemore's eyes were referred to twice as being unusual and then this wasn't mentioned again.
You can be sure that if Jon's height was referred to clearly across multiple volumes, Jon being the son of Howland Reed would be one of the most popular theories, probably taken as a given by most people.  It would be a true case of "That's supposed to be a surprise?  We all realized that Jon was half crannogman when the author kept mentioning how short he was over 5 volumes" - it would be like if Jon had Targaryan looks that were referred to all the time for the R+L=J theory.

I never said scabbards were not worn the back, I said that it is impossible to draw a LONG blade over your shoulder, regardless of what you do with the scabbard. You can carry it like that but there is no way you could just grab the hilt and draw it. Try it sometimes with a broomstick if you can't get your hands on the real stuff.

What I do expect from the author is the simple knowledge that he cannot use a subtle hint to provide information which is clearly visible the moment you encounter a person the first time, such as being half a metre or so shorter than he should be. It is such an obvious fact that multiple characters throughout the book are bound to see and comment on it, and if they don't, there are only two options - the author is an idiot, or the character does not possess such an extremely obvious trait. Try and compare it with Tyrion's height which gets attention everywhere and every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Viserys. I don't think truth, fact or mistaken come into it. Viserys lives in a fantasy world and everything in it is about his amazingness. I don't trust anything he says if it paints a romantic, tragic, or heroic picture in his favour. He's that deluded. Its not even about lying, or misremembering, he really is that deluded.

Right. Eye witness. Sensible, source has no reason to embellish in either direction, fits with what we know otherwise. Slightly vague, just like a real eye-witness. Seems fine to me.

Yeah, and like most of what he says, its not worth a fig. I'll take Jaime's description every time.

 

Sheesh.
If the little crannogman could visit the Isle of Faces, maybe I could too. All the tales agreed that the green men had strange magic powers. Maybe they could help him walk again, even turn him into a knight. They turned the little crannogman into a knight, even if it was only for a day, he thought. A day would be enough.

Bran is still the kid wanting to be a knight. He asked for a knight story. At the end he said they told it wrong and explained how to make it more knight-like. And his thought focus is not that the green men have magic but that it could be used to make him a knight as he desires.
He only has one focus here, before and after the story.

 

 

The way you cherry pick the quotes makes me wonder if you're only interested in flaming others rather than discussing the merits of the text, because once you realize that the text doesn't support your position you skip over anything inconvenient, assume a mocking tone, and scatter in a few personal attacks. 

Read what it says right before the bolded. Bran thinks "Maybe they could help him walk again". I guess you missed that. He very clearly is thinking about the strange magic powers of the green men, and if he were to visit the Isle of Faces maybe they could use those powers to make him walk again, even turn him into a knight, but the emphasis is on walking again. He credits the green men with turning the crannogman into a knight for one day. The crannogman, not the wolf maid, nor anyone else. He thinks if the green men could do that for the crannogman, then maybe they could help him too, even if it's only for one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Viserys. I don't think truth, fact or mistaken come into it. Viserys lives in a fantasy world and everything in it is about his amazingness. I don't trust anything he says if it paints a romantic, tragic, or heroic picture in his favour. He's that deluded. Its not even about lying, or misremembering, he really is that deluded.

Right. Eye witness. Sensible, source has no reason to embellish in either direction, fits with what we know otherwise. Slightly vague, just like a real eye-witness. Seems fine to me.

Yeah, and like most of what he says, its not worth a fig. I'll take Jaime's description every time.

 

And like i said and will reaffirm do i think the "midnight" flight language isn't a bit romanticized.Hell yes,but i don't believe Viserys is wrong in stating that he fled at night.8pm or midnight don't matter.It was stll night.He just made it more colorful with the whole midnight,moon shimmering on the water etc.

But it is important to remember ultimately its GRRM writing the story and he won't give us stones for bread,he'll give us stones with bread but through looking, truly seeing the truth comes.

Yes Jamie is an eye witness but Corbon what did he see,what didn't he see that he should have.

He saw a female figure cloaked and hooded get into the royal wheelhouse. Obvious conclusion it must have been the queen.

It was morning and the "Queen" was in no hurry she just left to go to Dragonstone.

Viserys was not with her.

Viserys account

It was night 

They fled 

The armies were advancing on The Red Keep

The ship they left in black sails( used by smugglers)

There's no lie in this,flowery language yes but when you remove the romanticization he's telling the truth.He was smuggled out just before the sack.The Queen may have already left before Jamie saw that figure and or that was not the Queen.

You saying Visery's words aren't worth a fig doesn't change what's there.There's nothing to lie about there because there's nothing to gain by him telling Dany they fled the city at night while the armies were advancing on a ship with black sails.He's taking the memories and romaticizing them yes,but at uts core its still memories.We just have to discern what's flowerey language and what's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and this is something i brought up many times.We aren't psychic the author knows we have no glass candles and we can only judge and analyze what he's given us instead of a million possibilities i.e the Captain getting drunk in an alley and Rhaella's ship had to leave at night instead. That path is a path of folly,we will find ourselves on a Hampster wheel arguing things and scenarios we can't see instead of what he chose to give us.

No one is speaking about a captain getting drunk in an alley, ok?

 

So back to the point i find it unlikely narrative wise given the clues that the ship stayed docked until night.You and i had a conversation recently about the author having characters give statements,and overt 'clues' that might seem to be pointing to the obvious conclusion( the one everyone tells in the end) but then he gives us the subtle clues.

Jaime did not see Rhaella leave in the morning. He saw her the morning of the day that she left. He identifies a day, and tells us what part of that day he last saw her. It was morning (whether it was early or later in the morning, is still unknown, but probably won't matter). Rhaella got in the wheelhouse, but by getting in a wheelhouse, you haven't left yet.. You still have to cross the city, get onto the ship, and wait until that ship was ready to leave.

 

Was Viserys romantizicing it? Probably, but I agree with you that it most likely was already dark when she ship was fully well under way. Yet that doesn't make it midnight. It get's dark earlier than midnight, after all.

 

Lets go down to the nitty gritty.Do i think that the flight to DS happened at Midnight who the hell knows? Viserys might have put a bit of juice romanticizing it by saying midnight.Do i think he's mistaken that the fled at night....No.

And on the topic again of fleeing it's all in the subtly of the language look how Jamie describes it.

The last time he saw the Queen:

"Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after thatthe morning of the day she left for DragonstoneThe queen had been cloaked and hooded as she climbed inside the royal wheelhouse

Do you see the difference. First an observation Viserys is missing. Secondly,Jamie's description of the Queen's departure was rather...well Blah. No sense of urgency in her departure,no panic will dash etc. She was not fleeing she just left to go to Dragonstone.

Compare to Viserys's description they "fled" at night,armies were advancing....His description evokes a sense of urgency,panic they "fled"

Jaime does not mention Viserys. No. But he sure as hell knows that Rhaella and Viserys left together

When the word reached court, Aerys packed the queen off to Dragonstone with Prince Viserys. Princess Elia would have gone as well, but he forbade it.

 

In addition, it is rather important to look at the context of the quote... Because, looking at the context, why would Jaime mention Viserys?

The sight had filled him with disquiet, reminding him of Aerys Targaryen and the way a burning would arouse him. A king has no secrets from his Kingsguard. Relations between Aerys and his queen had been strained during the last years of his reign. They slept apart and did their best to avoid each other during the waking hours. But whenever Aerys gave a man to the flames, Queen Rhaella would have a visitor in the night. The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure. “You’re hurting me,” they had heard Rhaella cry through the oaken door. “You’re hurting me.” In some queer way, that had been worse than Lord Chelsted’s screaming. “We are sworn to protect her as well,” Jaime had finally been driven to say. “We are,” Darry allowed, “but not from him.”

Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after that, the morning of the day she left for Dragonstone. The queen had been cloaked and hooded as she climbed inside the royal wheelhouse that would take her down Aegon’s High Hill to the waiting ship, but he heard her maids whispering after she was gone. They said the queen looked as if some beast had savaged her, clawing at her thighs and chewing on her breasts. A crowned beast, Jaime knew.

 

Jaime was describing Rhaella and her relationship with Aerys in the entire passage before, so continueing with describing what happened with Rhaella, and how Aerys was involved, is only natural. Suddenly involving Viserys, while he was not at all a topic of the passage before, would not be. 

 

And you say in your post above mine that you believe Viserys indeed made the tale more colorful... So why find it so odd that Rhaella did not display a sense of urgency? If you at the same time believe that Viserys added details to his story?

Also, very important, an adult can experience a situation completely different than a child will. And Viserys was only seven years old at the time.

 

GRRM gves us ambiguity also in who Jamie saw we aren't sure if he actually saw the Queen,he saw who he believed was the Queen a figure " cloaked and hooded" climb into the royal wheel house so obviously he assumed the queen.Who may have left KL well before that why because Aerys was a kinda paranoid.How many times did he keep Rhaeglla and Viserys separate? He kept Viserys very close to him paranoid that out of his sight people would hurt him.

It is safe to assume Rhaeglla and Viserys did not leave KL at the same time.Which would make sense you don't want to keep your Queen and son in the same basket in case crap hits the fan.

GRRM doesn't really give us much ambiguity here.. Jaime clearly establishes her to be Rhaella. There's nothing in his thoughts which expresses any sense of doubt. 

 

Aerys had no other baskets to keep his prices in... He had only two: KL and Dragonstone. He himself would remain at KL... So where to send those he wanted in another location? Dragonstone was the only other location that Aerys had left, the only other location that was still entirely in Targaryen possession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said scabbards were not worn the back, I said that it is impossible to draw a LONG blade over your shoulder, regardless of what you do with the scabbard. You can carry it like that but there is no way you could just grab the hilt and draw it. Try it sometimes with a broomstick if you can't get your hands on the real stuff.

What I do expect from the author is the simple knowledge that he cannot use a subtle hint to provide information which is clearly visible the moment you encounter a person the first time, such as being half a metre or so shorter than he should be. It is such an obvious fact that multiple characters throughout the book are bound to see and comment on it, and if they don't, there are only two options - the author is an idiot, or the character does not possess such an extremely obvious trait. Try and compare it with Tyrion's height which gets attention everywhere and every time.

I just explained how you can.  The quote about the Celts describes them drawing the sword over the shoulder.  The woodcuttings showing samurai wearing swords over the back show weapons at least as long as a traditional bastard sword.  If the hilt is not tied to your back and is instead in a baldric hanging over your shoulders, there is absoluteiy NO reason why one could not draw a bastard sword from a scabbard worn over the back.  It would only be a problem if the blade was significantly longer than the maximum distance that your hand could move from a scabbard worn over the back.  Even a 5'3" guy should be able to draw at least 40" of blade from a free-hanging scabbard slung over his back.   A broomstick is much longer than a bastard sword - compare the two sometime if you ever get your hands on the real stuff.

I explained why having every character comment on Jon's height would defeat the author's purpose.  I also showed how the series does not make note of other short, non-deformed people's height as being worthy of comment.  We aren't talking about a 4'6" Jon surrounded by a bunch of six foot people.  We're talking about a guy who may be 5'2" in a world where the average man is around 5'6", and where nutrition-stunted adults who are even shorter than he is are commonplace.  Why would people be commenting on Jon's height all the time when it is not unusual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just explained how you can.  The quote about the Celts describes them drawing the sword over the shoulder.  The woodcuttings showing samurai wearing swords over the back show weapons at least as long as a traditional bastard sword.  If the hilt is not tied to your back and is instead in a baldric hanging over your shoulders, there is absoluteiy NO reason why one could not draw a bastard sword from a scabbard worn over the back.  It would only be a problem if the blade was significantly longer than the maximum distance that your hand could move from a scabbard worn over the back.  Even a 5'3" guy should be able to draw at least 40" of blade from a free-hanging scabbard slung over his back.   A broomstick is much longer than a bastard sword - compare the two sometime if you ever get your hands on the real stuff.

Stuff like this makes me go hnnnng. Sorry.

What exactly do you mean by "the real stuff" when referring to a bastard sword? Let's be honest here, GRRM's primary reference material when dealing with matters martial is the Dungeons & Dragons player's handbook, this is not real life. Bastard sword is a very vague term. We're to understand that Longclaw is a "bastard sword" in that it's intended to be used either one or two handed, but the main characteristic of the traditional longsword, which Longclaw is bigger than, is that they had handles long enough for two-handed use. It's a half-foot longer than the longswords Jon is used to, but "bastard sword" probably originally meant something shorter than a longsword. What we should probably be thinking of is Oakshott type XX vs Oakshott type XVIII, but GRRM doesn't do that kind of thing.

Now here's the thing. When you have a sword slung over your shoulder, drawing it is tough. As long as the mouth of the scabbard does not move, you are limited to being able to draw a sword that is no longer than the length of your arm. That's pretty basic geometry -- to draw a sword, you have to move your hand further from the mouth of the scabbard than the length of the blade. You cannot move your wrist further than from your shoulder than the length of the arm. With a loosely-slung sword in a loose hilt, you can compensate a bit by moving the scabbard down, as you move the blade up. However you've still got a whole lot less scope for movement than when your arm is free to move up and away from the scabbard, as in having it slung from your shoulder. 

In short, the longer the sword, the less appropriate it is for drawing over your shoulder, and the shorter you are, the less able you are to draw a sword over your shoulder due to having shorter arms. I'm six foot tall and I can draw an 80cm (32in) blade over my shoulder, but I certainly wouldn't want to rely on having such a sword there, because it's horribly slow and forces you to pull your blade out away from your body into the worst possible readiness stance. Fun fact, it's almost impossible to put the damn thing back in afterwards, too. The idea that a short person would best have a bastard sword slung over their shoulder is sheer fantasy. Most experts dismiss the idea that people actually wore swords slung over their shoulders into battle as absurd and I suspect that is actually wrong, but with a sizeable longsword such as Longclaw? Not a chance. Unless you've got REALLY long arms. 

None of which proves anything much, because this is fantasy. If GRRM can have longbows firing arrows to the top of a 700ft wall, he can have a midget draw a claymore over his shoulder if he wants. Drawing the conclusion that a person who does so must be a bit short though -- no. If GRRM had seriously considered the mechanics of this, he wouldn't have written it in the first place. The fact that he clearly hasn't thought about the mechanics of it means that we shouldn't try to read anything into the mechanics of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is not that it's easier to draw from his back... The people making that argument are the ones that say that Jon continues wearing the sword on his back in the latest book because he is used to it and not because it is a necessity.  Even if it was impossible to draw the sword over his shoulder and GRRM got 100% of his weapon knowledge from the 2nd Edition Players Handbook it would have no bearing on the point of what I am saying... GRRM made a deliberate choice toto have a character say that Jon could not wear a sword on his belt because it would drag on the ground, because he did not appear fully grown. This is not taken as a gest and instead as practical advice.  Years later, he still wears the sword in this impractical way that he only started doing because the sword was too long to wear on his belt.  Therefore, Jon is clearly described by the author as considerably shorter than average.

 

Maybe it is impossible for him to draw the sword from his back, and he has to remove the scabbard from his back before he draws it... If he was tall enough, wouldn't he rather wear it the way almost all warriors in history did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the thing I said about "the real stuff" was a reference to the previous poster who suggested I try to draw a broomstick over my shoulder if I couldn't get my hands on the "real stuff".  I would only be so smug as a joke or to mock another's smugness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuff like this makes me go hnnnng. Sorry.

...

None of which proves anything much, because this is fantasy. If GRRM can have longbows firing arrows to the top of a 700ft wall, he can have a midget draw a claymore over his shoulder if he wants. Drawing the conclusion that a person who does so must be a bit short though -- no. If GRRM had seriously considered the mechanics of this, he wouldn't have written it in the first place. The fact that he clearly hasn't thought about the mechanics of it means that we shouldn't try to read anything into the mechanics of it. 

Except Martin begins by stating that that's the reason why swords get worn on the back, especially this sword in particular for AGOT Jon VIII:

"Longclaw is an apt name." Jon tried a practice cut. He was clumsy and uncomfortable with his left hand, yet even so the steel seemed to flow through the air, as if it had a will of its own. "Wolves have claws, as much as bears.

The Old Bear seemed pleased by that. "I suppose they do. You'll want to wear that over the shoulder, I imagine. It's too long for the hip, at least until you've put on a few inches.

 
Further, we're told Ser Arthur Dayne likewise wore the greatsword Dawn over his shoulder, presumably because he was too short for it to go at his hip. Heck he even draws it from his back in Ned's TOJ dream sequence in AGOT:
 

The hilt of the greatsword Dawn poked up over his right shoulder.

...

He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands.

 

Two examples, to be sure, but it establishes a pattern that swords too long to be worn at the hip go to the back in Martin's mind as an author IMO, as silly as that might sound to others.

Whether it is realistic or not to draw it or not from the back is a matter of debate I've found with YouTube videos both for and against--and even an example of a former against coming around and finding a way for it to be done. It most certainly wasn't done so with European Knights (a common point of agreement). So to see it in most fantasy stories with knights is indeed fantasy authors taking creative license. Celts and Asiatic cultures certainly did so, from what we know--however they had shorter swords to do so. And it might be the fact that most Fantasy stories attempt to reincorporate or celebrate a lost sense of Celtic culture (not the only one but it makes up a large chunk to be sure) that we get this trope in a lot of fantasy stories by its authors. First Men culture is certainly Celtic-like in a lot of ways.

It is possible however for European blades, if the scabbard is loose enough that with one hand you draw the sword and the other you pull the scabbard away--but that creates an irritant of a scabbard always flapping against your back--which knowing how most people respond to irritants, is likely not to last long. The last thing I think we're meant to imagine about Jon is that he has Longclaw bouncing against his back loosely as he walks. So I chalk this up to, ehh, he wants to play around with a fantasy trope and not much more.

Personally though I think it's well established by the Mormont quote that the reason Jon wears Longclaw on his back is because it is too long for him to wear it at his hip. Nothing more needs to be implied other than the presumption that if he did indeed grow tall enough to stop wearing it at his back, you'd think it'd be noted at this point by Martin who put it there for that purpose in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is speaking about a captain getting drunk in an alley, ok?

 

Jaime did not see Rhaella leave in the morning. He saw her the morning of the day that she left. He identifies a day, and tells us what part of that day he last saw her. It was morning (whether it was early or later in the morning, is still unknown, but probably won't matter). Rhaella got in the wheelhouse, but by getting in a wheelhouse, you haven't left yet.. You still have to cross the city, get onto the ship, and wait until that ship was ready to leave.

 

Was Viserys romantizicing it? Probably, but I agree with you that it most likely was already dark when she ship was fully well under way. Yet that doesn't make it midnight. It get's dark earlier than midnight, after all.

 

Jaime does not mention Viserys. No. But he sure as hell knows that Rhaella and Viserys left together

When the word reached court, Aerys packed the queen off to Dragonstone with Prince Viserys. Princess Elia would have gone as well, but he forbade it.

 

In addition, it is rather important to look at the context of the quote... Because, looking at the context, why would Jaime mention Viserys?

The sight had filled him with disquiet, reminding him of Aerys Targaryen and the way a burning would arouse him. A king has no secrets from his Kingsguard. Relations between Aerys and his queen had been strained during the last years of his reign. They slept apart and did their best to avoid each other during the waking hours. But whenever Aerys gave a man to the flames, Queen Rhaella would have a visitor in the night. The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure. “You’re hurting me,” they had heard Rhaella cry through the oaken door. “You’re hurting me.” In some queer way, that had been worse than Lord Chelsted’s screaming. “We are sworn to protect her as well,” Jaime had finally been driven to say. “We are,” Darry allowed, “but not from him.”

Jaime had only seen Rhaella once after that, the morning of the day she left for Dragonstone. The queen had been cloaked and hooded as she climbed inside the royal wheelhouse that would take her down Aegon’s High Hill to the waiting ship, but he heard her maids whispering after she was gone. They said the queen looked as if some beast had savaged her, clawing at her thighs and chewing on her breasts. A crowned beast, Jaime knew.

 

Jaime was describing Rhaella and her relationship with Aerys in the entire passage before, so continueing with describing what happened with Rhaella, and how Aerys was involved, is only natural. Suddenly involving Viserys, while he was not at all a topic of the passage before, would not be. 

 

And you say in your post above mine that you believe Viserys indeed made the tale more colorful... So why find it so odd that Rhaella did not display a sense of urgency? If you at the same time believe that Viserys added details to his story?

Also, very important, an adult can experience a situation completely different than a child will. And Viserys was only seven years old at the time.

 

GRRM doesn't really give us much ambiguity here.. Jaime clearly establishes her to be Rhaella. There's nothing in his thoughts which expresses any sense of doubt. 

 

Aerys had no other baskets to keep his prices in... He had only two: KL and Dragonstone. He himself would remain at KL... So where to send those he wanted in another location? Dragonstone was the only other location that Aerys had left, the only other location that was still entirely in Targaryen possession.

The captain getting drunk is just something brought up to show that there's so many possibilities that aren't relevant because we aren't psychic as i said and the author knows we aren't.

It doesn't matter she left in the day,just like it doesn't matter with Viserys midnight" statement it was night that's the point.

Rhaenys you kiling me with the nit pick she was going right down to Aegon's Hill to the waiting ship re: it was ready to go meaning she was expected.

RT the midnight thing doesn't matter its not relevant, characterizing it as being midnight is just the romanticization what matters is that they fled at night,usurpers army advancing which Viserys could only say if he was there.

Yeah no he doesn't remember them leaving together because he didn't see that.

Yeah the context is important and it has no effect on an observable fact.He didn't mention Viserys because he didn't see him its as simple as that, context has nothing to do with what one sees.

Viserys isn't describing Rhaella's behavior Jamie is its his pov. She just left according to Jamie boarded the royal wheelhouse to head down to Aegon's Hill which the Red Keep sits on to a waiting ship.

The tone is completely different.

RT why would Jamie have doubts that it was Rhaella? He already thought it was her or should i say he assumed it was her.We have the luxury of looking at the scene objectively. Jamie didn't see the Queen he thought the cloaked and hooded figure he saw getting into the royal wheelhouse was the Queen he didn't actually see her.

What are you talking about baskets you lost me there, its as simple as he didn't want Viserys and Rhaella in the same local.That's no different than what Robb not wanting his mother and wife in the same place if crap should happen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read what it says right before the bolded. Bran thinks "Maybe they could help him walk again". I guess you missed that. He very clearly is thinking about the strange magic powers of the green men, and if he were to visit the Isle of Faces maybe they could use those powers to make him walk again, even turn him into a knight, but the emphasis is on walking again. He credits the green men with turning the crannogman into a knight for one day. The crannogman, not the wolf maid, nor anyone else. He thinks if the green men could do that for the crannogman, then maybe they could help him too, even if it's only for one day.

I didn't miss it. Its what you claimed the first time, and I requoted the exact same quote as you to show that you ignored the significant part. You claim I only see and use what I want to see and use, but the problem is that I can show a consistent pattern in mine repeated at least three times, and you take one random item and claim everything is about that. Its obvious who cherry-picks here.

Bran starts on knights, as shown, he focuses on knights, as shown, he 'corrects' the story to make it more knight-ly. And at the end he's thinking of the green men's magic allowing him to walk, and even better, make him a knight.

And your insistence take away from this is that its all about the magic? Magic we didn't even see?

 

Viserys account

It was night 

They fled 

The armies were advancing on The Red Keep

The ship they left in black sails( used by smugglers)

There's no lie in this,flowery language yes but when you remove the romanticization he's telling the truth.He was smuggled out just before the sack.The Queen may have already left before Jamie saw that figure and or that was not the Queen.

You saying Visery's words aren't worth a fig doesn't change what's there.There's nothing to lie about there because there's nothing to gain by him telling Dany they fled the city at night while the armies were advancing on a ship with black sails.He's taking the memories and romaticizing them yes,but at uts core its still memories.We just have to discern what's flowerey language and what's not.

They aren't worth a fig for crucial details because Viserys is extremely unreliable both because he was just 7 years old at the time and because he's just appallingly bad at clear and precise truth. He told Dany stories, kids stories, not 'crucial details'. You assume they are based on memories, but there is no evidence of that at all. Midnight? He would have been in bed asleep. Armies advancing? They would still have been many, even hundreds of miles away, he wouldn't have any clear knowledge of that, maybe confused overhearings at best - or maybe he just made that up entirely because it sounds cool and scary  and its generically true anyway. Black smugglers sails? Maybe, or maybe just thats his added story teller's license, we don't know. And that is why I'll take Jaime's calm, adult, unemotional (as in not emotionally involved), far more reliable scene and not find it contradicted in any real way by Viserys' stories.
And thats what this is about - you claimed that the timing set out by GRRM was unreliable because crucial details about the flight didn't tally.
And we've lost sight of that in discussing those details. But we don't have crucial details in the first place, we have the memories of a little girl of the stories told to her by a little boy, a little boy who is a patently unreliable narrator even as an adult.

Also, very important, an adult can experience a situation completely different than a child will. And Viserys was only seven years old at the time.

And really, the only point here is that Viserys' stories are not clearly reliable enough to show that there is a major disconnect between his and Jaime's stories and thus throw doubt on GRRM's timing of the flight.

Maybe it is impossible for him to draw the sword from his back, and he has to remove the scabbard from his back before he draws it... If he was tall enough, wouldn't he rather wear it the way almost all warriors in history did?

Err, no. Because wearing it over the shoulder  is common amongst the great warriors in GRRM's world. Our history isn't relevant.

What we have is a big frikken sword. Its half a foot longer than most longswords. And its a bastard sword so its got an extra long pommel for a 2 handed grip. And its just been given to a kid who is around 14 or 15.
He doesn't have to be short for it to not wear comfortably on his hip.

And nor are shoulder carries automatically the realm of short men. 

 

Except Martin begins by stating that that's the reason why swords get worn on the back, especially this sword in particular for AGOT Jon VIII:

No, he doesn't say thats the reason why swords get worn on the back, he uses it once as a reason, for a particularly large sword, with a boy of 14 or 15.

 


Further, we're told Ser Arthur Dayne likewise wore the greatsword Dawn over his shoulder, presumably because he was too short for it to go at his hip. Heck he even draws it from his back in Ned's TOJ dream sequence in AGOT:
 

Don't presume. There is not a single other piece of data that even suggests Arthur Dayne is short. His sister Ashara is tall.

And as noted, he draws it from his back in Ned's dream. Because in GRRMs world there is a authorial mechanical flaw that allows over the shoulder draws, so there is no reason not to wear swords over the shoulder.

Two examples, to be sure, but it establishes a pattern that swords too long to be worn at the hip go to the back in Martin's mind as an author IMO, as silly as that might sound to others.

It isn't two examples.
Its one example, which is an extra big sword and a young teenager. And thats it.

Personally though I think it's well established by the Mormont quote that the reason Jon wears Longclaw on his back is because it is too long for him to wear it at his hip.

Sure. Because its extra big, and Jon's only 14 or 15 at that stage.

Nothing more needs to be implied other than the presumption that if he did indeed grow tall enough to stop wearing it at his back, you'd think it'd be noted at this point by Martin who put it there for that purpose in the first place.

Except that since over the shoulder draws are no trouble in Westeros, there is no reason to change to a hip-carry at all for a bigger than usual sword. Especially not since the greats often use should carries for big swords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just explained how you can.  The quote about the Celts describes them drawing the sword over the shoulder.  The woodcuttings showing samurai wearing swords over the back show weapons at least as long as a traditional bastard sword.  If the hilt is not tied to your back and is instead in a baldric hanging over your shoulders, there is absoluteiy NO reason why one could not draw a bastard sword from a scabbard worn over the back.  It would only be a problem if the blade was significantly longer than the maximum distance that your hand could move from a scabbard worn over the back.  Even a 5'3" guy should be able to draw at least 40" of blade from a free-hanging scabbard slung over his back.   A broomstick is much longer than a bastard sword - compare the two sometime if you ever get your hands on the real stuff.
I explained why having every character comment on Jon's height would defeat the author's purpose.  I also showed how the series does not make note of other short, non-deformed people's height as being worthy of comment.  We aren't talking about a 4'6" Jon surrounded by a bunch of six foot people.  We're talking about a guy who may be 5'2" in a world where the average man is around 5'6", and where nutrition-stunted adults who are even shorter than he is are commonplace.  Why would people be commenting on Jon's height all the time when it is not unusual?

Because, for all the angling, a medium-height guy was not able to draw a +60 cm sabre over his shoulder. Back in the ancient days without youtube, so I can't show you.

Except that this is exactly what we are talking - Meera at sixteen is barely taller than Bran at eight. And, one last time, no author in his senses can hide a character's notably short height by not referencing it. Besides, where are all those stunted adults that everyone and their mother is taller than Tyrion or the crannogmen? It seems that in GRRMth, the condition is nonexistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...