Heresy Project X+Y=J: Rhaegar + Lyanna

[Kingmonkey]

Re red herrings: there is no rule that the solution to a mystery must be so unlikely that the reader/viewer could never figure it out. In fact, in a good mystery, the reader/viewer should go "yes, why didn't I think of that," once the mystery is divulged. The solution has to be a possibility, and worked well into the text.

I couldn't agree more. If GRRM wrote a mystery into the books which thousands of rabid fans spending man-centuries discussing around the internet haven't pretty thoroughly answered to a reasonable degree of confidence by now, he wrote a very cheap mystery. 

[J. Stargaryen]

I couldn't agree more. If GRRM wrote a mystery into the books which thousands of rabid fans spending man-centuries discussing around the internet haven't pretty thoroughly answered to a reasonable degree of confidence by now, he wrote a very cheap mystery. 

To which I will add, if the answer isn't RLJ then we're not meant to be able to solve this mystery with any degree of certainty. If it's not RLJ, it's a guessing game. And that would make for a very cheap mystery indeed.

[wolfmaid7]

I couldn't agree more. If GRRM wrote a mystery into the books which thousands of rabid fans spending man-centuries discussing around the internet haven't pretty thoroughly answered to a reasonable degree of confidence by now, he wrote a very cheap mystery. 

No he didn't the quantity of people figuring out or thinking they did have nothing to do this with this.And i'm getting that sense again of you all saying that somehow if it isn't RLJ then GRRM wrote a poor mystery.In a way you all make people who have a different prospect seem invisible. Kimm (i'm piggybacking off KM posts) but this statement is just....No

"there is no rule that the solution to a mystery must be so unlikely that the reader/viewer could never figure it out"

For some of us we have figured it out,we are readers too and some readers would just be wrong in thinking RLJ is the answer.

To which I will add, if the answer isn't RLJ then we're not meant to be able to solve this mystery with any degree of certainty. If it's not RLJ, it's a guessing game. And that would make for a very cheap mystery indeed.

If RLJ isn't the answer it just means you guys didn't figure it out, as in you all didn't get the clues that some people got.The same could be said for the believers of every other prospect.

[wolfmaid7]

To elaborate on this idea a little, if there is a red herring involved, it may not be RLJ itself, but rather the nature of the puzzle. Jon's birth is clearly presented as being a mystery, but perhaps the red herring here is the idea that the mystery of Jon's birth is purely about who his parents are.

As for those three white cloaks, it's easy to see three white cloaks and think prince of the blood. Done deal. However when you have three bloodriders, the Dothraki equivalent of Kingsguard, facing seven in a show down outside a tent that bears a striking similarity to the ToJ scene, you'd hardly say that it was all about Rhaego. 

RLJ seems to be the hypothesis for Jon's parentage that fits the evidence best and ticks the most boxes. That doesn't mean that what happened at the ToJ  was any closer to the singer's version of the story that it was to what happened at the tent.

We absolutely should be suspicious of the singer's version, but that simply doesn't argue against the identity of Jon's parents in the slightest. It argues against it being a simplistic story of tragic love and unicorns that piss rainbows. 

Yes it most definitely does.

1. Lets start with proof that they ran off with each other or Rhaegar abducted her.Its a simple question these things always leave clues.So we have the common version which depending on who you ask goes something like this.

a.He abducted her and raped her

b. He ran off with her because he had feeling for her.

So let's validate that or refute that with the clues in the text. I'll wait for it because i haevn't sen any clues in the OP that either or happened at all.When it's done i'll put forth why i believe that is a mummer's farse.

[J. Stargaryen]

No he didn't the quantity of people figuring out or thinking they did have nothing to do this with this.

And i'm getting that sense again of you all saying that somehow if it isn't RLJ then GRRM wrote a poor mystery.In a way you all make people who have a different prospect seem invisible. Kimm (i'm piggybacking off KM posts) but this statement is just....No

It kind of does though. Because it means that the mystery was solvable for the readers. If RLJ isn't true, it's basically impossible to solve, not counting guesses.

And I'm getting the sense that you're saying he wrote a poor mystery if RLJ is true. You're the one who keeps calling RLJ too obvious, not subtle, etc.

"there is no rule that the solution to a mystery must be so unlikely that the reader/viewer could never figure it out"

For some of us we have figured it out,we are readers too and some readers would just be wrong in thinking RLJ is the answer.

There's a difference between figuring it out and guessing, and supporting those guesses with really poor arguments.

If RLJ isn't the answer it just means you guys didn't figure it out, as in you all didn't get the clues that some people got.The same could be said for the believers of every other prospect.

I'm going to stick by my statement, and use the nearly twenty years of fandom lacking any credible alternative to support it.

[Kingmonkey]

No he didn't the quantity of people figuring out or thinking they did have nothing to do this with this.And i'm getting that sense again of you all saying that somehow if it isn't RLJ then GRRM wrote a poor mystery.In a way you all make people who have a different prospect seem invisible. Kimm (i'm piggybacking off KM posts) but this statement is just....No

I'm answering YOUR claim that RLJ is clearly a red herring because it's obvious. Which is you making everyone who believes in RLJ seem invisible, isn't it?

I'm not the one being exclusionary here. I am claiming that the problem must be reasonably solvable -- whatever that solution may be. I never said that means it HAS to be RLJ. The point is that an argument against a theory on the basis that it's reasonably solvable is a poor argument. 

Coming up with an argument that supports a particular set of parents for Jon Snow is the point of these threads. Your argument appears to be that the strength of evidence for RLJ should be counted against it on the basis that it's too obvious. I am pointing out that it would be a poor mystery if it was impossible to solve, and given how much work has gone into solving it, that's fine for RLJ. You've been given plenty of evidence that it's just not as obvious as you claim -- such as the twice now it's been mentioned that a poll on this board had only half of people claiming they spotted RLJ for themselves. Account for the people who are covering up, or who vaguely considered it as an option amongst dozens of others and don't really realise how much their opinion was firmed up by reading about it, and account for the fact that this is a sample of the most dedicated readers, and the claim that most people will get RLJ easily simply doesn't hold up.

I absolutely accept the possibility that RLJ has so hypnotised ASOIAF fandom that most people have stopped looking for the right answer, and it might be something else. In which case, we need an alternative theory which stands up on its own, and which the author can reasonably assume that some readers would get it. More importantly, that when the mystery is revealed, it will not appear to have come from nowhere but will have been seen to be hidden in sight all along.

The solution to a mystery dangled in front of the reader can't be based on guesswork, it should be a solvable puzzle. There needs to be a traceable pattern that leads the reader to it. RLJ fits that requirement. Any other solution must also fit that requirement. And if there was another solution which fit as well as RLJ and was as easy to find, then that would make it as strong as RLJ -- yet your argument seems to suggest that it would weaken the case for it, because then it too would be "too obvious".  

Essentially you're setting up a condition that suggests that the more evidence there is for a case, the less likely the case is true. I find that bizarre.

 

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I couldn't agree more. If GRRM wrote a mystery into the books which thousands of rabid fans spending man-centuries discussing around the internet haven't pretty thoroughly answered to a reasonable degree of confidence by now, he wrote a very cheap mystery. 

To which I will add, if the answer isn't RLJ then we're not meant to be able to solve this mystery with any degree of certainty. If it's not RLJ, it's a guessing game. And that would make for a very cheap mystery indeed.

These statements are insane.  You guys can't possibly believe what you're saying, right?  Or are you serious that the quality of George R. R. Martin's work will be determined by the degree to which it conforms to popular opinion?

Either you're underestimating Martin's talent and independence, as a writer... or you're way overestimating the value of popular opinion.

I have a feeling this sort of comment will look quite ill-considered and foolish, before all's said and done.  How do you expect Martin will take it, when he's told this was a "cheap mystery?"  Not well, I predict...

I think you all should consider hedging your bets.

 

 

[Ygrain]

This has nothing to do with the popularity but with the rules of writing. You write a mystery, you lay down clues, so that, in retrospect, when all is said and done, the reader can look back and see how the reveal fits. If the reader looks back and thinks, "how the hell did we get here?", you have written deus ex machina aka poor writing.

[IceFire125]

This has nothing to do with the popularity but with the rules of writing. You write a mystery, you lay down clues, so that, in retrospect, when all is said and done, the reader can look back and see how the reveal fits. If the reader looks back and thinks, "how the hell did we get here?", you have written deus ex machina aka poor writing.

Yup!

Q: Anne, although you're the envy of many a GRRM fan, do you ever wish you didn't have to edit the books so that you could be surprised by them all at once along with the rest of us?

A: No. As above, he doesn’t tell me a lot. He feels I am most effective at my job if I am surprised along with everyone else. And it is easier to tell when he’s overplaying a hand and revealing things too early if you don’t actually know going in what will happen. That said, now that I’ve realized his three-fold revelation strategy, I see it in play almost every time. The first, subtle hint for the really astute readers, followed later by the more blatant hint for the less attentive, followed by just spelling it out for everyone else. It’s a brilliant strategy, and highly effective.

http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/63456/how-much-does-george-r-r-martin-foreshadow/63468#63468

**Wylla (Ned with Robert), Ashara Dayne (Ned with Cat and Cersei) and the Fisherman's daughter (Davos with Godric), are mentioned outright as the Mother of Ned's bastard, Jon.  No mentioning at all regarding Lyanna as his Mother. This you must puzzle together the clues from the beginning, "clues you've planted early on" according to GRRM, and a lot of these clues are inside Ned's head.

"I have certain things I've laid clues that will be revelations later on..."

fans have guessed the secret... "What do I do with that, these people have guessed the secret that I will reveal in book 6 (TWOW), people have guessed that here and book 2 (ACOK) is just out"

regarding changing in mid-stream... "you screw up the whole book, you got these foreshadowing early on and you got these clues you've planted and now they're dead ends... and you have to introduce other clues and you retconning, it's a mess."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLkvLpPWWvI @ 32:07

**Again, if R+L=J is a massive red herring, which is not, then GRRM will have to introduce clues (to get himself out of a dead end--Ned is already dead), he would be retconning and in his words, "it's a mess."

 

[Kingmonkey]

These statements are insane.  You guys can't possibly believe what you're saying, right?  Or are you serious that the quality of George R. R. Martin's work will be determined by the degree to which it conforms to popular opinion?

What? Popular opinion? Where did that come from? Who mentioned popular opinion?

I have a feeling this sort of comment will look quite ill-considered and foolish, before all's said and done.  How do you expect Martin will take it, when he's told this was a "cheap mystery?"  Not well, I predict...

I think you all should consider hedging your bets.

If Martin has written a cheap mystery, why should I care how he takes it if someone calls him on it?

I don't expect him to write a cheap mystery, that's the point. 

[J. Stargaryen]

This has nothing to do with the popularity but with the rules of writing. You write a mystery, you lay down clues, so that, in retrospect, when all is said and done, the reader can look back and see how the reveal fits. If the reader looks back and thinks, "how the hell did we get here?", you have written deus ex machina aka poor writing.

Bingo. And I'm surprised anyone could come away from those posts believing they were talking about popularity, or whatever.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Q: What convinces you that RLJ is correct? 

A: Crowdsourcing. A foolproof source of legitimacy. Thousands of obsessed fans have looked into this. And they've come up with nothing better. For GRRM to write anything different would just be cheap.

Q: So the value of GRRM's writing is determined by the supposed accuracy of popular opinion on this issue?

A: Popular opinion? What are you talking about? Who said anything about popular opinion? This is about quality!

 

(LOL.)

[SFDanny]

Q: What convinces you that RLJ is correct? 

A: Crowdsourcing. A foolproof source of legitimacy. Thousands of obsessed fans have looked into this. And they've come up with nothing better. For GRRM to write anything different would just be cheap.

Q: So the value of GRRM's writing is determined by the supposed accuracy of popular opinion on this issue?

A: Popular opinion? What are you talking about? Who said anything about popular opinion? This is about quality!

 

(LOL.)

Laughing at your own straw man argument doesn't make it funny or believable.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

But his true parentage IS solvable if you notice the right clues.  We have signs that Lyanna and Benjen were close (Bran's vision), Lyanna was dominant over her younger brother, and he went to the Wall immediately after Robert's Rebellion.  Obviously, Lyanna and Benjen were having an incestuous affair, Lyanna made Ned promise not to kill Benjen because she initiated it, and so Benjen went to the Wall.

OR

We have signs that Howland Reed is an important figure, with a strong connection to Lyanna,  He is obviously a very major character that we have been promised to learn more of.  He has a daughter who is just the right age to be Jon's twin, and for some reason he was with Ned when they went to the Tower of Joy, even though all his other companions were strong fighters.  Obviously, Howland Reed impregnated Lyanna, and Rhaegar found out when investigating the events of the Harrenhall Tourney, and realized their child would be the third head of the dragon and kidnapped her.  After Tower of Joy, Howland asked Ned to raise Jon because he would be further from Kings Landing.  This is why Meera carries Lyanna's old helmet with her.

OR

Rhaegar kidnapped and impregnated Lyanna, and her child was Daenerys.  Jon is the bastard of Ned and Ashara Dayne.

OR countless other theories.  Some have more supporting evidence than others, but they all have holes that have to be filled by guesses or supposition..  Remember also that we are only 2/3 of the way through the series (if you consider AFFC and ADWD as one novel), so the fact that the mystery has to be solvable doesn't rule out ANYTHING - the next two books could easily drop a bunch of new clues that totally rule out some of these theories and make others seem more likely.  I don't think it would be cheap if it turned out that Benjen or Howland were Jon's dad - there are data points as early as the first book that could be seen as clues in hindsight.

The story is not even close to finished.  Don't assume that all the mysteries are solvable with what we know now.

[Damosel in Distress]

Thanks OP for something to read, but I lean with Wolfmaid.

 

You do rely too much on presumptions that Martin and other authors take "text book" approaches to laying out their stories in certain ways. They do not. Martin's own straying from his original plot proves how much tales get shuffled in the writing, and you noted this yourself at one time regarding the possible set up for Arya loving Jon. Writers strive to remain coherent, but relying on methodical structure over vast amounts of the story to decipher supposedly deliberately inserted clues is unrealistic. Simply, it'd be too hard to write a novel like that.

 

I like Wolfmaid's ideas because they're deep and intelligent. I hope Martin's clever enough to come up with such plots too!

 

Love,

Me

[Ygrain]

Remember also that we are only 2/3 of the way through the series (if you consider AFFC and ADWD as one novel), so the fact that the mystery has to be solvable doesn't rule out ANYTHING - the next two books could easily drop a bunch of new clues that totally rule out some of these theories and make others seem more likely.  I don't think it would be cheap if it turned out that Benjen or Howland were Jon's dad - there are data points as early as the first book that could be seen as clues in hindsight.

The story is not even close to finished.  Don't assume that all the mysteries are solvable with what we know now.

Whatever the new books do must be consistent with what has been stated previously. It's one of the reasons why GRRM takes so long, things must fit.

You do rely too much on presumptions that Martin and other authors take "text book" approaches to laying out their stories in certain ways. They do not. Martin's own straying from his original plot proves how much tales get shuffled in the writing, and you noted this yourself at one time regarding the possible set up for Arya loving Jon. Writers strive to remain coherent, but relying on methodical structure over vast amounts of the story to decipher supposedly deliberately inserted clues is unrealistic. Simply, it'd be too hard to write a novel like that.

Do not confuse ways of writing with constructing a particular plot. Things like pacing, build-up, foreshadowing and the like have nothing to do with Jon hooking up with Arya or Cat dying int he North instead of RW.

And yes, GRRM as well as other authors do rely on way of writing, whether consciously or intuitively, because that's the way writing works.

[J. Stargaryen]

But his true parentage IS solvable if you notice the right clues.  We have signs that Lyanna and Benjen were close (Bran's vision), Lyanna was dominant over her younger brother, and he went to the Wall immediately after Robert's Rebellion.  Obviously, Lyanna and Benjen were having an incestuous affair, Lyanna made Ned promise not to kill Benjen because she initiated it, and so Benjen went to the Wall.

Okay, but how do you figure out which clues are the "right clues" when none of the alternative theories distinguishes itself from the others, in the way that RLJ does? That's what I meant when I said that, if RLJ isn't true the answer then becomes a guessing game. Sure, we can say that we've identified possible clues for a number of alternatives, but how can we be even reasonably sure which group is the right one? We can't be, we'd have to guess.

 

The story is not even close to finished.  Don't assume that all the mysteries are solvable with what we know now.

I don't think anyone is assuming that. But it might surprise you to learn that the solution to Jon's parentage was already solvable with just AGoT, according to GRRM's American editor. GRRM asked if she had figured out the answer from the manuscript, and she had.

[J. Stargaryen]

You do rely too much on presumptions that Martin and other authors take "text book" approaches to laying out their stories in certain ways. They do not.

Welcome to the forums.

I must say I found it a bit jarring that your criticism of KM for being too presumptuous was immediately followed by an ever bigger presumption on your part.

[Damosel in Distress]

 

Do not confuse ways of writing with constructing a particular plot. Things like pacing, build-up, foreshadowing and the like have nothing to do with Jon hooking up with Arya or Cat dying int he North instead of RW.

And yes, GRRM as well as other authors do rely on way of writing, whether consciously or intuitively, because that's the way writing works.

Not like described in the OP, with the multi-stage buildup to Ned's first chapter and such. That's pure nonsense. Yes, Ned's introduction was well-handled and Martin undoubtedly reveled in the chance to do it so well, but ultimately necessity dictates how characters are introduced. THAT'S how writing works. It's up to the writer to write necessity well.

Waymar Royce and his men had no introduction like described in the OP, as necessity dictated. Bran hadhad none either, and was used as a tool to introduce Ned because Ned was a deeper character who benefited from a deeper intro, but again as necessity dictated.

 

What the OP suggests, using strict rules to how you write, is purely ridiculous. Not only are jack-all of the characters introduced in the way he says, but to suggest somebody can write a multi-thousand word series with their writing style dictated by ridiculous patterning is... ridiculous.

 

People write short poems using patterns, or sometimes use patterns for isolated chapters or recurring themes, but absolutely NOBODY can write an epic with their hands so tied. As I said, necessity. Otherwise you just disrupt the natural flow the plot wants to take, and for what? Because good writers get good by going by "the book." Absurd. 

[Damosel in Distress]

Welcome to the forums.

I must say I found it a bit jarring that your criticism of KM for being too presumptuous was immediately followed by an ever bigger presumption on your part.

 

What do you think I "presumed"? There is no set, textbook way of doing anything, and Martin uses dozens of different methods to do everything - he does whatever is required to be done by each individual situation, combining necessity, style, theme considerations, whatever. That's not a presumption. Its brutally obvious. What you guys are talking about, on the other hand, is a fantastic construction of your imaginations searching for patterns where there are none and claiming its "textbook" technique when there's not even any such thing.