Heresy Project X+Y=J: Rhaegar + Lyanna

[Lady Dyanna]

DO you have a link to that?

People use "canon" in different ways sometimes. Technically, it means "the authentic works of the author." But sometimes it's used to mean "the things in the story we know for a fact." In the second sense, TWOIAF is not canon, just as when Lady Catelyn recalls the story of Durran Durrandon to us in AGOT, it's not canon. It's her memory of a folktale from thousands of years ago. That's the story she knows, we take it fwiw. It's the same with TWOIAF - it represents the masterly knowledge, with masterly bias, and I think it was a great idea to write it like that, and a lot of fun for us to think about how they might be shaping certain events or whatnot. I'd be curious to see the quote, to see in what sense he's using it. Because he's also said the canon is all the published works - meaning D & E and TWOIAF as well as the five novels. I know that wrote almost all of it, putting a lot of effort into it. It's not some extra bullshit coffee table thing he did. It represents George feeding us more information and in some cases clues about important events and people in the story. The fact that Elio and Linda assisted him - chiefly in compiling the information which was scattered about the novels, which is exactly what they are known for with the wiki - is simply not grounds to impugn the integrity of the information.  

When it comes to the rose laurel on the lance, that's a publicly witnessed event. There's no reason to suspect any sort of masterly revisionist history - this is a very memorable event, witnessed by hundreds if not a few thousand people. If it says the laurel was on the lance, it was on the lance. There's absolutely no grounds to say "i believe that bit of addition is courtesy of the Elio and Linda.That is a huge bit of info that Ned's recollection of that day doesn't give us and it comes off as out of place and just added on. No, not at all. We already knew he placed it in her lap, now we know exactly how. It's a very small detail, quite frankly. 

Bottom line, playing the "Elio and Linda wrote that and they are wrong" card is just suuuuuper weak. I can think of other words but I'll leave it at that. I mean... the places this anti-RLJ stuff will go, the backflips involved to make it not so... we need to see better than the above. 

http://thelasthearth.freeforums.net/thread/299/grrm-confirms-wb-semi-canon?page=1#post-16049

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Authorial intent is obviously a tricky thing to deal with head on like this, but ultimately when you're examining clues, you're doing the same thing. When faced with any of these hints and clues we have to ask ourselves what they author intended when they wrote that passage. Does the clue indicate what we take it to indicate? Was it even intended as a clue, or are we reading too much into it? 

The main hangup I have with claims regarding what Martin intended, or what he "wanted" us to think, is that Martin himself has been conspicuously reluctant to discuss details of this particular mystery in those terms.  In fact, the one thing I recall him saying that he wanted to convey with respect to Rhaegar and Lyanna... was uncertainty.

From an Event Horizon chat, back in 1999:

Q:  Mr. Martin I was under the impression that Rhaegar raped Lyanna.  Did he, or were they in love?

Martin:  Rhaegar and Lyanna — well, that's a revelation that will need to wait for later volumes. But if you're uncertain about it, I am glad. One thing I wanted to do was suggest the uncertainty of truth...

Furthermore, it's hard not to wonder if assumptions about how an author wants us to understand his story affect the ways we actually read the story.  Or the other way around: perhaps our own reading of the story shapes our assumptions about what the author wants.  Either way, our interest in the author's intent seems misplaced.  As Martin himself remarked, in another chat back in 1999 (this one was with scifi.com):

GRRM: What an author intends to put into a book is not always the same as what;'s actually there.  [sic]

Now, I'm not suggesting that Martin didn't intend hints and suggestions toward the ideas that "R+L," or that "X+L=J."  And it may even be true that he wants his readers to believe "R+L=J."  But he's certainly never copped to that in interviews.  More to the point, it seems quite possible to me - even likely - that the story he wants us to believe along the way is not the story he intends to reveal in the end.  He's admitted to finding great satisfaction in fooling the reader.  See this comment in his 2014 Vanity Fair interview, for instance (emphasis added):

I’ve read a lot of stories in my life, and some have affected me very deeply; others I forget five minutes after I put ‘em down. One of the things I’ve come to really appreciate is a kind of unpredictability in my fiction. There’s nothing that bores me quicker than a book that just seems, I know exactly where this book is going. You’ve read them, too. You open a new book and you read the first chapter, maybe the first two chapters, and you don’t even have to read the rest of it. You can see exactly where it’s going. I think I got some of that when I was growing up and we were watching TV. My mother would always predict where the plots were going, whether it was I Love Lucy or something like that. "Well, this is going to happen," she would say. And, sure enough, it would happen! And nothing was more delightful, when something different happened, when it suddenly took a twist. As long as the twist was justified. You can’t just arbitrarily throw in twists and turns that make no sense. Things have to follow. You want the thing in the end where you say, "Oh my God, I didn’t see that coming, but there was foreshadowing; there was a hint of it here, there was a hint of it there. I should have seen it coming." And that, to me, is very satisfying. I look for that in the fiction that I read and I try to put it into my own fiction.

In light of that, and particularly with respect to the mystery of Jon Snow's parentage, we should be prepared for the possibility that (1) what Martin wants his readers to think, and (2) the true story Martin intends to tell, aren't necessarily the same thing.  Obviously, to the extent they're different, evidence for (1) will make particularly bad arguments for claims that we know (2).

 

[LmL]

http://thelasthearth.freeforums.net/thread/299/grrm-confirms-wb-semi-canon?page=1#post-16049

It's just as I thought. He's using it in the second sense - what we know to be true. He says:  

"The Worldbook is pretty damn close to canon, but since it was written by maesters, errors and omissions have crept in."

He is saying that the only reason we have to suspect TWOIAF of containing innacurate information is because it was written by maesters. That's the unreliable narrator, which is exactly what we have been saying about it. He did NOT say "Elio and Linda wrote most of it and I didn't really pay that much attention to what they were doing, so whatever." And that's what Wolfmaid was claiming, and it's still BS. 

Furthermore, I don't know if Weaselpie is incapable of grasping the two different contexts of "canon" or if they are misleading intentionally, but WP is hearing George use it one context and then saying he means it in another. George is not saying canon in the sense that the app is "semi-canon" - the app was not written by him, he doesn't claim to have written it, so it's not "canon" - it's not one of the published books. TWOIAF is part of "the canon" in the sense that it is an authentic work of the author. That much is clear, and this quote does nothing to change that. Martin is clearly referring to maesterly bias, and even then, he's saying the maesters are pretty damn accurate. 

So YES, TWOIAF can and should be used when considering theories and making them. Weaselpie is flat wrong by asserting otherwise. Anyone asserts that TWOIAF's information is subject to maesterly error is correct. Anyone who attempts to use the fact that E & L helped write TWOIAF as a way to impugn the credibility of the information is wrong. Martin is saying NOTHING of the kind, and he's said the opposite several times. 

This really isn't very hard to understand unless you are trying to make it so. It's easy to understand unless you have an agenda to undermine the credibility of TWOIAF because of your own theories. That was and is utter BS. 

[LmL]

The main hangup I have with claims regarding what Martin intended, or what he "wanted" us to think, is that Martin himself has been conspicuously reluctant to discuss details of this particular mystery in those terms.  In fact, the one thing I recall him saying that he wanted to convey with respect to Rhaegar and Lyanna... was uncertainty.

From an Event Horizon chat, back in 1999:

Q:  Mr. Martin I was under the impression that Rhaegar raped Lyanna.  Did he, or were they in love?

Martin:  Rhaegar and Lyanna — well, that's a revelation that will need to wait for later volumes. But if you're uncertain about it, I am glad. One thing I wanted to do was suggest the uncertainty of truth...

Furthermore, it's hard not to wonder if assumptions about how an author wants us to understand his story affect the ways we actually read the story.  Or the other way around: perhaps our own reading of the story shapes our assumptions about what the author wants.  Either way, our interest in the author's intent seems misplaced.  As Martin himself remarked, in another chat back in 1999 (this one was with scifi.com):

GRRM: What an author intends to put into a book is not always the same as what;'s actually there.  [sic]

Now, I'm not suggesting that Martin didn't intend hints and suggestions toward the ideas that "R+L," or that "X+L=J."  And it may even be true that he wants his readers to believe "R+L=J."  But he's certainly never copped to that in interviews.  More to the point, it seems quite possible to me - even likely - that the story he wants us to believe along the way is not the story he intends to reveal in the end.  He's admitted to finding great satisfaction in fooling the reader.  See this comment in his 2014 Vanity Fair interview, for instance (emphasis added):

I’ve read a lot of stories in my life, and some have affected me very deeply; others I forget five minutes after I put ‘em down. One of the things I’ve come to really appreciate is a kind of unpredictability in my fiction. There’s nothing that bores me quicker than a book that just seems, I know exactly where this book is going. You’ve read them, too. You open a new book and you read the first chapter, maybe the first two chapters, and you don’t even have to read the rest of it. You can see exactly where it’s going. I think I got some of that when I was growing up and we were watching TV. My mother would always predict where the plots were going, whether it was I Love Lucy or something like that. "Well, this is going to happen," she would say. And, sure enough, it would happen! And nothing was more delightful, when something different happened, when it suddenly took a twist. As long as the twist was justified. You can’t just arbitrarily throw in twists and turns that make no sense. Things have to follow. You want the thing in the end where you say, "Oh my God, I didn’t see that coming, but there was foreshadowing; there was a hint of it here, there was a hint of it there. I should have seen it coming." And that, to me, is very satisfying. I look for that in the fiction that I read and I try to put it into my own fiction.

In light of that, and particularly with respect to the mystery of Jon Snow's parentage, we should be prepared for the possibility that (1) what Martin wants his readers to think, and (2) the true story Martin intends to tell, aren't necessarily the same thing.  Obviously, to the extent they're different, evidence for (1) will make particularly bad arguments for claims that we know (2).

 

Consider the "I should have seen it coming" remark. The twist has to be foreshadowed - like the red wedding. I'm sure some people did catch that foreshadowing the first time. It's clearly there to see, looking back for it. And the same is true here - we should be able to see the possibilities he is foreshadowing. He is candidacy saying he foreshadows his twists. So... if Jon is not Rhaegar and Lyanna's child, George has left clues to foreshadow this. 

And it is these clues which we are waiting to see from the Heresy essays. Where are they? That's the operative question. 

[Sly Wren]

Consider the "I should have seen it coming" remark. The twist has to be foreshadowed - like the red wedding. I'm sure some people did catch that foreshadowing the first time. It's clearly there to see, looking back for it. And the same is true here - we should be able to see the possibilities he is foreshadowing. He is candidacy saying he foreshadows his twists. So... if Jon is not Rhaegar and Lyanna's child, George has left clues to foreshadow this. 

And it is these clues which we are waiting to see from the Heresy essays. Where are they? That's the operative question. 

Well, there's stuff like this. (Though should probably discuss the details in situ vs. here on this thread).

[wolfmaid7]

Consider the "I should have seen it coming" remark. The twist has to be foreshadowed - like the red wedding. I'm sure some people did catch that foreshadowing the first time. It's clearly there to see, looking back for it. And the same is true here - we should be able to see the possibilities he is foreshadowing. He is candidacy saying he foreshadows his twists. So... if Jon is not Rhaegar and Lyanna's child, George has left clues to foreshadow this. 

And it is these clues which we are waiting to see from the Heresy essays. Where are they? That's the operative question. 

All essays aren't done LML..........Then with the "Reflections thread" we can put all these babies side to side and Tango.But i also think te operative question is if people will believe the clues and which "clues" are better . He has left clues very very good ones but again the project ain't over so until then let's enjoy the ride.

[wolfmaid7]

http://thelasthearth.freeforums.net/thread/299/grrm-confirms-wb-semi-canon?page=1#post-16049

Thank you Lady D for posting this.......What happened Crickets......Nothing? Oh well.

[wolfmaid7]

 

Agreed. Just trying to be extra clear here, because what you said could be construed as saying something slightly different. Mainly by those who want to mis-construe it of course, but still.

Well put.

I'm just as interested in her actual claim that its contradictory with the base text. I cant see how?

 

How so?
Robert had been jesting with Jon and old Lord Hunter as the prince circled the field after unhorsing Ser Barristan in the final tilt to claim the champion's crown. Ned remembered the moment when all the smiles died, when Prince Rhaegar Targaryen urged his horse past his own wife, the Dornish princess Elia Martell, to lay the queen of beauty's laurel in Lyanna's lap. He could see it still: a crown of winter roses, blue as frost.

Is there something other than this you are referring to?
The prince unhorses Ser Barristan in the final tilt. He then circles the field to claim the crown. He then urges his horse past Elia to lay the crown in Lyanna's lap.
Nothing there that says the crown is not on the end of his lance - indeed, thats about the only way a man on a horse can lay something in a seated woman's lap!

 

Information given does not contradict a gap in information.
Ned gave us almost nothing about that day.
And if you think that the crown being on the tip of Rhaegar's lance when he laid it in Lyanna's lap is 'out of place', then your feel for 'place' needs a massive overhaul.

As i said it doesn't matter to me one way or the other because that introduction doesn't change anything for me in fact it adds alot.You bring up a point though and i agree.First i have no idea how far they were sitting from the center,but you are absolutely right Corbon that's about the only way you could get in on the lap.Sometimes it's the way people will say a phrase that sparks plugs......Thank you Corbon for that.

That is exactly my point. Everyone understands the maesterly bias. Everyone. Let's not conflate "canon" - which means the authentic works of the author - and the literary tool know as the "unreliable narrator" which George uses in every chapter of every book.

Any attempt to undermine the information contained because of Elio and Linda's involvement is totally off base. That's my point. I'm sick of seeing people say shit that is simply wrong, and can be easily verified. There's no excuse at this point for not understanding what the deal is with TWOIAF. Wolfmaid's attempt to discredit the rose crown on the Lance  by claiming E & L put it in erroneously  is total bullshit, and I'm calling her on it. Make your case without trying to change the text of the canonical works, thanks very much. 

Dude sop trying to instigate things. i never said they put it in erroneously,you see this is where you and i have real problems.Your putting spin on stuff. I said they probably had creative licence to do so being authors on the book and that's within their rights. Its doesn't matter to me one bit,hell i have a lot to gain from that no matter what .That works great for me i just said i coudn't use it unless i knew for sure if this was exactly GRRM's doing or them just adding their take on it.

What' 'im calling BS on with you is your always trying to start nonsense LML that doesn't need to be started.You want a merit badge or something for defending Elio and Linda against something that doesn't need defending. I said nothing wrong against them i expressed a thought about a piece of info in the book.

 

[LmL]

As i said it doesn't matter to me one way or the other because that introduction doesn't change anything for me in fact it adds alot.You bring up a point though and i agree.First i have no idea how far they were sitting from the center,but you are absolutely right Corbon that's about the only way you could get in on the lap.Sometimes it's the way people will say a phrase that sparks plugs......Thank you Corbon for that.

Dude you are so full it. i never said they put it in erroneously,you see this is where you and i have real problems.Your putting spin on stuff. I said they probably had creative licence to do so being authors on the book and that's within their rights. Its doesn't matter to me one bit,hell i have a lot to gain from that no matter what .That works great for me i just said i coudn't use it unless i knew for sure if this was exactly GRRM's doing or them just adding their take on it.

What'm calling BS on with you is your always trying to start nonsense LML that doesn't need to be started.You want a merit badge or something fordefending Elio and Linda. I said nothing wrong against them i expressed a thought about a piece of info.

This is very simple. You found a piece of info you didn't like in TWOIAF, and you'r response was to, without any basis whatsoever, suggest that E & L put it in, and that it was not Martin's intent, and therefore its unreliable or probably wrong. And that's BS. If you have to play that card to defend your ideas, that's super weak. 

[LmL]

Thank you Lady D for posting this.......What happened Crickets......Nothing? Oh well.

Nope, not crickets - I explained the two different uses of the word "canon" and how Weaselpie's assertions are wrong. In other words, I directly refuted the claim that TWOIAF shouldn't be used in theories or that it's information is unreliable in any way except the well-known masterly bias. 

You guys keep trying to cloud the issue, but it's very simple: George wrote TWOIAF - with a bit of help - and he wrote it from the view of a maester. Any information we use or cite from there should take into account the masterly bias - just as every piece of information we cite and evaluate needs to have it's context and messenger analyzed. Just as we did with Ned's dreams and memories, or hearsay from other characters. The only reason George has ever given to doubt the info in TWOIAF is the masterly bias. Claims that E & L's involvement make it not part of the canonical works - the authentic published works of the author - are wrong. Factually inaccurate. 

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Elio stated that the False Spring section was all GRRM. In fact, I believe he posted this in one of the Heresy threads.

This is correct, by the way.  The post was in Heresy 140, on page 5. Here:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/120057-heresy-140-world-of-ice-fire-spoilers/&do=findComment&comment=6427522

[WeaselPie]

Nope, not crickets - I explained the two different uses of the word "canon" and how Weaselpie's assertions are wrong. In other words, I directly refuted the claim that TWOIAF shouldn't be used in theories or that it's information is unreliable in any way except the well-known masterly bias. 

You guys keep trying to cloud the issue, but it's very simple: George wrote TWOIAF - with a bit of help - and he wrote it from the view of a maester. Any information we use or cite from there should take into account the masterly bias - just as every piece of information we cite and evaluate needs to have it's context and messenger analyzed. Just as we did with Ned's dreams and memories, or hearsay from other characters. The only reason George has ever given to doubt the info in TWOIAF is the masterly bias. Claims that E & L's involvement make it not part of the canonical works - the authentic published works of the author - are wrong. Factually inaccurate. 

MY assertion?  GRRM said the WB was "pretty damn close to canon." He did not say it was canon.  Those are his words, not mine.

[LmL]

Hey Wolfmaid - are you aware of the appendix of AGOT?

{LYANNA}, his younger sister, died in the mountains of Dorne,

There's no masterly bias or Elio and Linda influence to hide behind here. Are you claiming Starfall is "in the mountains of Dorne?" 

[LmL]

MY assertion?  GRRM said the WB was "pretty damn close to canon." He did not say it was canon.  Those are his words, not mine.

Let's start with the word "canon." Are you aware that there are different uses of this word? Because you seem to be confusing them. 

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Hey Wolfmaid - are you aware of the appendix of AGOT?

There's no masterly bias or Elio and Linda influence to hide behind here. Are you claiming Starfall is "in the mountains of Dorne?" 

 

C'mon now, LmL... that's the same appendix that includes the following:

EDDARD STARK, Lord of Winterfell, Warden of the North,

— his wife, LADY CATELYN, of House Tully,

— their children:

       — ROBB, the heir to Winterfell, fourteen years of age,

       — SANSA, the eldest daughter, eleven,

       — ARYA, the younger daughter, a girl of nine,

       — BRANDON, called Bran, seven,

       — RICKON, a boy of three,

— his bastard son, JON SNOW, a boy of fourteen

 

 

[wolfmaid7]

This is very simple. You found a piece of info you didn't like in TWOIAF, and you'r response was to, without any basis whatsoever, suggest that E & L put it in, and that it was not Martin's intent, and therefore its unreliable or probably wrong. And that's BS. If you have to play that card to defend your ideas, that's super weak. 

LML what's super weak is you again twisting words and refusing to listen to what people say .And after this i'm over you because your credibility is worth nada.I'm telling you something over and over again and you are intentionally inciting nonsense .Like i said the info works great for me like i told JStar and i explain why.So your entire bit about the info wasn't to my likeing the joke is and always is on you.

[wolfmaid7]

Hey Wolfmaid - are you aware of the appendix of AGOT?

There's no masterly bias or Elio and Linda influence to hide behind here. Are you claiming Starfall is "in the mountains of Dorne?" 

And this would best be suited for the thread its being discussed on as it has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.Are you hearing me ok ?

[LmL]

Wolfmaid... I am going on your words exactly:

"i believe that bit of addition is courtesy of the Elio and Linda.That is a huge bit of info that Ned's recollection of that day doesn't give us and it comes off as out of place and just added on.

This is BS. For all the reasons I stated. Who's twisting what? I don't need to rephrase your statement. It is, on it's face, BS. If you've changed your mind or accepted that it was on the lance now, great. 

[wolfmaid7]

Wolfmaid... I am going on your words exactly:

"i believe that bit of addition is courtesy of the Elio and Linda.That is a huge bit of info that Ned's recollection of that day doesn't give us and it comes off as out of place and just added on.

This is BS. For all the reasons I stated. Who's twisting what? I don't need to rephrase your statement. It is, on it's face, BS. If you've changed your mind or accepted that it was on the lance now, great. 

Did you quote my entire text or just one bit out of context? I think so.Typical.

If you had posted my entire quote you would have posted me saying ......It doesn't matter if it was because it works fine for me. Again your credibility....

So your your entire post is pointless this cherry picking and pulling out certain pieces don't work for me.....Hey why dont you post the "entire" quote.Do that!!!

Let's see exactly if i have a reason not to like this huh LML.

[LmL]

And this would best be suited for the thread its being discussed on as it has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.Are you hearing me ok ?

This has everything to do with any Jon parentage theory... obviously. 

However Snowfyre chorus has demonstrated that the appendix represents the common knowledge, which of course may be wrong. My point however was that the common knowledge - the accepted story - is Lyanna at the ToJ, just as Ned's dream and his introduction to the dream indicate. So when you say "no evidence," I say no, all indications are that she was there. Perhaps you're right, and she wasn't - but you are working against the accepted knowledge, and so you need to show evidence to support the idea that the consensus is wrong.