Heresy Project X+Y=J: Rhaegar + Lyanna

[SFDanny]

 Of course this claim as you put it forward would be laughable nonsense, but nobody is making that claim.  That's why SFDanny accused you of making a strawman argument.

You've simply misunderstood the point that's being made. The claim is not that popularity is proof of RLJ. In fact the claim is by no means exclusive to RLJ. The claim is, quite simply, that it one cannot discount a theory -- ANY theory, be it RLJ or a different solution to the question -- on the basis that lots of people have figured it out already.   

   Now, I don't mean to imply that you and J.Star speak with one voice, or even agree a majority of the time.  But in these statements, you both appear to assess the value of GRRM's work in terms of fans' ability to predict how he'll resolve this mystery.  Am I wrong about that?

 

You are wrong about that. Read the bolded part of Kingmonkey's quote and then compare that to your statement I've bolded. You are either misunderstanding his argument or purposefully constructing a false argument in order to knock it down. A straw man if you will.

[wolfmaid7]

 

You are wrong about that. Read the bolded part of Kingmonkey's quote and then compare that to your statement I've bolded. You are either misunderstanding his argument or purposefully constructing a false argument in order to knock it down. A straw man if you will.

I think Snowy is asking for clarification on how the statements apeared SFDanny.Its an honest question,i was confused about that myself . All i'm saying in a nutshell when some of you posters speak you appear as if RLJ is a fact and afford it pre-eminence over other theories. It came off honestly as it can't be wrong because

1. Thousands of people read it came to the same conclusion so it must be true

2. If its false then GRRM didn't do a good job writing it.

That's how it came off so ?????

This all stems from the is it too obvious arguement.To which i say let's look at the individual facets that this theory stands on.

[IceFire125]

 

Perhaps. But this assumes the only clues that exist are for RLJ. And if RLJ becomes the lens used to read the text, those clues pop out more, but others, which might be quite likely as well, go unnoticed. It can then be pretty difficult to put that lens down and try seeing things unfiltered again.

"The clues pop out more"

YES! They do.  Why is that? because of the author's intent for the purpose of the story.  The author is not writing a story to hide Jon's true parentage, he planted clues for us to catch.  These clues favor R+L=J, in my humble opinion.

Now, if the author would like to change that, by putting more clues in the last 2 books, that favor X+Y=J other than R+L=J, could he??? most definitely!! 

Which goes back to what GRRM said.  Would he change mid-stream?? he said no.  

Would he in the coming 2 books, continue giving more hints of R+L=J and then towards the end revealing that Jon is X+Y's son?? Yes he could! But I doubt it.

Oh, I've tried putting on "alternative" lenses, I just don't see how it's more likely that they are the Father of Jon other than Rhaegar.

 

[wolfmaid7]

"The clues pop out more"

YES! They do.  Why is that? because of the author's intent for the purpose of the story.  The author is not writing a story to hide Jon's true parentage, he planted clues for us to catch.  These clues favor R+L=J, in my humble opinion.

Now, if the author would like to change that, by putting more clues in the last 2 books, that favor X+Y=J other than R+L=J, could he??? most definitely!! 

Which goes back to what GRRM said.  Would he change mid-stream?? he said no.  

Would he in the coming 2 books, continue giving more hints of R+L=J and then towards the end revealing that Jon is X+Y's son?? Yes he could! But I doubt it.

Oh, I've tried putting on "alternative" lenses, I just don't see how it's more likely that they are the Father of Jon other than Rhaegar.

 

Is this a case of people seeing what isn't there? RLJ everywhere i.e "Oswell Whent was down on one knee sharpening his blade. We can conclude that this is a subtle hint that he had already bent the knee to his new king” 

I stated in my original post that if this were any other series and author it would be easy to accept what's said at face value.

IceFire125 it all comes down to are these the clues GRRM laid out or did some get hypnotized by the song and take it a step futher?

IMO they aren't. As i said every "clue" for this wasn't concealed they didn't have to be found.Some readers drew conclusions based off the perception of characters who in most caes have no basis.

1. What is the basis for Lyanna running away with Rhaegar or him kidnapping her? Is the information viable?

2. What is the basis for them being in love or that he raped her.What about that info.

3. Are the symbolic comparisons to on the nose or are their details that need to be looked at closely i.e. Was the Bael story a love story? What was Bael's complicity,his goal.What about the Stark girl? Most importantly is it an inverse comparison made by the author or was it characters in the story intentionally using that story?

[IceFire125]

Is this a case of people seeing what isn't there? RLJ everywhere i.e "Oswell Whent was down on one knee sharpening his blade. We can conclude that this is a subtle hint that he had already bent the knee to his new king” 

I stated in my original post that if this were any other series and author it would be easy to accept what's said at face value.

IceFire125 it all comes down to are these the clues GRRM laid out or did some get hypnotized by the song and take it a step futher?

IMO they aren't. As i said every "clue" for this wasn't concealed they didn't have to be found.Some readers drew conclusions based off the perception of characters who in most caes have no basis.

 

Oh as a careful reader, I admit I may have missed a clue or two of Robert + Lyanna = Jon. 

I hope that's your next essay, can't wait to read it. I wanna see the words of someone NOT being hypnotized by GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire. 

[Kingmonkey]

   But in these statements, you both appear to assess the value of GRRM's work in terms of fans' ability to predict how he'll resolve this mystery.  Am I wrong about that?

Yes.

 

 

What does popular opinion, or the number of "man-centuries" spent discussing this mystery online, have to do with anything? I agree that it's no reason to discount a theory. But why would it add value to a theory, either?

It doesn't. As I already said, you're missing the point of this discussion. 

Look: "We are arguing against the suggestion that a hypothesis is less likely because it is crowdsourced, not for the suggestion that it must be (or is even more likely to be) true because it is crowdsourced. " That's what I wrote. You quoted it right there in your post.

It does not add value to a theory. We're not presenting this argument as a way to add value to the RLJ. It does not make RLJ more likely. However, the fact that those "man-centuries" have provided us with RLJ is no reason to discount the theory. The whole point is that we are presenting a counter-argument to the claim that it's a reason to discount RLJ.

According to your words above, you agree with us. Great.

[Kingmonkey]

"We are arguing against the suggestion that a hypothesis is less likely because it is crowdsourced"

Did you mean arguing that the hypothesis is more likely because it is crowdsourced?

Read the text you quoted, it answers your question quite clearly immediately after the comma.

 

[Eira Seren]

"The clues pop out more"

YES! They do.  Why is that? because of the author's intent for the purpose of the story.  The author is not writing a story to hide Jon's true parentage, he planted clues for us to catch.  These clues favor R+L=J, in my humble opinion.

Now, if the author would like to change that, by putting more clues in the last 2 books, that favor X+Y=J other than R+L=J, could he??? most definitely!! 

Which goes back to what GRRM said.  Would he change mid-stream?? he said no.  

Would he in the coming 2 books, continue giving more hints of R+L=J and then towards the end revealing that Jon is X+Y's son?? Yes he could! But I doubt it.

Oh, I've tried putting on "alternative" lenses, I just don't see how it's more likely that they are the Father of Jon other than Rhaegar.

 

Yeah. Just like I'm always going to read as a Feminist theorist, as a New Historicist, as a Post Colonial Theorist, etc etc. That's my training and it isn't so easy to put it aside. It colours how I view the other brands. And reading that way, the things that fit these theoretical approaches are going to stand out. Any pet theory I have is going to do the same. Am I going to preference these above other details, perhaps to the point where I don't recognize what could be a clue for it being different? You bet. Every theory has it's blind spots.

Currently I'm trying to read without preferencing any alternative, just to see what I may notice. And while I haven't formed anything yet (I'm still crawling into book 4), I have certainly noticed plenty I never picked up on before. This is my... 3rd read of the series?

My second time through I read with RLJ in mind. Some of the things I found last time could work, but are very speculative and based more on what I read in the RLJ threads than based in the text, without coming to it from the framework of the fans filling in the gaps for 20 years. It's definitely true what Ygritte says- that perspective is all about where one is standing.

[Kingmonkey]

 

It's not hard to see the OP is just looking for patterns in a whirlwind. I did give examples. If you've read the books, you'll know characters, concepts, and ideas are introduced in a variety of ways, all dictated by necessity. The OP's pattern only exists when you exclude everything that's out of place.

This isn't about carefully and intentionally woven patterns, it's about the techniques of storytelling. Nobody is suggesting GRRM is following a restricted palette. He is utilising recognisable storytelling techniques, and we can legitimately analyse his use of them to attempt to understand why, in any given place, he (consciously or unconsciously) chose to employ those techniques. 

 

Some things get a sudden dramatic entry, such as Waymar and the Night's Watch. This is because it's an exciting adventure scene. Other things get a drawn out entry designed to conjure sympathy, such as Ned. This is because he's going to die at book's end and it's being played up from the start for this reason alone. Others get a false entry, such as Jaime, who eventually turned out to be pretty understandable, but that had to be put off to protect the original plot's coherency.

Exactly. These are all methods of storytelling that he employs. Just as you have looked at them and drawn conclusions from his use of them, we can look at the methods he employs when introducing the story of Jon and draw conclusions from those. 

 

Plot necessity dictates writing style. You're suggesting the writer deliberately ties their hands for the sake of forming patterns in how things get introduced. Not only is this blatantly false, but you haven't given a sensible reason as to why anybody would write like this. It's like deciding to write the entire series in haiku: it just isn't practical nor even remotely sane.

That's not the suggestion at all. The suggestion is that his writing exists in a recognisable tradition of storytelling that bears structural analysis. 

 There are a lot of 3s in the House o. t. Undying, for example. I DID figure out the meaning = 0. There isn't one. I'd stick to examining the written text, not the order: look for symbology and anything which is suspiciously absent. 

There are a lot of threes all over the place. That's another great storytelling tradition. It's a magic number. It's the lowest number that contains true complexity rather than simple opposition. It imparts a sense of mystery and interconnectedness. It sounds cool.

Did GRRM use the number three a lot because he picked it entirely at random, or because he's well aware of the rule of three as one of the most standard techniques of storytelling? I would argue the latter.  Does his use of threes mean more than that? Probably not. He's a storyteller. He uses common techniques of storytelling. We can look at the way he uses these various techniques and ask ourselves why he chose to use particular techniques in particular places. That's the claim in OP. 

[Kingmonkey]

 

My answer to this is what Snowfyre Chorus posted its spot on.I am basting my opinions on what this essay comes down to and it really comes down to (3) things.

1.Did Lyanna run away/Rhaegar kidnapp her and they fell in love or she got raped.

To me this wasn't proven in the slightest either way and that's not your fault its what there.This theory ask us to fill in a lot of blanks and i fear based on nothing but the wrong things.

It's not proven, as with all things we don't see ourself. It is the story as we know it; multiple sources attest to it, none (at least in any clear way) deny it. In this case it must be our default assumption. Something to be disproven rather than proven. 

What's used to validate love is the assumption that she didn't want to marry Robert( something not inferred or implied) because he was a ladies man.

OP does not argue this.

Is this a case of people seeing what isn't there? RLJ everywhere i.e "Oswell Whent was down on one knee sharpening his blade. We can conclude that this is a subtle hint that he had already bent the knee to his new king” 

Or this. Please try not to let this thread descend into a challenge to the proponents of RLJ in general. That's not what this thread is supposed to be for. You have quite rightly challenged people in the other threads in this series to keep on topic rather than trying to justify RLJ. Likewise this thread should be used to discuss or challenge the theory presented, not other ideas elsewhere. 

You have a point of challenge to make: whether there is sufficient evidence for Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna even taking place. Great, can we concentrate on that please? What is the basis for challenging what is clearly conventional wisdom? If you have a reason to challenge it, then we have a good challenge to the OP to discuss. 

 

 

[Eira Seren]

]Read the text you quoted, it answers your question quite clearly immediately after the comma.

 

Hmm, I did that, which is why I asked. Here, this is what I got out of it:

"We are arguing against the suggestion that a hypothesis is less likely because it is crowdsourced..."

Read: A hypothesis is less likely if it is crowdsourced. We are arguing against this idea. (Meaning: if we are arguing against it being less likely if crowdsourced, we might think it is *more* likely if crowdsourced).

"..., not the suggestion that it must be (or is even more likely to be) true because it is crowdsourced."

Read: We aren't arguing that it must be more likely because crowdsourced.

Part one and two seem to be saying the same thing, but I think the "arguing against" in part one threw me off.

So you are basically saying that you and Snowfyre are arguing for the same thing- that crowdsourcing isn't an indication of a theory's accuracy or quality of evidence, just that people fancy it. And that this is no reason on it's own to discount it. ETA: it also doesn't do anything useful by way of proving it. It's just fancied.

[Eira Seren]

It's not proven, as with all things we don't see ourself. It is the story as we know it; multiple sources attest to it, none (at least in any clear way) deny it. In this case it must be our default assumption. Something to be disproven rather than proven. OP does not argue this.Or this. Please try not to let this thread descend into a challenge to the proponents of RLJ in general. That's not what this thread is supposed to be for. You have quite rightly challenged people in the other threads in this series to keep on topic rather than trying to justify RLJ. Likewise this thread should be used to discuss or challenge the theory presented, not other ideas elsewhere. 

You have a point of challenge to make: whether there is sufficient evidence for Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna even taking place. Great, can we concentrate on that please? What is the basis for challenging what is clearly conventional wisdom? If you have a reason to challenge it, then we have a good challenge to the OP to discuss. 

 

 

Hmm, well, what about the idea that we currently lack any living eyewitness POV that actually was there the day that Rhaegar supposedly made off/made out with Lyanna? That nobody yet has opened their yap over one too many arbor golds and said, "I was there the day that randy devil nabbed her on the road outside Harrenhal. Aye, and we all heard her screaming "oh, baby, more!" from the top of the toj for months on end, while all I had was the company of me donkey" ?

So far In my reread I haven't run across one eyewitness to any of it. GRRM, the tricksy bastard, has kept any of those people well away while we speculate that where there's smoke, there's fire. Just like the old gossips we are

I've heard the story from plenty of people. Bran. An innocent kid, why wouldn't Ned sugar coat it for his kids? Oh, but then, he has them attend beheadings, nevermind... But trusty old Ned, would he lie to an innocent child?! What? This is AGOT, you say?

[Ygrain]

Because I'm paying attention. I've answered your questions perfectly. The onus is now on you to explain why some characters are introduced suddenly and others are introduced slowly and how this relates to your theory they're all introduced uniformly. If you cannot explain something simply, then you don't understand it well enough. Insulting my post length won't help you.

May I point out that the original point was about laying clues for a future reveal of a mystery? This has nothing to do with introducing characters.

 

Perhaps. But this assumes the only clues that exist are for RLJ. And if RLJ becomes the lens used to read the text, those clues pop out more, but others, which might be quite likely as well, go unnoticed. It can then be pretty difficult to put that lens down and try seeing things unfiltered again.

You're not taking into account the first readings when one didn't have an opinion yet and was looking for basically any clues who Jon's mother might have been. Ned was the only person in the know and his chapters in AGOT are the main source of clues, so what do we learn there?

- Ned never pays any thought to Ashara or Wylla, or FMD who gets introduced only severeal books later. The only women he ever thinks about are Cat, his daughters, and Lyanna. Nothing that would hint at him having an affair, with anyone.

- Ned thinks of Lyanna and bed of blood, and in Dany's chapter, we learn that bloody bed = birthing bed.

- Ned made some haunting promises to Lyanna, and paid a price to keep them 

- Ned is keeping some dangerous secret that he doesn't share with anyone. The only secret in Ned's life that we are aware of and that he doesn't share with the ones he loves and trusts, is the identity of Jon's mother.

- Ned has been living lies for fourteen years, the Rebellion was fourteen years ago, Jon is fourteen. 

 These observations inevitably lead to the conclusion that Lyanna is Jon's mother, and none of them depends on any preconceived notion of RLJ. They only pop up during a careful first or second reading - careful, because they are interspersed with loads of action and other information, and for most people, they simply get lost as some background noise. On further re-reads, with the RLJ lens, one indeed discovers further hints that fit, but the basic premises are those above.

As for establishing Jon's father, the information must again come from Ned's POV and there must be established some connection between a man, and Lyanna. Mance, Howland, Tywin, Arthur... no relation to Lyanna at all. No mention of a dark secret in the family, hence none of the Starks. That leaves us with Robert, and Rhaegar. In Ned's memories, Lyanna is constantly being depicted with blue roses, and blue roses are eventually revealed to be the HH crown, from Rhaegar. The same Rhaegar who pops up, completely unexpectedly, and seemingly out of place, in Ned's musings about Robert's shortcomings, fidelity, promises and fates of bastards, as not possessing such shortcomings. With Ned's death, we are cut off from further recollections of Lyanna but we are steadily receiving info dumps about Rhaegar. Not Howland, not Arthur, and the information that we get about Tywin or Mance does not relate to Lyanna. In Mance's case, there is no relation to the Rebellion at all, in Tywin's, only to the Sack, Robert's involvement fades out. Again, no RLJ lens to state this.

[purple-eyes]

I think RLJ is quite clear. 

But I have to say some people do wear RLJ lenses. 

Such as lyanna is moon maid and rhaegar is sun king. 

Or rhaegar's private part is lightbringer. 

Or rhaenys and aegon are unsuccessful trials to produce jon snow. 

 

[Eira Seren]

May I point out that the original point was about laying clues for a future reveal of a mystery? This has nothing to do with introducing characters.

 

You're not taking into account the first readings when one didn't have an opinion yet and was looking for basically any clues who Jon's mother might have been. Ned was the only person in the know and his chapters in AGOT are the main source of clues, so what do we learn there?

- Ned never pays any thought to Ashara or Wylla, or FMD who gets introduced only severeal books later. The only women he ever thinks about are Cat, his daughters, and Lyanna. Nothing that would hint at him having an affair, with anyone.

- Ned thinks of Lyanna and bed of blood, and in Dany's chapter, we learn that bloody bed = birthing bed.

- Ned made some haunting promises to Lyanna, and paid a price to keep them 

- Ned is keeping some dangerous secret that he doesn't share with anyone. The only secret in Ned's life that we are aware of and that he doesn't share with the ones he loves and trusts, is the identity of Jon's mother.

- Ned has been living lies for fourteen years, the Rebellion was fourteen years ago, Jon is fourteen. 

 These observations inevitably lead to the conclusion that Lyanna is Jon's mother, and none of them depends on any preconceived notion of RLJ. They only pop up during a careful first or second reading - careful, because they are interspersed with loads of action and other information, and for most people, they simply get lost as some background noise. On further re-reads, with the RLJ lens, one indeed discovers further hints that fit, but the basic premises are those above.

As for establishing Jon's father, the information must again come from Ned's POV and there must be established some connection between a man, and Lyanna. Mance, Howland, Tywin, Arthur... no relation to Lyanna at all. No mention of a dark secret in the family, hence none of the Starks. That leaves us with Robert, and Rhaegar. In Ned's memories, Lyanna is constantly being depicted with blue roses, and blue roses are eventually revealed to be the HH crown, from Rhaegar. The same Rhaegar who pops up, completely unexpectedly, and seemingly out of place, in Ned's musings about Robert's shortcomings, fidelity, promises and fates of bastards, as not possessing such shortcomings. With Ned's death, we are cut off from further recollections of Lyanna but we are steadily receiving info dumps about Rhaegar. Not Howland, not Arthur, and the information that we get about Tywin or Mance does not relate to Lyanna. In Mance's case, there is no relation to the Rebellion at all, in Tywin's, only to the Sack, Robert's involvement fades out. Again, no RLJ lens to state this.

These are good considerations. What they tell me is that Lyanna is most likely Jon's mother. They give me nothing to go on in connection with Rhaegar. Not even the blue roses does it for me at this point because it could mean several things, which don't point to a guy who may even have worshipped Renly-style.

Not one person can say they saw the two of them together any time for about a year before the rebellion started. There's just... Nothing. And then nothing after, either. I've been looking, I haven't found anything. Selmy can give us his take on it all he wants, he didn't help abduct her or if he did he isn't saying. It's hard for me to think he knows much as Rhaegar kept him at a distance, by Selmy's own admission. Dayne, Whent- Rhaegar's inner circle- are conveniently silent as is Hightower. Ned is busy telling his own family to shut up about Jon's mother and pretending to be the father. He gives us readers crumbs to squabble over and then gets himself offed, the rotten goose.

Howland refuses to put in an appearance, for which he may answer, or he may find a way to duck out of it, too, like all the rest.

We can receive as many info dumps on characters as we like, but none of them are telling us anything concrete about the father on which to build symbolism. It's like a poem in translation where the translator has all sorts of bits but hasn't yet located the gorram subject. And without that who knows what attaches where.

Jon at least looks like the Starks, he looks like Arya and she looks like Lyanna. That's concrete. I can follow that. Starks look like they're from the North. I can follow that. They apparently look like First Men as well, I can follow that. Rhaegar? Hmm, poncy, platinum, Valyrian.

Blue roses are no help here. Nobody is blue except the blue bard and JonCon's hairdo/Portlandia beard. There are no known smurfs in Westeros.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

 

You are wrong about that. Read the bolded part of Kingmonkey's quote and then compare that to your statement I've bolded. You are either misunderstanding his argument or purposefully constructing a false argument in order to knock it down. A straw man if you will.

See below.

   ... .

Look: "We are arguing against the suggestion that a hypothesis is less likely because it is crowdsourced, not for the suggestion that it must be (or is even more likely to be) true because it is crowdsourced. " That's what I wrote. You quoted it right there in your post.

It does not add value to a theory. We're not presenting this argument as a way to add value to the RLJ. It does not make RLJ more likely. However, the fact that those "man-centuries" have provided us with RLJ is no reason to discount the theory. The whole point is that we are presenting a counter-argument to the claim that it's a reason to discount RLJ.

According to your words above, you agree with us. Great.

I do tend to think you and I would agree on this issue, KM.  

What I don't understand is this comment, which you also wrote:

"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."

What does that mean?  Perhaps you can clarify for me. 

[Ygrain]

 

These are good considerations. What they tell me is that Lyanna is most likely Jon's mother. They give me nothing to go on in connection with Rhaegar. Not even the blue roses does it for me at this point because it could mean several things, which don't point to a guy who may even have worshipped Renly-style.

 

Not one person can say they saw the two of them together any time for about a year before the rebellion started. There's just... Nothing. And then nothing after, either. I've been looking, I haven't found anything. Selmy can give us his take on it all he wants, he didn't help abduct her or if he did he isn't saying. It's hard for me to think he knows much as Rhaegar kept him at a distance, by Selmy's own admission. Dayne, Whent- Rhaegar's inner circle- are conveniently silent as is Hightower. Ned is busy telling his own family to shut up about Jon's mother and pretending to be the father. He gives us readers crumbs to squabble over and then gets himself offed, the rotten goose.

 

Howland refuses to put in an appearance, for which he may answer, or he may find a way to duck out of it, too, like all the rest.

 

We can receive as many info dumps on characters as we like, but none of them are telling us anything concrete about the father on which to build symbolism. It's like a poem in translation where the translator has all sorts of bits but hasn't yet located the gorram subject. And without that who knows what attaches where.

 

Jon at least looks like the Starks, he looks like Arya and she looks like Lyanna. That's concrete. I can follow that. Starks look like they're from the North. I can follow that. They apparently look like First Men as well, I can follow that. Rhaegar? Hmm, poncy, platinum, Valyrian.

 

Blue roses are no help here. Nobody is blue except the blue bard and JonCon's hairdo/Portlandia beard. There are no known smurfs in Westeros.

Okay, just two things:

Info dumps on Rhaegar are important, because it means that the guy is somehow important for the plot. Not saying that this signifies he is Jon's father, but still important. He is getting way much attention for someone fourteen years dead.

Blue roses: I don't see how this doesn't tie to Rhaegar, because, with the exception of Bael the Bard story - which shares suspicious amount of details with RLJ - the only blue roses in the text are those of Lyanna's, which she received from Rhaegar, and the gift establishes a connection to the giver. It is also interesting to note how the identity of the roses is slowly revealed: first we have Lyanna and roses, then it is Lyanna and blue winter roses, then it is Lyanna with a garland of blue winter roses, and then, bam! the QoLaB crown. After that, it is only Lyanna and the QoLaB crown, in Theon's dream. As if the revelation reached its climax, and we now know that every time Ned thinks of blue roses, it is actually the HH crown that he thinks about. So, in the mind of Lyanna's brother, our only PoV in the know, Lyanna is inseparably connected with a gift from Rhaegar.

Furthermore, the blue roses are not the sole element of the association, it is roses and blood. Lyanna's room smells of blood and roses, the dream of bed of blood contains rose petals, her garlanded statue weeps bloody tears, the thorns of the crown draw blood, Lyanna is wearing a crown of roses and a blood-spattered gown... the roses and blood are connected. The blood stands for the bed of blood, which we know is childbirth, and the childbirth is tied to Rhaegar's gift. Details need to be filled in for sure, but the connection is already there.

 

[Kingmonkey]

So you are basically saying that you and Snowfyre are arguing for the same thing- that crowdsourcing isn't an indication of a theory's accuracy or quality of evidence, just that people fancy it. And that this is no reason on it's own to discount it. ETA: it also doesn't do anything useful by way of proving it. It's just fancied.

Precisely.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

Let's say that, as in other mysteries, there are red herrings GRRM planted, with clues to make then seem plausible until the reader is revealed the true explanation.  Where are the red herrings hiding RLJ?  I can see three in AGOT (assuming RLJ is true and not fishy) : Ned and Wylla, Ned and Ashara, Benjen and Mystery Woman.  I am leaving out my favored theory because it's got so few clues in the first book it could not be intended to be seen as an alternate theory.

A red herring should be a fairly obvious answer to a question that is proven wrong by new evidence.  There is a problem with these herrings. None of them seem less likely or become disproven later in the series. They either pick up more supporting evidence or are not referred to at all after the first book.

Ned and Ashara gets more clues when we find out Jon was nursed at Starfall and when we hear the story of TKotLT.  Ned and Wylla (or anyone other than Cat) is boosted by getting confirmation that Wylla was Jon's wetnurse and the fact there are rumors of Ned having sex with other women during the rebellion making the "Need would never do that" side seem less plausible.

And the theory that Benjen was Jon's father is not even touched one way or another.

Meanwhile, we get hints of new theories in the later books - is GRRM adding new red herrings without getting rid of old ones, and why? Did he think the distractions from RLJ were not adequate because too many people were reaching the RLJ conclusion (GRRM was made aware of fan theories on the internet in the 90s)?  Shouldn't the red herrings seem less likely and the real solution seem more so as the story progresses?

This is why I think RLJ is the red herring.  In the parallel mystery ( who killed Jon) we get proof against the obvious first theory in the POVs of those implicàted and confirmation from the actual killer... But before the reveal, the old theories were discredited.  So far, nothing has happened to make the alternate seem less likely, and one new theory picks up SO many hints in later books it seems odd for a red herring.

[Kingmonkey]

Hmm, well, what about the idea that we currently lack any living eyewitness POV that actually was there the day that Rhaegar supposedly made off/made out with Lyanna? That nobody yet has opened their yap over one too many arbor golds and said, "I was there the day that randy devil nabbed her on the road outside Harrenhal. Aye, and we all heard her screaming "oh, baby, more!" from the top of the toj for months on end, while all I had was the company of me donkey" ?

There are a lot of things that we lack any living eyewitness PoVs for. 

Everyone is under the impression that Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna. The rebellion was triggered by it. Brandon went to KL on the basis that it happened. Robert believes it to this day, as does Dany, the Lannisters, etc. Ned, who surely would know if something was up after having found Lyanna, does not disabuse Robert of this theory, and appears to have passed on the same story to his children. Could he be lying? Yes, but we have no reason to suspect he is. Nor any reason to suspect that Rhaegar did not do what everyone believes he did. 

We cannot be certain it happened, but it's certainly widely, possibly universally believed. What's the evidence it didn't happen?

We could raise a similar objection on the H+L thread. What's the evidence that Howland and Lyanna ever met, before Lyanna's death? As far as I can recall the sole evidence that Howland was even at Harrenhal is the story told by Meera. A single unsupported account, second hand at best. Far less evidence reason to assume this happened than for the abduction. Similarly though, there's no reason to doubt it.