R+L=J v.163

[LmL]

Oh yes absolutely this is great analysis here. Jon dreams of a burning red sword and some sort of weird magical ice armor - nothing more to see here, clearly. 

And while we're taking vague, passive aggressive shots at people, you know what I find "amusing?" When people ignore arguments and evidence which cuts against their preferred interpretation. That always "amuses" me. 

In my opinion, George is pretty much always spinning more than one plate. Many of the interpretations here are not mutually exclusive. In particular, it makes a lot of sense that he would be working in a general theme like Jon's acceptance of manning the Nights Watch alongside more symbolic and magical clues, alongside foreshadowing. The one does not exclude the other - and in fact from what I've seen of Martin's writing, there's usually something of both going on.

[Black Crow]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are prophetic dreams in that story and then there are normal dreams there. A lot of the dreams some people want to shoehorn into the former category work much better in the latter.

Especially Jon's dreams don't seem to me very prophetic. A lot of people think his dreams of Winterfell and the crypts mean something deeper when a normal psychological interpretation of them makes much more sense.

Indeed, and I don't understand where I'm being dragged into a controversy about red swords.

Jon has constantly been told as he's grown up that he's not a Stark, even by his bested friend Robb, so its perfectly natural that when something calls him into the crypts he should find the dead telling him he's no Stark. As to what's calling him, my impression has always been that its something to do with those dead kings and what lies deeper in the crypts, rather than a homing beacon in Lyanna Stark's tomb.

[Ygrain]

5 hours ago, Black Crow said:

its something to do with those dead kings and what lies deeper in the crypts

Yeah, and that's not prophetic at all, sure.

[Frey family reunion]

6 hours ago, LmL said:

Oh yes absolutely this is great analysis here. Jon dreams of a burning red sword and some sort of weird magical ice armor - nothing more to see here, clearly. 

And while we're taking vague, passive aggressive shots at people, you know what I find "amusing?" When people ignore arguments and evidence which cuts against their preferred interpretation. That always "amuses" me. 

In my opinion, George is pretty much always spinning more than one plate. Many of the interpretations here are not mutually exclusive. In particular, it makes a lot of sense that he would be working in a general theme like Jon's acceptance of manning the Nights Watch alongside more symbolic and magical clues, alongside foreshadowing. The one does not exclude the other - and in fact from what I've seen of Martin's writing, there's usually something of both going on.

It wasn't meant as an attack, just an observation.  I mean, everyone on this board is guilty of this to a degree (and if you've ever read any of my theories then you know I'm more guilty than most), but it is funny to see it so explicitly played out in this thread, where the same dream so neatly dovetails into very different theories.

But I'll admit, I do cringe a bit when every black and red symbol surrounding Jon is turned into a Targaryen flag hanging over Jon's head.  Especially since there is a more immediate Black/Red crisis plaguing Jon at the moment.  Jon has a very real issue of balancing his oath and loyalty to his black brothers and icy wall, with the promise of aid that the newly arriving followers of a Red God have brought.  And add the temptation of Winterfell, Jon's darkest desire, on top, and what I think Martin is exploring are the forces that are tugging at Jon's soul.

And if Jon is to be resurrected as most assume, it may very well be a Red Witch that brings him back, which could again bring into conflict his oaths to the Black, versus the power from the Red.

And I really don't have a dog in this fight.  My personal theory is that Jon does have a Targaryen parentage, just not the Targaryen that most assume.  But even if Rhaegar is a father it still begs the question as to whether that Targaryen bloodline would be any more significant for Jon than his Stark, or Blackwood, or even Dornish bloodlines that this would entail.  (Especially if it turns out that Jon is indeed a Corn King as opposed to one who gets to sit upon an ugly, throne of swords).

[Ygrain]

6 hours ago, LmL said:

you know what I find "amusing?" When people ignore arguments and evidence which cuts against their preferred interpretation. That always "amuses" me

Well, my personal favourite would be when people applaud others on all kinds of tangential interpretations of vaguest connections as long as they are not RLJ but refuse to acknowledge at least a possibility of a RLJ interpretation.

Won't make the mistake of taking certain people off the ignore list again.

[LmL]

17 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

It wasn't meant as an attack, just an observation.  I mean, everyone on this board is guilty of this to a degree (and if you've ever read any of my theories then you know I'm more guilty than most), but it is funny to see it so explicitly played out in this thread, where the same dream so neatly dovetails into very different theories.

I agree with that part of your statement, and actually I don't think there's a problem with people approaching things from different perspectives based on their own line of research. I think that's good - you kind of have to test out a hypothesis in order to solve a puzzle. By definition, that involves taking your hypothesis and seeing if it measures up when it is tested out, and for this book that means taking the hypothesis and applying it to different scenes that are talking about the relevant subject matter.

I think I object to the term shoehorning, but really what I object to is the " a spade is just a spade" analysis of a book so thoroughly riddled with riddles and plots and subplots and symbolism and mysteries and all the rest. I understand that everyone approaches literary analysis with their own biases and worldview as a starting point, that's unavoidable - and what's happening is that many people who are very literal, skeptical, and critically minded ( in the rigorous scientific sort of way) in the real world are taking that same sort of analysis into a fantasy novel. Skepticism and rationalism is well and good in the real world,  but I don't think this makes much sense when we are analyzing a fantasy novel which definitely does have magic and symbolism.

Most of the people here on the board, even people who disagree vehemently about many things, can agree that George RR Martin's writing is full of symbolism and double meanings. Most people have caught on to the fact that many characters , chpters, and scenes seem to parallel each other, or parallel each other in an inverted way. Clearly, we are meant to think more deeply about all of this, and sometimes I run out of patience for people who just dismiss any sort of analysis which begins to sound "too complex" or "too clever" for the safety of the safe , simple conclusion. That's why I always try to stress that these different levels of interpretation are not mutually exclusive. I think most of the ideas suggested hear about this dream and Jon's identity issues in regards to the Nights Watch are good ideas, and I don't think they are at odds at all with the more magical interpretations that myself or @Sly Wren or anyone else is reading into this dream.

I mean yes, this dream is mostly explainable as a product of Jon's subconscious. People have been talking about flaming swords all around him, he's the Lord commander of the Night's Watch who was thinking very much about defending the wall and being invaded from the north. His inner turmoil with his relationships with Rob and Ygritte are clearly played out in the dream. That's all very good analysis, and Martin certainly intends the dream to be able to be understood in this sense. But that does not in any way preclude the idea that all the symbols and actions in that dream have deeper meaning that we as the reader are supposed to ponder and suss out. When people act like those two things are at odds... That's what I find frustrating.

Like I said, there's a burning red sword and burning scarecrow Night's Watch Brothers (the Scarecrow itself is a rich and important symbol worth pondering) in that dream, as well as the much-debated Black Ice armor. I don't have a problem with people interpreting these various symbols in various ways or disagree with my interpretation, and I don't think anyone else really has a problem with that sort of disagreement either. It's just the idea that we're not supposed to look for deeper meaning and symbols like this - I mean a flaming sword for crying out loud - that's when I start to shake my head, you know? 

This dream in particular I feel it is perhaps one of the most important in the whole series, as a matter of fact. That's really what I chimed in on the matter - it's near and dear to my heart. Not only for the black ice armor and the burning scarecrow Brothers and the burning red sword... But also because he's imitating the actions of The Last Hero, Azor Ahai, and the Bloodstone Emperor, all at the same time, which I find to be highly significant.

17 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

But I'll admit, I do cringe a bit when every black and red symbol surrounding Jon is turned into a Targaryen flag hanging over Jon's head.  Especially since there is a more immediate Black/Red crisis plaguing Jon at the moment.  Jon has a very real issue of balancing his oath and loyalty to his black brothers and icy wall, with the promise of aid that the newly arriving followers of a Red God have brought.  And add the temptation of Winterfell, Jon's darkest desire, on top, and what I think Martin is exploring are the forces that are tugging at Jon's soul.

And if Jon is to be resurrected as most assume, it may very well be a Red Witch that brings him back, which could again bring into conflict his oaths to the Black, versus the power from the Red.

All very interesting thoughts. I would actually suggest that the watch and Melisandre are not at odds at all - at least not the classic role of the watch. If you think about it, they are both primarily concerned with fighting the others. I understand the squeamishness about blood magick and human sacrifice - I'm definitely of the opinion that these things are wrong and will not be justified to save the day or anything else. But the Nights Watch is fundamentally about fighting the others with fire, and not just the natural kind of fire.

As for interpreting every bit of red and black symbolism as necessarily referring to Targaryens, I take your point. Color symbolism is about as subjective as it comes, which is why I'm always very cautious about it. However, like you I don't really have a stake in the RLJ thing. It's not really the main thing I write about, and I don't spend any time really debating it. The way I am looking at the red and black stuff is actually a bit different - I see the red and black symbolism of Jon and the red and black Targaryen colors and the red and black coloring of Oathkeeper as all playing into a larger encompassing theme, one going back to Azor Ahai and the original Long Night. In my opinion, AA reborn is joined at the hip with Dragons, people who have the blood of the dragon, and flaming swords. I don't see any separation between those things. If Jon's going to wield a flaming sword and be some kind of AA reborn, then in my opinion (based on my analysis of symbolism in other words) he will also be a dragon blooded person. 

17 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

And I really don't have a dog in this fight.  My personal theory is that Jon does have a Targaryen parentage, just not the Targaryen that most assume.  But even if Rhaegar is a father it still begs the question as to whether that Targaryen bloodline would be any more significant for Jon than his Stark, or Blackwood, or even Dornish bloodlines that this would entail.  (Especially if it turns out that Jon is indeed a Corn King as opposed to one who gets to sit upon an ugly, throne of swords).

I definitely think Jon's destiny is not to sit the throne, but rather to play the Corn King roll. He's already got a good start, dying just as the winter comes on. His resurrection will no doubt help to bring the spring, as corn kings do. 

I always make the case that the Bloodlines are important for magical reasons, not reasons of lineage and inheritance. Jon needs the blood of dragons and skinchangers so he can do some magical shit, imo.

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Indeed, and I don't understand where I'm being dragged into a controversy about red swords.

Jon has constantly been told as he's grown up that he's not a Stark, even by his bested friend Robb, so its perfectly natural that when something calls him into the crypts he should find the dead telling him he's no Stark. As to what's calling him, my impression has always been that its something to do with those dead kings and what lies deeper in the crypts, rather than a homing beacon in Lyanna Stark's tomb.

It could be connected to the dreams Bran and Rickon both had of the crypts and of Ned being there and telling them stuff when he died. In reality the deeper you go into the crypts the closer you get to the newer tombs (at least if you are on the level where the Lyanna, Brandon, and Rickard are). Thus Jon wouldn't find anything old if he would pass Lyanna's tomb and go 'deeper' into the crypts.

[cgrav]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It could be connected to the dreams Bran and Rickon both had of the crypts and of Ned being there and telling them stuff when he died. In reality the deeper you go into the crypts the closer you get to the newer tombs (at least if you are on the level where the Lyanna, Brandon, and Rickard are). Thus Jon wouldn't find anything old if he would pass Lyanna's tomb and go 'deeper' into the crypts.

Winterfell's crypts are actually depicted as getting older as they get deeper, little sense as that makes in a real crypt.

 

Quote

The vault was cavernous, longer than Winterfell itself, and Jon had told him once that there were other levels underneath, vaults even deeper and darker where the older kings were buried.

GoT Bran VII 

And old Targ king was rumored to have put dragon's eggs down in the lowest level of the crypt, next to a hot spring. Maybe that's what's calling Jon? I mean going down into a crypt is rife with symbolism otherwise, but there's definitely some dragony stuff going on down there.

I guess the depth/age of a crypt is something GRRM could have overlooked when writing, but given the attention to detail everywhere else, I'd suggest it's meant to be unusual. There is a hot spring, and we know Starks have this secret fire thing going on, so it's entirely possible they dug down to it first and then decided to put their dead in it. It's also been speculated that caves lead into the lowest level, so maybe it was dug up.

[Lord Varys]

13 minutes ago, cgrav said:

Winterfell's crypts are actually depicted as getting older as they get deeper, little sense as that makes in a real crypt.

Sure, that's not in doubt - although it is a retcon done in ACoK. In AGoT it is made clear that the tombs began where Ned and Robert entered them, and then they proceeded to the newest tombs of Ned's family behind which lie the yet empty tombs of future Stark generations.

It would depend on what level Jon finds himself in in his dream, and that's never specified. You cannot reach the more ancient tombs from the level Lyanna's tomb is in.

13 minutes ago, cgrav said:

And old Targ king was rumored to have put dragon's eggs down in the lowest level of the crypt, next to a hot spring. 

That wasn't a king but Vermax, the dragon of Prince Jacaerys Velaryon. At least that's how the rumor goes.

13 minutes ago, cgrav said:

I guess the depth/age of a crypt is something GRRM could have been overlooked when writing, but given the attention to detail everywhere else, I'd suggest it's meant to be unusual. There is a hot spring, and we know Starks have this secret fire thing going on, so it's entirely possible they dug down to it first and then decided to put their dead in it. It's also been speculated that caves lead into the lowest level, so maybe it was dug up?

As long as the crypts aren't explored by somebody we can't know. Yet it is odd that the children should never have explored them considering they were down there quite often. I certainly would have looked at the most ancient tombs I could find if I had been Jon or Robb.

[Black Crow]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It could be connected to the dreams Bran and Rickon both had of the crypts and of Ned being there and telling them stuff when he died. In reality the deeper you go into the crypts the closer you get to the newer tombs (at least if you are on the level where the Lyanna, Brandon, and Rickard are). Thus Jon wouldn't find anything old if he would pass Lyanna's tomb and go 'deeper' into the crypts.

I'm talking about deeper as in lower down rather than further in. The story of the older kings being buried in the lower levels doesn't make a lot of sense if we're talking about conventional crypts, but if you come over to Heresy you'll find that we are currently taking an in-depth [sorry] look at Winterfell and its mysteries.

[J. Stargaryen]

On 12/21/2016 at 8:54 AM, Sly Wren said:

Very likely--though no other Targ seems to have decided to do this.

Are you sure, or is it that we don't have descriptions of many other Targaryen knights? I'm pretty sure that variations of Rhaegar's design are used in the graphic novel version of THK.

Quote

And, as I said above. given the context of "black ice" and the wording of the Night's Watch vows "I ams"--seems like Jon's seeing himself in black ice is at least as likely if not more so to refer to the Wall, not to Rhaegar.

I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. After all, the phrase "all in black" is only used when describing brothers of the NW or Rhaegar in his armor. There is one kinda-sorta exception, where someone or something is described as "all in black" and then immediately compared to a brother of the NW.

Quote

Right--but none of that stops Jon's longing for the name and the sword. . . .he only says that because he feels like he'd be usurping Robb. That seems like a much more straightforward reading. I'm all for clever, but Schmedrick's idea seems a bit much.

Schmendrick's idea seems a lot more straightforward to me than many of yours.

Quote

Well, Jon's a Stark despite being a bastard. Ghost alone proves that--in the eyes of the old gods, he's clearly Stark enough for that Stark symbol. And despite all of the problem with the Bael Tale, it does strongly suggest that the Starks at some point were willing to choose a bastard as their leader.

So far, we've no idea how the Daynes choose their "worthy Dayne"--they, like Starks, might be just fine with bastards under the right circumstances. (WE NEED THE NEXT BOOK!!!!!)

And House Dayne vastly predates the concept of knighthood, so seems like there's a good chance the knighthood isn't an innate obstacle.

Fair point on the knights, but the Stark/Bael tale doesn't tell us anything about the Daynes.

Quote

But then this reiterates my point: so far, Jon has no Targ specific traits. His tie to Rhaegar is through the common story that Rhaegar took Lyanna--since Jon is tied to Starks and narratively to Lyanna (Kingmonkey's essay showed this extremely well).

And again, there's a very good reason for this.

ETA: This is the only way the mystery could be worked into the story. You can show, and even emphasize, Jon's Starkiness because those traits can be attributed to Ned, and the mystery remains safe. But if you show Jon as possessing Targaryen traits, the game is over.

Quote

But symbolically, Jon's all Starks and swords and Night's Watching. And a vision of the Sword of the Morning. So, if we go by what Jon is learning and seeing, he's not showing any Targ-ness. He's showing Stark and some Dayne.

There's more to being a Targaryen than just dragons. Some of them were good leaders, some were good fighters. Rhaegar didn't have a special sword or a dragon.

[maudisdottir]

On 12/22/2016 at 1:02 PM, Sly Wren said:

Plus, Jon sees the Sword of the Morning over the Wall as the dawn transforms the dark world into color and life. Dawn as transformative and bringing color and life back into the world. And with Jon seeing the Sword over the Wall, 

 

On 12/27/2016 at 3:47 AM, Sly Wren said:

Maybe--but again: in the context of that novel and in context with the Others in the Game Prologue, and Jon's seeing the Sword of the Morning with the Wall, 

 

 

On 12/27/2016 at 3:57 AM, Sly Wren said:

So, just like the Wall and the Sword of the Morning are tied together in Jon's semi-epiphany, seems like the Wall (black ice) and the burning light (as Jon sees the sunlight turning the Wall to rivers of fire) are tied together. 

 

 

On 12/27/2016 at 4:51 AM, Sly Wren said:

And Jon in Storm sees a very specific sword as associated with the Wall--the Sword of the Morning. 

[...]

But his tie to the Wall? Clear. What he sees light do to the Wall? Comes right before his dream. And the tie between the Sword of the Morning and the Wall? No clear tie to Rhaegar--but a very clear tie to the Daynes and the Starks.

Jon mentions the Sword of the Morning twice in the entire series:

Quote

So many stars, he thought as he trudged up the slope through pines and firs and ash. Master Luwin had taught him his stars as a boy in Winterfell; he had learned the names of the twelve houses of heaven and the rulers of each; he could find the seven wanderers sacred to the Faith; he was old friends with the Ice Dragon, the Shadowcat, the Moonmaid, and the Sword of the Morning.

He then says that Ygritte and the Wildings gave them different names, and therefore had different interpretations of what the stars represented.  He goes off and jokes with Ghost about what the wolf might call the stars (and by the way, Ghost's eyes appear to turn from red to black).

The second mention is in the next chapter:

Quote

The Sword of the Morning still hung in the south, the bright white star in its hilt blazing like a diamond in the dawn, but the blacks and greys of the darkling forest were turning once again to greens and golds, reds and russets.  And above the solder pines and oaks and ash and sentinels stood the Wall, the ice pale and glimmering beneath the dust and dirt that pocked its surface.

So I'm really not seeing where Jon ties the Sword of the Morning with the Wall, or why you continue to use this as some sort of connection between Jon and the Daynes - if anything, it's the trees he associates with the Wall, and the reason he talks about the star again in the next chapter is because it's morning.  The morning star, still there in the morning - mind blown.  Not.

This argument is becoming like "blue roses are a symbol of deception and Rhaegar meant to dishonour Lyanna and the Starks" because the Blue Bard smelled like rosewater and Cersei joked to herself that the roses were probably blue, yet you continued to say "and the Blue Bard is associated with blue roses" when he never was.

[Sly Wren]

On December 26, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Ygrain said:

Is GRRM somehow supposed to be limited in writing the content of dreams to what the characters are seeing and learning? What was it that Jon had seen that compelled him to go down into the crypts in his dreams?

Not limited--just assuming that since he's writing novels and characters in context that the context of the characters matters?

As for the crypt dream: Jon only goes further that he ever did the night they find the wight. And he sees the kings stumbling out of their tombs. I very much think that's all related.

 

On December 26, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Ygrain said:

You're really trying too hard to discount anything that might relate Jon to Targaryens to build a convincing case.

No--just trying to see if the lists of things/symbols people have come up with to ties Jon to the Targs actually holds up.

On December 26, 2016 at 2:03 PM, LmL said:

Except that Jon dreams of wielding a flaming red sword, which is right at the heart of the Lightbringer / Azor Ahai reborn fable. SO while this kind of magic may terrify him, it may nevertheless be a part of his destiny. 

Very true--but Jon's being one who will wield a burning red sword in no way requires Jon to be a Targ. Not yet, anyway. We've no idea if Rhaegar was right about any of that or not.

Especially since the Long Night vastly predates them.

On December 26, 2016 at 2:03 PM, LmL said:

I definitely think the books make it clear that ice can burn - nothing burns like the cold. It's just that in this scene, it is specifically black ice turning to red fire, with no Dawn symbolism to be seen anywhere. So again I would say that black ice and red fire are being paired together, something that cannot be overlooked. 

No--no dawn symbolism. But sunlight transforming the ice? Absolutely. 

And yes, the burning red sword and the black ice go together. But Jon never sees the sword as on fire (like Thoros' sword). So, it could be burning just like the Wall is under the sunset. Would even make sense, given what he's seen.

On December 26, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Voice said:

Dawn always burns red. We see the proof of that every morning of every day. And I don't find it all that big a leap to suggest that the icy longsword of House Dayne received its name because it ended some long night. 

YUP! 

On December 26, 2016 at 2:03 PM, LmL said:

I don't disagree - Jon covet's Ned's sword, not a black steel, certainly. He wants his father's sword. But that doesn't cut against my argument, which is simply that his father's sword - the one he wants - is the black ice sword which now also incorporates the black and red color scheme and the idea flame

Right--but it only does so after being broken and colored and "defiled." It's not "his father's sword" any more. And he can't win it and get his father's name from his father any more.

And as far as we've seen, Valyrian steel does not "burn red." We've seen the Others' swords gleam blue. We've seen Dawn alive with light. We've seen the Wall even burn with red fire. But Oathkeeper even drinks light in, not burns it out. Not matching a "blade burning red in his fist"--at least not based on anything we've seen so far.

On December 26, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Voice said:

Mayhaps. Jon isn't exactly humble or meek when wielding his fiery dream-blade though. He claims to be the lord of Winterfell, and cuts off Robb's head. 

Fair point. Though at least Jon is horrified at the thought of fighting his brother for power--a feeling that we've no idea the Night's King shared.

On December 26, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Voice said:

But yes, he is guarding the Wall, and thus, protecting Winterfell's godswood which of course lies just to the south of it. That he is doing this, rather than giving his seed and soul to a moon woman or enslaving his brothers with sorcery, is definitely reassuring.   

Yup!

[Sly Wren]

On December 27, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Frey family reunion said:

I find it amusing that everyone's interpretation of Jon's dream lines up so nicely with their already formed opinion as to Jon's origin.  This really is the Sealord's cat in action, everyone sees what they want to see.

HA! Absolutely. Lots of room for interp.

Though that lends to my point re: Jon's "Targ symbolism" being highly equivocal at present.

On December 27, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Voice said:

Hey! I resemble that remark!

We all resemble that remark.

[Sly Wren]

On December 29, 2016 at 2:13 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. After all, the phrase "all in black" is only used when describing brothers of the NW or Rhaegar in his armor. There is one kinda-sorta exception, where someone or something is described as "all in black" and then immediately compared to a brother of the NW.

Interesting--brings me again to wonder why Rhaegar chose that armor. . . . Especially since the KG are based on the NW. (KG with their "snowy" cloaks).

On December 29, 2016 at 2:13 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

Are you sure, or is it that we don't have descriptions of many other Targaryen knights? I'm pretty sure that variations of Rhaegar's design are used in the graphic novel version of THK.

Ah! Fair point--I couldn't find anything in any searches--but I'm happy to be corrected. 

On December 29, 2016 at 2:13 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

Fair point on the knights, but the Stark/Bael tale doesn't tell us anything about the Daynes.

Very true. This is one of the parts that supports Lyanna's child being the child of her kidnapper/father's enemy/ the guy using her as political capital. But it pushes hard against any idea of romance.

On December 29, 2016 at 2:13 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

And again, there's a very good reason for this.

ETA: This is the only way the mystery could be worked into the story. You can show, and even emphasize, Jon's Starkiness because those traits can be attributed to Ned, and the mystery remains safe. But if you show Jon as possessing Targaryen traits, the game is over.

Which brings us all back to the question I'm muddling with: is Martin having Jon be a complete Targ sleeper agent, or is he showing us, by showing the difference between a known Targ (Dany) and a suspected Targ (Jon) that Jon really isn't Targ-like at all?

No way to know until we get the next books or SSMs, but seems likely that Martin's been giving us info all along.

On December 29, 2016 at 2:13 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

There's more to being a Targaryen than just dragons. Some of them were good leaders, some were good fighters. Rhaegar didn't have a special sword or a dragon.

Absolutely--but none of those traits is specific to Targs. Dragon dreams and dragons are--now that Valyria is gone. Leadership, self-sacrifice, focus on a brotherhood, swordsmanship, desire to protect the small folk and negotiating on their behalf with a "king" --those qualities belong very, very well with Arthur.

Not exclusive there, either.

Though Arthur's negotiation with and treatment the small folk to gain their loyalty over the Kingswood Brotherhood has potentially tantalizing parallels with Jon.

7 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

Jon mentions the Sword of the Morning twice in the entire series:

He then says that Ygritte and the Wildings gave them different names, and therefore had different interpretations of what the stars represented.  He goes off and jokes with Ghost about what the wolf might call the stars (and by the way, Ghost's eyes appear to turn from red to black).

The second mention is in the next chapter:

So I'm really not seeing where Jon ties the Sword of the Morning with the Wall, or why you continue to use this as some sort of connection between Jon and the Daynes - if anything, it's the trees he associates with the Wall, and the reason he talks about the star again in the next chapter is because it's morning.  The morning star, still there in the morning - mind blown.  Not.

HA! On the bolded--all fair.

You are right--he only mentions it in those two consecutive (for Jon) POV chapters. The first time? He's wondering "who am I" and thinking that he's not sure--using the stars as part of the questioning. Then it gets worse--he has to send Ghost away, is thinking about Ygritte, about breaking his vows. Then has to tell the Magnar more than he ever intended to tell. Then breaks down and confesses his love for Ygrite. . . then the chapter ends.

After all that despair, at the start of Jon's next POV chapter, he comes out of the cave--doesn't hide as Ygritte said they should. No--he comes out and "allowed himself to hope." Looks back at the east (where he sent Ghost in the previous chapter--"east, east into the sun") and now sees no confusion of stars with their multiple variants of names. Now, only the Sword of the Morning is there. It shines in the dawn--bringing light and life and color back into the world.

That context--plus Jon's longing for the "true greatsword" of his father and his "ice is magic at dawn" moment outside of Craster's in Clash--that context is what ties Jon to the Sword of the Morning.

Quote

This argument is becoming like "blue roses are a symbol of deception and Rhaegar meant to dishonour Lyanna and the Starks" because the Blue Bard smelled like rosewater and Cersei joked to herself that the roses were probably blue, yet you continued to say "and the Blue Bard is associated with blue roses" when he never was.

Wait--if Cersei explicitly thinks he might be scented with blue roses, and blue roses really matter in these novels, readers aren't supposed to note that?

As for the treachery--the Bael Tale makes that clear entirely on its own. The Blue Bard (whose sole purpose seems to be symbolic--why on earth else have a Blue Man outside of Vegas?) incident only supports that context.

[maudisdottir]

4 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Wait--if Cersei explicitly thinks he might be scented with blue roses, and blue roses really matter in these novels, readers aren't supposed to note that?

As for the treachery--the Bael Tale makes that clear entirely on its own. The Blue Bard (whose sole purpose seems to be symbolic--why on earth else have a Blue Man outside of Vegas?) incident only supports that context.

Well no, actually, not to the extent you seem to think it's important.  If we were supposed to associate him with blue roses, why not make him wear an actual blue rose?  Or even a rose emblem, something indicating blue roses.  Instead, one of the bitchiest, most cynical POV characters thinks - she doesn't even say it aloud - that he washed his hair in rosewater "from blue roses, no doubt".  This is a very tenuous link for the readers to associate Blue Bard = blue roses = treachery.

And yes, Bael deceived the Lord of Winterfell, and used the blue rose as a kind of "fuck you" to Lord Stark.  But even so, Lord Stark's daughter loved Bael (even 30 years later) and Lyanna may have loved Rhaegar.  She certainly hung onto that blue rose crown for a long time, considering they were such a symbol of treachery.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 29-12-2016 at 10:13 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

Are you sure, or is it that we don't have descriptions of many other Targaryen knights? I'm pretty sure that variations of Rhaegar's design are used in the graphic novel version of THK.

 

17 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Ah! Fair point--I couldn't find anything in any searches--but I'm happy to be corrected. 

If it helps, Valarr Targaryen's armor is described on two occasions:

The last pavilion was Prince Valarr's. Of black silk it was, with a line of pointed scarlet pennons hanging from its roof like long red flames. The shield on its stand was glossy black, emblazoned with the three-headed dragon of House Targaryen. One of the Kingsguard knights stood beside it, his shining white armor stark against the black of the tentcloth. Seeing him there, Dunk wondered whether any of the challengers would dare to touch the dragon shield. Valarr was the king's grandson, after all, and son to Baelor Breakspear.

[...]

At the north end of the field, squires held brightly barded destriers for the champions to mount. They donned their helms and took up lance and shield, in splendor the equal of their foes: the Ashfords' billowing orange silks, Ser Humfrey's red-and-white diamonds, Lord Leo on his white charger with green satin trappings patterned with golden roses, and of course Valarr Targaryen. The Young Prince's horse was black as night, to match the color of his armor, lance, shield, and trappings. Atop his helm was a gleaming three-headed dragon, wings spread, enameled in a rich red; its twin was painted upon the glossy black surface of his shield. Each of the defenders had a wisp of orange silk knotted about an arm; a favor bestowed by the fair maid.

and

A black stallion emerged from out of the river mists, a black knight on his back. Dunk saw the dragon shield, and the red enamel crest upon his helm with its three roaring heads. The Young Prince. Gods be good, it is truly him?

 

While Aemond Targaryen's armor is described once

On the fourteenth day of the prince’s vigil, a shadow swept over the castle, blacker than any passing cloud. All the birds in the godswood took to the air in fright, and a hot wind whipped the fallen leaves across the yard. Vhagar had come at last, and on her back rode the one-eyed prince Aemond Targaryen, clad in night-black armor chased with gold.

 

[Black Crow]

42 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

 

If it helps, Valarr Targaryen's armor is described on two occasions:

The last pavilion was Prince Valarr's. Of black silk it was, with a line of pointed scarlet pennons hanging from its roof like long red flames. The shield on its stand was glossy black, emblazoned with the three-headed dragon of House Targaryen. One of the Kingsguard knights stood beside it, his shining white armor stark against the black of the tentcloth. Seeing him there, Dunk wondered whether any of the challengers would dare to touch the dragon shield. Valarr was the king's grandson, after all, and son to Baelor Breakspear.

[...]

At the north end of the field, squires held brightly barded destriers for the champions to mount. They donned their helms and took up lance and shield, in splendor the equal of their foes: the Ashfords' billowing orange silks, Ser Humfrey's red-and-white diamonds, Lord Leo on his white charger with green satin trappings patterned with golden roses, and of course Valarr Targaryen. The Young Prince's horse was black as night, to match the color of his armor, lance, shield, and trappings. Atop his helm was a gleaming three-headed dragon, wings spread, enameled in a rich red; its twin was painted upon the glossy black surface of his shield. Each of the defenders had a wisp of orange silk knotted about an arm; a favor bestowed by the fair maid.

and

A black stallion emerged from out of the river mists, a black knight on his back. Dunk saw the dragon shield, and the red enamel crest upon his helm with its three roaring heads. The Young Prince. Gods be good, it is truly him?

 

While Aemond Targaryen's armor is described once

On the fourteenth day of the prince’s vigil, a shadow swept over the castle, blacker than any passing cloud. All the birds in the godswood took to the air in fright, and a hot wind whipped the fallen leaves across the yard. Vhagar had come at last, and on her back rode the one-eyed prince Aemond Targaryen, clad in night-black armor chased with gold.

 

Not to derail the present discussion, but its interesting that all of them bear the same sigil without any differencing. In normal heraldry a cadency mark would be applied to identify the individual concerned. In English heraldry only the head of the house [in this case the King] would bear the red dragon on black; his eldest son would bear the same but with a "label" along the top - there was a recognised system of these cadency marks so that observers could tell at a glance that yonder knight closed up in his armour was the first son, second son or whatever. [bastards were distinguished by a bar sinister slashing diagonally across] Once it got into grandchildren and cousins other marks were added, but the principle remained that only the the head of the family bore the arms without any additional marking

[The Twinslayer]

21 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

 

If it helps, Valarr Targaryen's armor is described on two occasions:

The last pavilion was Prince Valarr's. Of black silk it was, with a line of pointed scarlet pennons hanging from its roof like long red flames. The shield on its stand was glossy black, emblazoned with the three-headed dragon of House Targaryen. One of the Kingsguard knights stood beside it, his shining white armor stark against the black of the tentcloth. Seeing him there, Dunk wondered whether any of the challengers would dare to touch the dragon shield. Valarr was the king's grandson, after all, and son to Baelor Breakspear.

[...]

At the north end of the field, squires held brightly barded destriers for the champions to mount. They donned their helms and took up lance and shield, in splendor the equal of their foes: the Ashfords' billowing orange silks, Ser Humfrey's red-and-white diamonds, Lord Leo on his white charger with green satin trappings patterned with golden roses, and of course Valarr Targaryen. The Young Prince's horse was black as night, to match the color of his armor, lance, shield, and trappings. Atop his helm was a gleaming three-headed dragon, wings spread, enameled in a rich red; its twin was painted upon the glossy black surface of his shield. Each of the defenders had a wisp of orange silk knotted about an arm; a favor bestowed by the fair maid.

and

A black stallion emerged from out of the river mists, a black knight on his back. Dunk saw the dragon shield, and the red enamel crest upon his helm with its three roaring heads. The Young Prince. Gods be good, it is truly him?

 

While Aemond Targaryen's armor is described once

On the fourteenth day of the prince’s vigil, a shadow swept over the castle, blacker than any passing cloud. All the birds in the godswood took to the air in fright, and a hot wind whipped the fallen leaves across the yard. Vhagar had come at last, and on her back rode the one-eyed prince Aemond Targaryen, clad in night-black armor chased with gold.

 

Black armor seems to have been popular at the time of Dunk & Egg.  

"The Longinch himself wore black enamel plate and silvery ring mail."

"Lord Butterwell's good-son wore black plate over boiled leather..."

There is some black and red imagery, too.

"Mad Danelle Lothston herself rode forth in strength from her haunted towers at Harrenhal clad in black armor that fit her like an iron glove, her long red hair streaming."

[Voice]

On December 30, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Sly Wren said:

We all resemble that remark.

 

LOL yes we all most certainly do.  

But I do fear some cannot see their own reflections.