Heresy Project X+Y=J: Wrap up thread 4

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

This places Ned and his men at the tower of joy, but not the three kingsguard.

I've long posited that the three men at the tower were only ordinary men.

Then you're positing something completely wrong. The dream says seven against three as it had been in life, the memory repeats seven against three. If the event  deviated from the dream in such a significant way as the identity of the three opponents, he would have stated so, instead of merely elaborating on the details of the outcome and what was done with the bodies.

Yet further on, encountering three men in white cloaks makes Ned shiver at the memory, so this further supports an ominous encounter with three KG.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

18 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Then you're positing something completely wrong. The dream says seven against three as it had been in life, the memory repeats seven against three. If the event  deviated from the dream in such a significant way as the identity of the three opponents, he would have stated so, instead of merely elaborating on the details of the outcome and what was done with the bodies.

Yet further on, encountering three men in white cloaks makes Ned shiver at the memory, so this further supports an ominous encounter with three KG.

And just to elaborate, Ned's dream specifically describes the KG as:

Quote

They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it has been in life. Yet these were no ordinary three.

The text then continues to name the three KG. If Ned and his friends had fought a duel to the death with three random dudes, this passage would make no sense.

 

[kimim]

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

This places Ned and his men at the tower of joy, but not the three kingsguard.

I've long posited that the three men at the tower were only ordinary men.

I can't see it.

Quote

In the dream his friends rode with him, as they had in life. Proud Martyn Cassel, Jory's father; faithful Theo Wull; Ethan Glover, who had been Brandon's squire; Ser Mark Ryswell, soft of speech and gentle of heart; the crannogman, Howland Reed; Lord Dustin on his great red stallion...

They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it had been in life. Yet these were no ordinary three. They waited before the round tower, the red mountains of Dorne at their backs, their white cloaks blowing in the wind. And these were no shadows; their faces burned clear, even now. Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, had a sad smile on his lips. The hilt of the greatsword Dawn poked up over his right shoulder. Ser Oswell Whent was on one knee, sharpening his blade with a whetstone. Across his white-enameled helm, the black bat of his House spread its wings. Between them stood fierce old Ser Gerold Hightower, the White Bull, Lord Commander of the Kingsguard.

A lot of specifics here: Ned and his six named men face Arthur, Oswell, Gerold, "before the round tower, the red mountains of Dorne at their backs, their white cloaks [proof that they were the KG and not some other Arthur, Oswell, and Gerold] blowing in the wind."

"It's a fever dream" is more difficult to use here, as Ned gives more details, shortly after he's done dreaming:

Quote

It would have to be his grandfather, for Jory's father was buried far to the south. Martyn Cassel had perished with the rest. Ned had pulled the tower down afterward, and used its bloody stones to build eight cairns upon the ridge. It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory. They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed. He did not think it omened well that he should dream that dream again after so many years.

Ned is thinking directly about his dream: "He did not think it omened well that he should dream that dream again after so many years."

He then goes on to offer details that support the details of the dream, on top of giving the conclusion of the battle. It was "seven against three" which supports the numbers provided by the dream. It took place "in the south," which supports the Dornish location of the dream. Cassel and Howland fought on Ned's side, which supports the identities provided by the dream. They fought in front of the "tower of joy," which again supports the dream. The dream is upsetting for Ned, and his conscious description of its conclusion--that all but he and Reed died--again supports the darkness the dream.

In Dance we get further support for the dream: Lady Barbrey Dustin hates Ned for not bringing the body of her lord home, for telling her "that his body had been laid to rest beneath the red mountains of Dorne." Lord Dustin, of course, was one of Ned's men in Ned's dream.

Earlier, in Game, Cat mentions rumors that

Quote

"whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's Kingsguard, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat. And they told how afterward Ned had carried Ser Arthur's sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea."

This is only a rumor, but it supports Ned's explanation for the dream: Ned and Arthur fought, and Arthur died.

You can, of course, use "argument from ignorance": Ned mentions "seven against three," and only names two people on his side. So long as Ned doesn't specify, anything is possible; maybe the three KG are the fevered part of Ned's dream; maybe the rumor that Ned fought Arthur and killed him is just that--a rumor; maybe Ned's referring to another dream, which he hasn't shared with us, etc. It's not very convincing, given that the text offers proof that whatever else it may be, Ned's fever dream is correct, when it comes to identities, numbers and location.

[SFDanny]

13 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

To circle back to the following passage that you quoted:

Lord Tywin stared at him as if he had lost his wits. "You deserve that motley, then. We had come late to Robert's cause. It was necessary to demonstrate our loyalty. When I laid those bodies before the throne, no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever. And Robert's relief was palpable. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children." His father shrugged. "I grant you, it was done too brutally. Elia need not have been harmed at all, that was sheer folly. By herself she was nothing."

"Then why did the Mountain kill her?"

"Because I did not tell him to spare her. I doubt I mention her at all. I had more pressing concerns. Ned Stark's van was rushing south from the Trident, and I feared it might come to swords between us. (ASoS 594) 

I would love nothing better than to discuss the merits of my inversion theory, but I'm trying to stick to the X+Y=J topic and try to reply back to the passage you presented as proof that Tywin corroborates your stance that he remained undecided until it was plain Robert was winning by this conversation with Tyrion.  But I ask you, how forthcoming was Tywin with his children, Tyrion in particular? It would still be to his advantage to continue to repeat and confirm the assumed story of how he came to Robert's side and demonstrate why he killed Rhaegar's children. He said it was done to "demonstrate our loyalty". That's his official story and he wasn't about to confess or deviate from it to Tyrion...a son that he doesn't even like! I believe his true motivation was revenge. Tywin doesn't just get back at people who wrong him, he annihilates them. Look at his record with the Tarbecks, Reynes, and Robb Stark/Red Wedding. 

It would be to Tywin's advantage to show he was part of the STAB alliance all along. What possible reason could he have to maintain a false narrative that is to his disadvantage? The idea he is lying about this to Tyrion, some sixteen years after the fact doesn't hold water. He wants Tyrion to continue to follow his orders and to support the family. Lying about this old history doesn't help him in this matter at all.

Not only that but the facts on the ground  - the late entry of the Lannister into the battle with their only participation in the rebellion with troops being limited to the sack of King's Landing - and the agreement between two enemies - Ned and Tywin both tell the same story about this point even though they hate each other - all make this abundantly clear that the Lannisters were not part of the rebel alliance until the sack, and even there while they act against a common foe, they do not coordinate their actions. This could have led to a battle between Ned's forces and Tywin's. No one fights a war in this manner if they can help it.

13 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Please remind me where Ned corroborates that he and his men fought the Kingsguard at the tower of joy?

Ygrain gave you one of the quotes that tell you this is true. I would add the following:

Quote

He dreamt an old dream of, three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood. In the dream his friends roads with him, as they had in real life, Proud Martyn Cassel, Jory's father; faithful Theo Wull; Ethan Glover who had been Brandon's squire; Ser Mark Ryswell, soft of speech and gentle of heart; the crannogman, Howland Reed; Lord Dustin on his great red stallion. Ned had know their faces as well as he knew his own once, but the years leech at a man's memories, even those he was vowed never to forget. In the dream they they were only shadows, grey wraiths on horses made of mist.

They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it had been in life. Yet these were no ordinary three. They waited before the round tower, the red mountains of Dorne at their backs, their white cloaks blowing in the wind. And this were not shadows' their faces burned clear, even now. Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, had as sad smile on his lips. The wild of the greatsword Dawn poked up over his right shoulder. Ser Oswell Whent was on one knee, sharpening his blade with a whetstone. Across his white-enabled helm, the black bat of his House spread its wings. Between them stood fierce old Ser Gerold Hightower, the White Bull, Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. (AGoT 354) bold emphasis added.

Between the two quotes it is crystal clear the three died at the tower.

[nanother]

On 2016. 11. 05. at 8:01 PM, wolfmaid7 said:

If someone prods about your location,if you were in said location the entire time at the moment the question was posed the answer you would give is "here."

Unless I don't want to answer the question. In that case I'd say something vague, just as the KG did.

How in the seven hells would it be 'natural' for them to actually answer that one question, when all other responses they give are obviously evasive and completely uninformative? One way to sum up the conversation as it is would be

Ned: WTF were you doing while the royal family you were supposed to be guarding was dethroned and its members killed or exiled?

KG: None of your business.

@SFDanny outlines other interpretations where the dialogue as it is makes perfect sense. You're of course welcome to keep believing that it doesn't, according to your particular interpretation, but citing it as evidence that the KG weren't at the ToJ at the time of the Sack just isn't going to work. Unless you give a compelling reason why your interpretation is more likely to be correct that any of the others.

Not that there aren't reasons to doubt that the KG (and Lyanna) spent the whole rebellion at ToJ, but this dialogue is not one of them.
 

@Feather Crystal

Interesting idea about those being 3 ordinary men at ToJ . I don't think it works, though - Ned has a waking recollection of the ToJ fight, in which 5 of his team of 7 were somehow killed by those 'ordinary men' before they went down. They seem to be pretty good fighters for 'ordinary men', based on that. The exchange with the KG also has to have its roots in reality - the dialogue wouldn't make sense with 3 non-KG. Ned also has a waking recollection of Arthur Dayne nearly killing him (if not for Howland), we know this from Bran, and his men believe that he beat Ser Arthur in single combat. It seems very unlikely that these happened on different occasions.

 

[shizett]

I think the discussion as a whole is not about "where the KG where". Ned is not asking questions, he is reminding them that they failed short in their duty to protect the royal family (They were absent in Trident with Rhaegar, KL with Aerys, DS with the remaining Targ army, and with the remaining royal member Viserys). In every instance they are making it clear that they haven't failed short in performing their duties, as they show no regret (other than with Viserys, Whent basically backs down prompting Hightower to remind both him and Ned that they are the KG and have duties separate from being "good men and true"). As Ned omits places they should have been, his assertions grow in certainty ("I looked for you on the Trident", "I wondered where you were", "I was certain you would be among them.", and then he goes on to assume "I thought you might have sailed with him" as the only honorable explanation).

Never in the conversation Ned shows any interest in their actual whereabouts, but their duties, and as a result he gets an explanation:

Quote

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

They boast of their abilities and brush off his reminders, but politely answer his real question, they have swore a vow (to obey the King or the Prince as GRRM explained separately), so they really were performing their duties to the best of their abilities.

ETA: He is not interested in "where" they were, but "what" they were doing.

[Kingmonkey]

On 05/11/2016 at 5:07 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Kingmonkey i get what your saying,believe me i do.I'm saying that doesn't jive if they'd been there the entire time.That's why i saked for clarification on what was being proposed by proponents.My answer was based on the proposal that they'd been there for the entire duration.

When you say "that doesn't jive if they'd been there the entire time", that's perfectly clear. However what other people believe isn't relevant to that point. The point is the same whether people agree with you or disagree with you. I believe that most people I've heard discuss it would say that we don't know exactly how long they had been there. There is no reason to think that Rhaegar & Lyanna went straight there from the Riverlands and never left, but there's no reason to think they hadn't been there for a while at the point when Ned arrived, either. Good reason to suspect that they had been -- as you have pointed out, travelling with a sick/heavily pregnant woman doesn't make a lot of sense. 

On the other hand, we know that Rhaegar was said to have named the ToJ, and we know that he came to KL from the south. We also know that Rhaegar had been dead a couple of weeks before the KG were "far away". So there's already a connection to the ToJ from well before this "far away" when you propose the KG were not at the ToJ. In fact that "far away" was during the sack, not long before Ned's arrival at the toj. If the "far away" was not the toj, then the 3KG can't have been there long at all when Ned arrived. 

So what I'm trying to understand is why you think this. Is it purely based on your reading of that phrase "far away" as opposed to "here"?

On 05/11/2016 at 5:07 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

...However,Whent's answer would have made sense and it would have flowed if it was:

"I looked for you on the Trident," Ned said to them.

"We were not there," Ser Gerold answered.

"Woe to the Usurper if we had been," said Ser Oswell.

"When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were."

"Far away"Here," Ser Gerold Said, "or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells."

See, it doesn't take away from any style,dialogue.Doesn't make it complicated.But from a literary standpoint it takes away the ambiguity.If there is ambiguity then we have to ask ourselves why in the first place.Something that should be that isn't,then maybe what we thought is wrong.

It takes away from the fundamental point of the KG's responses to Ned: that they aren't telling him anything. This is "I'll tell you nothing but our name, rank and number" stuff. That's why what you propose would not make sense.

There are four answers that amount to "We're not telling you anything". That's consistent. The dialogue amounts to:

"Shouldn't you have been at the Trident?"

"We're not going to explain ourselves."

"Shouldn't you have been at the King's side?"

"We're not going to explain ourselves."

"Shouldn't you have gone with Viserys?"

"We're not going to explain ourselves."

"Shouldn't you have surrendered when the last loyalists did?"

"We're not going to explain ourselves."

You're suggesting that one of those "We're not going to explain ourselves" could be replaced with a "We were here all along", because it would remove ambiguity -- in other words, because it would be an explanation. Do you not see that such a response would be undermining what the KG are actually doing and saying here?

Yes, it would remove ambiguity. That's however exactly what GRRM was NOT doing. We have a simple answer to why there is ambiguity -- because the KG are flatly refusing to explain themselves to Ned. Thus an explanation is not something that should be there and isn't. Rather, just like all the other three responses it's something that shouldn't be there, and isn't. 

On 05/11/2016 at 5:07 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Thus what you are saying would make sense if Lyanna missing was the case.

I'm saying we have enough evidence to doubt that.

1. We get from several people that the rebellion was started to get Lyanna back?

Is that true? No.

2. Anyone who loved her during that time did they behave in a way that indicated she was missing or that they knew she was missing? I might add that idea may change depending on who we as.

Yes to both.

"WHAT FOLLOWED PRINCE Rhaegar’s infamous abduction of Lyanna Stark was the ruin of House Targaryen." -- ASOIAF

"You avenged Lyanna at the Trident," Ned said, halting beside the king. Promise me, Ned, she had whispered.
"That did not bring her back." Robert looked away, off into the grey distance. "The gods be damned. It was a hollow victory they gave me. A crown … it was the girl I prayed them for. Your sister, safe … and mine again, as she was meant to be.  --AGOT Eddard II

"And Rhaegar … how many times do you think he raped your sister? How many hundreds of times?" --AGOT Eddard II

"Robert was betrothed to marry her, but Prince Rhaegar carried her off and raped her," Bran explained. "Robert fought a war to win her back. He killed Rhaegar on the Trident with his hammer, but Lyanna died and he never got her back at all." --AGOT Bran VII

"He was on his way to Riverrun when . . ." Strange, how telling it still made her throat grow tight, after all these years. ". . . when he heard about Lyanna, and went to King's Landing instead. It was a rash thing to do." She remembered how her own father had raged when the news had been brought to Riverrun. The gallant fool, was what he called Brandon.

Jaime poured the last half cup of wine. "He rode into the Red Keep with a few companions, shouting for Prince Rhaegar to come out and die. But Rhaegar wasn't there. Aerys sent his guards to arrest them all for plotting his son's murder. The others were lords' sons too, it seems to me." --ACOK Catelyn VII

"Princess Elia was there, his wife, and yet my brother gave the crown to the Stark girl, and later stole her away from her betrothed." -ASOS Daenerys IV

"Prince Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna, and thousands died for it." - ADwD The Kingbreaker

"If Aerys had agreed to marry her to Rhaegar, how many deaths might have been avoided? Cersei could have given the prince the sons he wanted, lions with purple eyes and silver manes … and with such a wife, Rhaegar might never have looked twice at Lyanna Stark. " --ADWD Epilogue

So against Brandon's actions, Robert's vengeance, Robert's belief that Rhaegar raped Lyanna, and the belief in Lyanna's abduction being as far as we know universal in Westeros, what reason is there to believe she wasn't missing? 

On 05/11/2016 at 5:07 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

3.Precedence...Arya and Sansa. At one point they were to their family missing.At another point the choice to be gone or stay gone was entirely their choice because it was dangerous to do so,someone else had more plans for them.They decided to make their own choices.Hell,even Lord Stark's daughter wasn't techinically missing.She was hiding out in the crypts the whole time.

Well that's something, but it's rather thin. After all, Sansa was held against her will in a tower for a while. The precedent you suggest, of making a choice, doesn't help your case either. Sansa made choices, Arya maid choices, the Stark maiden made choices -- but all three were missing to their families, because their families did not know where they were. Your precedent may imply that Lyanna was not entirely powerless in the situation, that she may have opted to remain missing for a while -- but that doesn't mean she wasn't missing. 

On 05/11/2016 at 5:07 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

To your latter point that's not what i asked though.I know how bad it got,but as i said getting bad would take time.The big men on an campus had to let their crew know that "its on".And as i said crap would have hit the fan until the rebels made a move to leave their block.

The area was a war-zone, right on the front lines for the period between the Battle of the Bells and the Trident. Had they left the QI early in the Rebellion, sure. Wouldn't someone have noticed Lyanna being pregnant if she gave birth at the QI shortly after the abduction, though?

On 05/11/2016 at 5:07 AM, wolfmaid7 said:

Kingmonkey i think you wanted to delve a bit more into what the essays propose which is what this iteration was suppose to be.So how about we break from things like these and focus on what we all found when looking at our repsective prospects.

I would start but i'm not sure what you have in mind so i guess we'll follow your lead on this.

Well for the RLJ option, I think that's simple enough. I wrote that essay looking to see what the core evidence was. There are lots of these little details -- how long people were at the ToJ, whether Rhaegar were in love, Legit Jon etc -- which may be argued by some proponents of RLJ, but are not actually necessary to build the case for RLJ. Thus challenging these doesn't challenge RLJ as an answer to Jon's parentage. 

So far the only thing I recall reading in these wrap-up threads that actually challenges something in that RLJ essay rather than the side issues is the question of whether Lyanna's objection to Robert would mean she must also object to Rhaegar. Voice and I argued that one to death without either being able to budge the other's viewpoint on this one. However there is one unassailable defence against the charge. As we cannot exclude the rape possibility, or the changing of the mind possibility, Lyanna's opinions, whichever way you read them, cannot preclude RLJ.

I think there's a good reason why we're not getting any solid challenges to RLJ, and that's because whether it turns out to be true or not, it's a strong theory with lots going for it. If there was some solid blow that could be struck to make the theory less likely, someone would probably have found it long before now. 

Your Robert+Lyanna essay had a lot of meaty goodness that we've been able to really dig into, but I think when it comes to the timeline issue we have the fundamental division for RB+L. It requires a lot of revision from the apparent timeline, to the degree that most people just feel like we have to move too much around to make it work. I would be curious to see if it's possible to brainstorm an alternative timeline for RB+L that doesn't require Dany shenanigans and that uncomfortable age gap between Robb & Jon, but still works with your symbolic connections. I'm struggling to see how that would work myself, but on the other hand the fixed points we have for Robert's Rebellion are so damn shonky that I'd love to see that timeline compressed a bit.

At this point perhaps the most productive lines would be for S+L=J and AD+L=J. Both of these proved remarkably hard to dislodge in the individual essay threads, but both rely a lot on tidy symbolism rather than direct evidence. I think for both it would be a good exercise to consider how much that seems like evidence is incompatible/has to be ignored for these to work. Of course if anyone has any additional reasons FOR either case, that would be a great area of discussion too.  

 

[SFDanny]

8 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

I believe that most people I've heard discuss it would say that we don't know exactly how long they had been there. There is no reason to think that Rhaegar & Lyanna went straight there from the Riverlands and never left, but there's no reason to think they hadn't been there for a while at the point when Ned arrived, either.

I don't expect posters on this site to have read all 162 versions of the R+L=J threads, so I don't expect them to be familiar with the history of the debates in those threads or in the many, many threads posted on the Westeros site that touch in some way on this topic. Nor do I expect readers here to be aware of the ideas expressed on sites other than this one, some of which no longer exists. I can't claim to be an expert in this history of Martin's internet fans debates, but I have participated in the debates here, and a few other sites, since I joined the Westeros boards in 2007. That includes almost every R+L=J thread since version two. What I can say is that anyone who claims there is agreement among those who think R+L=J likely about almost any question outside of the general barebones of the theory that Jon is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark, just has no understanding of those debates. That includes any agreement on how long Rhaegar, Lyanna, or the Kingsguard are at the Tower of Joy before Ned arrives. It is silly to claim such an agreement exists. @wolfmaid7 I would suggest you look at the old threads before you make such claims.

[kimim]

11 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

"We're not going to explain ourselves"

ita, they're mostly refusing to answer Ned's question, but they do offer explanations: They are still loyal, and they "swore a vow."

In Storm, Jaime has a dream of the guard, including the three who died at the tower, coming at him for killing Aerys:

Quote

"He was your king," said Darry.

"You swore to keep him safe," said Whent.

Brienne tries to save Jaime for the same reason:

Quote

"I swore an oath to keep him safe," she said to Rhaegar's shade. "I swore a holy oath."

"We all swore oaths," said Ser Arthur Dayne, so sadly.

That Dayne says it "so sadly," is interesting. Maybe Dayne is sad because Brienne can't stand against them, and will fail to keep her vow. And then maybe he's sad because he, Hightower, and Whent failed the same way she will: They couldn't keep the king safe, because of a "vow."

Vows are problematic in asoiaf. Jaime: 

Quote

"So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other."

I think the three KG are caught the same way Jaime is. It sounds like some other vow, or an aspect of their primary vow as KG, made it impossible for them to save Rhaegar and Aerys. That makes the toj particularly sad for them: Not only did they fail to save their king because of an oath, but they also lost to Ned, making everything pointless.

Anyway, I think the exchange tells us something. Location of the knights is the least of it.

[Melifeather]

I'm quite familiar with the passages used to support the kingsguard at the tower of joy, I just don't believe the interpretations that others have put forward.

I agree that Ned is familiar with his fever dream. He knows the dream so well that he thinks about the three main elements while awake, however  he does compare real life to the dream at least twice. He thinks, "in the dream as it had been in life", but IMO the simple word "yet" indicates what wasn't the same in real life. He thinks, "yet these were no ordinary men", which to me means that while the men in the dream were the three kingsguard, in real life they were only ordinary.

Why make comparisons of "in the dram as it had been in life" between his men and the men in the dream and the three kingsguard if the elements were the same? Secondly, I think back on other passages that speak about how fewer men are needed to defend certain structures from attack especially if no one expected anyone to even be there. I think Ned was on his way to Starfall to return Arthur Dayne's sword, (which he came upon earlier in the rebellion) when he and his men encountered a surprise attack at the tower of joy. The three men being holdouts that did not know the rebellion was over, much like when Ramsay sent Theon to Moat Caillin to get the Ironborn to surrender. The men inside were weak, starving, sickly, and dying yet the Bolton's didn't try to attack as Moat Caillin could easily be held with very few men, and they were unsure of the condition of the men inside. Of course, this is just my interpretation just as there are many that belief the traditional explanation.

[J. Stargaryen]

33 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

He thinks, "yet these were no ordinary men", which to me means that while the men in the dream were the three kingsguard, in real life they were only ordinary.

What would be the point of that, narratively? How is the story served by Ned and his companions getting bum rushed by three nobodies? And if these men were so ordinary, how did the three of them manage to kill five of Ned's party?

[kimim]

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

Why make comparisons of "in the dram as it had been in life" between his men and the men in the dream and the three kingsguard if the elements were the same?

Probably to answer objections like yours. Martin is trying to make sure that the reader doesn't dismiss it as "just a dream," by having Ned note that it happened "in the dream as it had in life." Martin then has an awake Ned provide more evidence for the veracity of the dream: It was really seven vs three, Jorey's dad really died in the south, that the fight really happened in front of a tower, etc.

"Yet these were no ordinary men," is an indication that the situation is out of the ordinary, memorable. Ned meets three men in front of a tower, far away from the great battles of the rebellion. You'd think that these guys would be "ordinary men," but they turn out to be members of the KG. "Yet," implies that these guys shouldn't be there. They should have been at the Trident or at KL, doing what the KG are supposed to do: Guarding the king. Viserys, btw, is now the king. The surviving members of the KG should be on DS, protecting him. Yet here they are, in front of this tower. 

I think the reader is meant to ask "why are these knights here?" rather than conclude that "Ned's dream is false and they were three ordinary men after all."

 

[JNR]

19 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

There are four answers that amount to "We're not telling you anything". That's consistent.

That's the basic meaning, yes, but you really don't think there's anything subtler implied in any of those answers? Really?  For instance:

Quote

“Far away,” Ser Gerold said, “or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells.”

How do you explain the boldfaced?  Is this pure bluster ("we're such badasses") or is there something else? 

I think Hightower has a very particular idea in his head, and it's not very hard to guess what it was.

Similarly, I find this bit worth a thought also, because of what it reveals about the KG vow:

Quote

“I came down on Storm’s End to lift the siege,” Ned told them, “and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.”

Put yourself in Ned's head at that time, when he arrived at Storm's End. 

Ned knew perfectly well there were no Targaryens there.  He would have been sure, at that time, that the last two Targs (Rhaella and Viserys) were at Dragonstone.  

So how could he possibly have been certain the KG would be at Storm's End? 

The only way that makes sense is if Ned's concept of the KG vow is not the same as Team Protect's concept of the KG vow (which would force the KG to Dragonstone, to attend King Viserys, whether they liked it or not).  And I imagine Ned knew what he was talking about, but I'm not so sure about Team Protect.

 

[Kingmonkey]

36 minutes ago, JNR said:

That's the basic meaning, yes, but you really don't think there's anything subtler implied in any of those answers? Really?  For instance:

No, I don't "don't think" that. They aren't just refusing to tell him what they were doing for laughs. The fact that they were refusing to give substantive information about what they have been doing is clearly important. Each of the four "questions" covers a potential end-point for their job as Kingsguards. Protecting Rhaegar, protecting the king, protecting Viserys, fighting the war. They have given up on each of these tasks, yet for some reason they are continuing to defy Ned, continuing to fight. For them, the war isn't over, there is a duty that they are still performing, and it's a duty that even now, with all those end points passed, they are still not willing to reveal. The closest they come to explaining that is "we swore a vow", which of course is very unspecific. They swore a vow to protect the king, yet then they were "far away". The very fact of their refusal to answer is very telling.

36 minutes ago, JNR said:

How do you explain the boldfaced?  Is this pure bluster ("we're such badasses") or is there something else? 

Not quite pure bluster, it's more complicated than that. Are we supposed to believe that the 3KG believe they could have defeated Tywin's army? I don't think so. That 40,003 would have triumphed at the Trident when 40,000 failed? It's not even true that the KG "do not flee" -- we saw KG accompany heirs to the king into hiding in TPaTQ. 

Nor do I believe it's true that Ned went through this entire war wondering about the 3KG all the time. On the face of it, Ned's dialogue lacks questions, simply consisting of observations. That would be a very simplistic view of the dialogue though. Each of the four situations Ned remarks on are situations where it could be expected that the duties of a KG would demand the 3KG's presence, yet where they mysteriously did not attend. Each of the four statements from Ned are effectively questions, challenging the 3KG to explain why they did not do any of the things that honour and duty would seem to have demanded of them. 

In short, this dialogue is a dream. It shouldn't be taken literally -- it's what the dialogue indicates about the stance of the 3KG that's important. That right to the end, they claimed a duty that overrode their more obvious duties, and refused to explain what that duty was. 

The pattern of challenge and boast is something I discussed at length in the "Eddard in Wonderland" essay linked in my sig. There I note that the toj story follows a specific literary precedent, and that the challenge/boast dynamic is actually a common part of that literary precedent, right where you'd expect it to be. 

36 minutes ago, JNR said:

Ned knew perfectly well there were no Targaryens there.  He would have been sure, at that time, that the last two Targs (Rhaella and Viserys) were at Dragonstone.  

So how could he possibly have been certain the KG would be at Storm's End? 

The only way that makes sense is if Ned's concept of the KG vow is not the same as Team Protect's concept of the KG vow (which would force the KG to Dragonstone, to attend King Viserys, whether they liked it or not).  And I imagine Ned knew what he was talking about, but I'm not so sure about Team Protect.

It doesn't have to make sense, because it's not real, it's hyperbole. Ned is trying to provoke the 3KG into explaining themselves rather than reporting a genuine certainty that they were at Storm's End. It's verbal sparring, a ritualistic challenge to their honour. 

Ned appears to have known where the 3KG were, unless you believe that he stumbled upon them entirely by accident. He certainly acts unsurprised to have found them there, and seems to have aptly left his army behind to take only a small number of men -- a force that could act in secrecy. It's possible that he learned of the toj at Storm's End, but I'd say it seems more likely that he already knew about the toj when he went to Storm's End, and rushed there after lifting the siege.  It's a reasonable guess that he learned of it while at KL, and thus was in fact fairly certain that the 3KG would NOT be at Storm's End. 

[Ygrain]

5 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I agree that Ned is familiar with his fever dream.

I'd just like to point out that Ned had dreamt a dream about three knights in white cloaks, a tower long fallen and Lyanna in her bed of blood repeatedly, so it's not just fever-induced raving.

5 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

He knows the dream so well that he thinks about the three main elements while awake, however  he does compare real life to the dream at least twice. He thinks, "in the dream as it had been in life", but IMO the simple word "yet" indicates what wasn't the same in real life. He thinks, "yet these were no ordinary men", which to me means that while the men in the dream were the three kingsguard, in real life they were only ordinary.

Take a look at the context where the "yet" is placed. First we learn that Ned rode with his friends and we are given their names and characteristics. Then we learn they faced three men, and it is revealed that the three men were Kingsguard, and are given their names and descriptions. 

In other words, Ned and his friends, all seven of them normal, ordinary men, are facing three men and thus outnumbering the enemy, but those three men turn out to be Kingsguard, renowned warriors and living legends of their time. This is the contrast that the "yet" introduces. 

5 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Why make comparisons of "in the dram as it had been in life" between his men and the men in the dream and the three kingsguard if the elements were the same?

To aler the reader that the dream is not just for shits and giggles but based on a real event and that we should be paying attention?

5 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Secondly, I think back on other passages that speak about how fewer men are needed to defend certain structures from attack especially if no one expected anyone to even be there. I think Ned was on his way to Starfall to return Arthur Dayne's sword, (which he came upon earlier in the rebellion) when he and his men encountered a surprise attack at the tower of joy.

Pardon? You mean, Ned found Arthur's sword lying somewhere and then, while his sister was still missing, he decided to take a hundreds of miles long trip to personally return the sword?

Or did you mean that Ned came across Arthur earlier in the rebellion and that somehow, this combat was never taken into account during the whole time? And what about When and Hightower, where were they?

5 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

The three men being holdouts that did not know the rebellion was over, much like when Ramsay sent Theon to Moat Caillin to get the Ironborn to surrender. The men inside were weak, starving, sickly, and dying yet the Bolton's didn't try to attack as Moat Caillin could easily be held with very few men, and they were unsure of the condition of the men inside. Of course, this is just my interpretation just as there are many that belief the traditional explanation.

Except that we are not shown a scene of a traditional defence of a structure, with the defenders inside shooting or throwing stuff at the attackers. Plus, if this was the case, seven is not a number you need to siege and storm a structure, and the scene of such an attack doesn't really fit with a description of "seven against three", which by itself indicates a direct encounter, rather than a remnant of men holding a structure.

BTW, why do you suggest the men were defending ToJ at all? If Lyanna is in the tower in your scenario, then who were those men and how were they picked for the duty?  And if she wasn't there, why bother defend the tower at all, and why Ned bother to get involved at all?

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, JNR said:

Put yourself in Ned's head at that time, when he arrived at Storm's End. 

Ned knew perfectly well there were no Targaryens there.  He would have been sure, at that time, that the last two Targs (Rhaella and Viserys) were at Dragonstone.  

So how could he possibly have been certain the KG would be at Storm's End? 

The only way that makes sense is if Ned's concept of the KG vow is not the same as Team Protect's concept of the KG vow (which would force the KG to Dragonstone, to attend King Viserys, whether they liked it or not).  And I imagine Ned knew what he was talking about, but I'm not so sure about Team Protect.

You miss this important simple fact about the realities of the rebellion - there are two main loyalist armies in the field the rebels must defeat - the one under Rhaegar's command the rebels defeat at the Trident, which includes three of the Kingsguard. The other sits before Storm's End trying to force the surrender of one of the rebel's seats of power. That Ned would think he would encounter any or all of the remaining Kingsguard there makes perfect sense. The Kingsguard are not just bodyguards. They are also trusted servants of the crown who have important skills that Kings often make use of beyond their role as personal protectors. The White Bull commanded the Westerosi army in much of the War of the Ninepenny Kings, and Ser Arthur Dayne was given the task of winning the fight against the Kingswood Brotherhood. These men are skilled generals, not just bodyguards. It would make sense for Ned to expect any or all of them at Storm's End.

This debate between "Team Protect" vs. "Team Obey" (I hate those terms) was not a debate about what the three Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy believe is their duty. That was a debate over what the vows of the Kingsguard tell us that men loyal to their oaths would do. That debate was settled with Ser Barristan's confirmation of Jaime's lessons to his new Kingsguard. In A Dance with Dragons Selmy very clearly outlines the duties of the Kingsguard, and what is their first duty. There isn't any debate over this by any attentive reader anymore. The question is, instead of Obey vs Protect, what were the motives of the three men, Ser Arthur, Ser Oswell, and the Lord Commander, to do what they decided to do. Read the essays in my signature for what I think those motives were. In a short form, they purposefully decide to not fulfill what they know to be their first duty and send one of their number to Viserys.

2 hours ago, JNR said:

Put yourself in Ned's head at that time, when he arrived at Storm's End. 

Ned knew perfectly well there were no Targaryens there.  He would have been sure, at that time, that the last two Targs (Rhaella and Viserys) were at Dragonstone.  

So how could he possibly have been certain the KG would be at Storm's End? 

Because it would make sense to have skilled generals that Aerys would trust to do his bidding in command of the other main army of loyalists.

2 hours ago, JNR said:

The only way that makes sense is if Ned's concept of the KG vow is not the same as Team Protect's concept of the KG vow (which would force the KG to Dragonstone, to attend King Viserys, whether they liked it or not).  And I imagine Ned knew what he was talking about, but I'm not so sure about Team Protect.

You miss the obvious other answer - that the Kingsguard at the tower decided to do something other than what their oaths told them to do. And, just as important, that you are substituting what is Ned's understanding of what is the Kingsguard Oath with what Ned values in these three men. As I argue in my essay, it is not mindlessly following a order or an oath. It is willingly putting one's life on the line to do what is right. Like Ser Duncan before them, doing what's right doesn't always mean doing whatever a crazy king or prince tells you to do. Ned tells Cersei fifteen years later, when she asks him how he is different, "first, I don't kill children." That should tell you everything you need to know about Ned's value regarding following orders or oaths, and doing wrong by doing so. Ned admires these men because they sacrificed their lives to protect his sister, and perhaps her son, from him. It is one of the great tragedies of Ned's life that five of his best friends and these three men died because they thought him another Robert Baratheon or another Tywin Lannister. That's why these men's images burn so brightly fifteen years later in his dreams.

[Melifeather]

22 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

What would be the point of that, narratively? How is the story served by Ned and his companions getting bum rushed by three nobodies? And if these men were so ordinary, how did the three of them manage to kill five of Ned's party?

The point is that GRRM has purposely misdirected the reader in order to conceal his true story. There is an SSM where he describes disliking being able to guess where a story is going. He, as a reader, likes to be surprised and he wants to also surprise his readers. Furthermore his wife is on record as stating that GRRM doesn't do obvious. A fairy tale kidnapping with a prince and a maiden is a typical and obvious fantasy trope. Robert Baratheon either believed or wanted the realm to believe that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna in order to have a "just cause" to rise up in rebellion. The deaths of Rickard and Brandon were the gasoline dumped on the flame of the supposed kidnapping. Inserting the fever dream sequence of having three kingsguard at the tower of joy is a trap for some readers, and many have fallen into it.

Having the reality being something quite different makes the story "real" instead of fantasy. I can't claim that I know for sure what Ned knew or what he experienced, but I suspect he found his sister either on the way to White Harbor (the Fisherman's Daughter story) or after marrying Catelyn and on his way to the Trident, and I suspect Arthur Dayne was with her much like Darkstar was with Myrcella only the inversion. Darkstar attacked Myrcella, so I suspect Arthur helped Lyanna from an attack. Areo Hotah and some of Doran's men found Myrcella, Arianne, etc and brought everyone back to Sunspear. The inversion of Areo is likely someone that was one of Tywin's men (perhaps Illyn Payne), since I believe the Martells are mirroring the Lannister's. Since Myrcella was successfully brought to Sunspear, then Lyanna escaped being brought to Casterly Rock and brought to Ned, or maybe even to Howland Reed since Ned gives Howland credit for saving him from being killed by Arthur Dayne. I think there's a different, as yet unrevealed story here, and I expect that the reasons why Ned thinks so highly of Arthur is because he brought him his sister. I also believe Arthur Dayne is not truly dead, but he wants people to believe he is. That is why he had Ned return his sword to Starfall. 

The funny thing is, I don't believe Lyanna is Jon's mother. I think Lyanna died of a sword wound. Even funnier is that I think Jon is Ashara's son. If you recall she was "dishonored" by someone and had turned to Ned for help. Could it be that Jon really is Ned's son or Brandon's? 

 

21 hours ago, kimim said:

Probably to answer objections like yours. Martin is trying to make sure that the reader doesn't dismiss it as "just a dream," by having Ned note that it happened "in the dream as it had in life." Martin then has an awake Ned provide more evidence for the veracity of the dream: It was really seven vs three, Jorey's dad really died in the south, that the fight really happened in front of a tower, etc.

"Yet these were no ordinary men," is an indication that the situation is out of the ordinary, memorable. Ned meets three men in front of a tower, far away from the great battles of the rebellion. You'd think that these guys would be "ordinary men," but they turn out to be members of the KG. "Yet," implies that these guys shouldn't be there. They should have been at the Trident or at KL, doing what the KG are supposed to do: Guarding the king. Viserys, btw, is now the king. The surviving members of the KG should be on DS, protecting him. Yet here they are, in front of this tower. 

I think the reader is meant to ask "why are these knights here?" rather than conclude that "Ned's dream is false and they were three ordinary men after all."

 

Nah. I just cannot get behind this theory. Sorry. To each his/her own I guess.

16 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I'd just like to point out that Ned had dreamt a dream about three knights in white cloaks, a tower long fallen and Lyanna in her bed of blood repeatedly, so it's not just fever-induced raving.

Take a look at the context where the "yet" is placed. First we learn that Ned rode with his friends and we are given their names and characteristics. Then we learn they faced three men, and it is revealed that the three men were Kingsguard, and are given their names and descriptions. 

In other words, Ned and his friends, all seven of them normal, ordinary men, are facing three men and thus outnumbering the enemy, but those three men turn out to be Kingsguard, renowned warriors and living legends of their time. This is the contrast that the "yet" introduces. 

To aler the reader that the dream is not just for shits and giggles but based on a real event and that we should be paying attention?

Pardon? You mean, Ned found Arthur's sword lying somewhere and then, while his sister was still missing, he decided to take a hundreds of miles long trip to personally return the sword?

Or did you mean that Ned came across Arthur earlier in the rebellion and that somehow, this combat was never taken into account during the whole time? And what about When and Hightower, where were they?

Except that we are not shown a scene of a traditional defence of a structure, with the defenders inside shooting or throwing stuff at the attackers. Plus, if this was the case, seven is not a number you need to siege and storm a structure, and the scene of such an attack doesn't really fit with a description of "seven against three", which by itself indicates a direct encounter, rather than a remnant of men holding a structure.

BTW, why do you suggest the men were defending ToJ at all? If Lyanna is in the tower in your scenario, then who were those men and how were they picked for the duty?  And if she wasn't there, why bother defend the tower at all, and why Ned bother to get involved at all?

There's no need to do comparisons if the dream was the same as life. I just cannot accept any other interpretation on this. That's just my opinion.

As I described above I believe Ned met Arthur with Lyanna in tow and badly injured. Maybe even in hiding in some other tower closer to the riverlands, and I also think Arthur is still alive and in disguise as Lem Lemoncloak. I guess we all shall see when or if the next book ever comes out!

I think the men in the tower of joy did not know the rebellion was over, saw the Stark flag and waited until they were easy targets before making their presence known. A surprise attack could have killed many of Ned's men before they even got a chance to defend themselves. The tower of joy was in the Prince's Pass and just another structure to place soldiers in to defend the pass.

[Wrl6199]

Just now, Feather Crystal said:

The point is that GRRM has purposely misdirected the reader in order to conceal his true story. There is an SSM where he describes disliking being able to guess where a story is going. He, as a reader, likes to be surprised and he wants to also surprise his readers. Furthermore his wife is on record as stating that GRRM doesn't do obvious. A fairy tale kidnapping with a prince and a maiden is a typical and obvious fantasy trope. Robert Baratheon either believed or wanted the realm to believe that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna in order to have a "just cause" to rise up in rebellion. The deaths of Rickard and Brandon were the gasoline dumped on the flame of the supposed kidnapping. Inserting the fever dream sequence of having three kingsguard at the tower of joy is a trap for some readers, and many have fallen into it.

Having the reality being something quite different makes the story "real" instead of fantasy. I can't claim that I know for sure what Ned knew or what he experienced, but I suspect he found his sister either on the way to White Harbor (the Fisherman's Daughter story) or after marrying Catelyn and on his way to the Trident, and I suspect Arthur Dayne was with her much like Darkstar was with Myrcella only the inversion. Darkstar attacked Myrcella, so I suspect Arthur helped Lyanna from an attack. Areo Hotah and some of Doran's men found Myrcella, Arianne, etc and brought everyone back to Sunspear. The inversion of Areo is likely someone that was one of Tywin's men (perhaps Illyn Payne), since I believe the Martells are mirroring the Lannister's. Since Myrcella was successfully brought to Sunspear, then Lyanna escaped being brought to Casterly Rock and brought to Ned, or maybe even to Howland Reed since Ned gives Howland credit for saving him from being killed by Arthur Dayne. I think there's a different, as yet unrevealed story here, and I expect that the reasons why Ned thinks so highly of Arthur is because he brought him his sister. I also believe Arthur Dayne is not truly dead, but he wants people to believe he is. That is why he had Ned return his sword to Starfall. 

The funny thing is, I don't believe Lyanna is Jon's mother. I think Lyanna died of a sword wound. Even funnier is that I think Jon is Ashara's son. If you recall she was "dishonored" by someone and had turned to Ned for help. Could it be that Jon really is Ned's son or Brandon's? 

 

Nah. I just cannot get behind this theory. Sorry. To each his/her own I guess.

There's no need to do comparisons if the dream was the same as life. I just cannot accept any other interpretation on this. That's just my opinion.

As I described above I believe Ned met Arthur with Lyanna in tow and badly injured. Maybe even in hiding in some other tower closer to the riverlands, and I also think Arthur is still alive and in disguise as Lem Lemoncloak. I guess we all shall see when or if the next ever comes out!

I think the men in the tower of joy did not know the rebellion was over, saw the Stark flag and waited until they were easy targets before making their presence known. A surprise attack could have killed many of Ned's men before they even got a chance to defend themselves. The tower of joy was in the Prince's Pass and just another structure to place soldiers in to defend the pass.

Thais what Cersei said in the first book.

[maudisdottir]

Quote

They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it has been in life. Yet these were no ordinary three.

"these were no ordinary three" - i.e., a fight with 7 against 3 is no contest, right?  Game over, Ned + 6 wins hands down.  "Yet these were no ordinary three" - so it's not a 7v3 walkover, because these 3 weren't like any other 3.  How could they be, if 2 of them killed 5 of Ned's friends?

[Ygrain]

12 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I suspect Arthur Dayne was with her much like Darkstar was with Myrcella only the inversion. Darkstar attacked Myrcella, so I suspect Arthur helped Lyanna from an attack. Areo Hotah and some of Doran's men found Myrcella, Arianne, etc and brought everyone back to Sunspear. The inversion of Areo is likely someone that was one of Tywin's men (perhaps Illyn Payne), since I believe the Martells are mirroring the Lannister's. Since Myrcella was successfully brought to Sunspear, then Lyanna escaped being brought to Casterly Rock and brought to Ned, or maybe even to Howland Reed since Ned gives Howland credit for saving him from being killed by Arthur Dayne.

Except that your unrevealed story should have some hints by now, five books into the series. Yet there is zero account of Lannisters involved in Lyanna's disappearance whatsoever.

Really, you are taking the concept of inversions too far. GRRM does use various parallels, inverted or not, but to base whole theories on the concept instead of on what is actually stated in the text is inherently wrong.

12 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

There's no need to do comparisons if the dream was the same as life.

Of course it is necessary to draw a comparison - how else would we learn that the dream is based on a real-life event and not some figment of feverish imagination?

12 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I just cannot accept any other interpretation on this. That's just my opinion.ůyet

You cannot? You mean, you do not see a contrast between an ordinary warrior and Kingsguard? Or do you posit that the contrastive "yet" cannot be used in this particular instance? That's a rather peculiar thing to claim.

12 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

A fairy tale kidnapping with a prince and a maiden is a typical and obvious fantasy trope.

So it is not a trope if they eloped, right? Nor does the prince already have a wife and kids in fairy tales, right?

12 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Robert Baratheon either believed or wanted the realm to believe that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna in order to have a "just cause" to rise up in rebellion.

Oh, come on. The guy rising in rebellion first was Jon Arryn, not Robert, and the reason was not Lyanna but Robet keeping his stupid head on his shoulders.