Heresy 199 Once upon a Time in the West

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

3 hours ago, JNR said:

What I think Snowfyre is getting at is not how the theory is formulated on this site... but where it obviously comes from in the canon.

The canonical text says -- twice -- that Rhaegar raped Lyanna.  The text also says zero times that Rhaegar had consensual sex with Lyanna.

Yes, I could have been more clear. But this seems fair. In the text, "R+L" is described as rape - and those who imagine such a sexual encounter took place view Rhaegar as a villain.  In contrast, those who reflect on Rhaegar's good, noble, dutiful character never imagine a sexual encounter with Lyanna.  Furthermore, those who knew Lyanna remember her as a fighter, fiercely loyal to her family, and concerned about fidelity in marriage.

With these things in mind... the notion that "R+L" could have occurred as some kind of consensual sexual relationship seems problematic.

On 6/13/2017 at 0:57 PM, Matthew. said:

Yes, that is the way we are introduced to the R+L premise, which is why it's immediately plausible. Again, "romance" is not a necessary assumption for RLJ to be true!

Right. I certainly agree with this. It's plausible, as far as it goes. I think you and I discussed this before, Matthew (albeit long ago)... that the only absolute requirement for R+L=J is that Rhaegar and Lyanna were sexually involved. And it's certainly plausible that Martin could work that into the story eventually, even if no direct evidence yet exists in the text to support it.  But as you say... "romance" is not necessary to the theory. 

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

4 minutes ago, Lord Wraith said:

Slender, graceful, and quick doesn't strike me as Baratheon ish.

Might lend itself well to a theory involving Petyr Baelish, though. Slender and quick. I'm still somewhat surprised nobody's worked that theory up in detail. Seems like it wouldn't be too hard to do.

Or, if you wanted to go really crazy... note the similar description of the Singers in the cave beyond the Wall. Small, dark, and quick. Watchful. Intelligent.     ...  

[Melifeather]

44 minutes ago, The Snowfyre Chorus said:

Might lend itself well to a theory involving Petyr Baelish, though. Slender and quick. I'm still somewhat surprised nobody's worked that theory up in detail. Seems like it wouldn't be too hard to do.

Or, if you wanted to go really crazy... note the similar description of the Singers in the cave beyond the Wall. Small, dark, and quick. Watchful. Intelligent.     ...  

Actually...I think Pretty Pig wrote something up...somebody did, because I read it. I hope whoever did will post a link to the discussion.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

On 6/13/2017 at 2:52 PM, Black Crow said:

I wouldn't even emphasise the south. Lord Eddard is playing by the rules of Westeros and his king is Robert Baratheon, first of his name etc etc.

Fair enough. Also worth noting that Ned grew up in the Vale. (Along with Robert.) So it's not like he doesn't know how the new gods handle things south of the Neck.

On 6/13/2017 at 2:52 PM, Black Crow said:

Naturally he will pick his companions carefully, but they are indeed seven and as I've been arguing this whole encounter is a formal meeting or rencounter on a pre-arranged ground and Eddard's coming prepared for a Trial of Seven is both consistent with that and supportive of it. The tragedy of it is that he is offering those men an honourable way out by the rules and they refuse to take it.

Well... here I might split with you a bit. It's not clear to me that this particular meeting was either expected or pre-arranged. 

If Ned thought there might be a trial of seven, he'd have expected seven opponents. What he gets instead, is three. Extraordinary though they are. Furthermore, he finds them in Dos Gatos out in the middle of nowhere. As I read the dream dialogue, it's the unexpectedness of the location that Ned finds remarkable. He names four different places he expected them to be, as if to say... "WTF, guys? After all that, you're just up here chilling by the campfire? What gives?"

So maybe Ned was scouring the Shire Highgarden, when some vagrant just happened to mention three toughs guarding the nearby mountain pass. But my guess was that he did have something formal in mind - that he might have been headed to Starfall, to make amends with House Dayne for disgracing Ashara in some way. Perhaps he'd even betrothed himself to Ashara before the war... and broken that promise with his marriage to Catelyn following Brandon's death. Or something equally unsupported and conjectural.  

Regardless, if he expected a trial of seven then he was prepared either to challenge or to be challenged in the name of justice for something specific and personal.  The fight in the Prince's Pass - as represented in the "old dream," anyway - doesn't quite fit that kind of formal arrangement.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

4 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Actually...I think Pretty Pig wrote something up...somebody did, because I read it. I hope whoever did will post a link to the discussion.

Hm. Yes, I'd be interested to read that. And maybe I already have... but if so, I just don't remember doing so.

Of course, it's possible that we're chasing our tail a bit here Feather. Because I once wrote something up myself - and I may have shared it with you at some point along the way. It wasn't very polished. But the Littlefinger and Lord Tywin theories were two that I always considered particularly promising, as far as having enough potentially symbolic imagery and descriptive hooks to build on...  somewhat in the style of RLJ.  

[JNR]

 

6 hours ago, Matthew. said:

broadly speaking, I'm thinking sometime during Robert's Rebellion, or the the time immediately preceding. If I'm not mistaken, GRRM has placed the time of Jon's birth as sometime between 8 and 9 months before Dany's birth, and Dany's conception as sometime around the final month of Robert's Rebellion.

Yes, this is the method by which RLJ thread regulars have all concluded Jon was born around the time of the Sack.

So, this being the case, you're suggesting, just as they have, that Jon was conceived about nine months before the Sack, which would be about three months into the Rebellion.

6 hours ago, Matthew. said:

In any case, my standard here is what we can cite based on the text.

OK.  Cite the text that establishes their shared location three months into the Rebellion.

6 hours ago, Matthew. said:

that she was near the Inn at the Crossroads sometime beforehand

That was more than three months before you think Jon was conceived.  Hence, it doesn't seem to be relevant.

6 hours ago, Matthew. said:

and at the Harrenhal Tournament some nebulous period of time before that

That was a year or more before you think Jon was conceived and definitely is not relevant.

[Frey family reunion]

12 hours ago, JNR said:

 

Yes, this is the method by which RLJ thread regulars have all concluded Jon was born around the time of the Sack.

So, this being the case, you're suggesting, just as they have, that Jon was conceived about nine months before the Sack, which would be about three months into the Rebellion.

OK.  Cite the text that establishes their shared location three months into the Rebellion.

That was more than three months before you think Jon was conceived.  Hence, it doesn't seem to be relevant.

That was a year or more before you think Jon was conceived and definitely is not relevant.

If GRRM gave us a peek into Dany's conception through Jaime's POV, then the conception would have occurred before the troops set out to meet Robert in the Trident, since Jon Darry was standing next to Jaime outside of Aerys' bedchamber when the rape occurred.  

I also note with amusement that the portion of the Worldbook that George did write (I think) was the chapters of the False Spring and Robert's Rebellion.  In those chapters he dates the Battle of the Trident as occurring in the same year that Lyanna disappeared.  I know that Ran has claimed that this is an error, but after many edits and corrections (at least last I bothered to look) that date has remained uncorrected.

[PrettyPig]

26 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

 

I also note with amusement that the portion of the Worldbook that George did write (I think) was the chapters of the False Spring and Robert's Rebellion.  In those chapters he dates the Battle of the Trident as occurring in the same year that Lyanna disappeared.  I know that Ran has claimed that this is an error, but after many edits and corrections (at least last I bothered to look) that date has remained uncorrected.

You're referring to the line that Robert killed Rhaegar in 282, right?   I though that was a confirmed error too, but I haven't bothered to check later editions.  

That would be something though- not only in its shock value but because it would throw off timing of many other events in the tale.  Minor things- Ages of Robb, Sam, Margaery, etc; Stannis and Davis' recollection of the Siege, stuff like that.   Minor things that would require major retcon if that were the case, though.

on the other hand, there was a poster some time back that proposed the battles of the Rebellion were heavily front-loaded, and that perhaps the Trident occurred fairly early in the war with several months between it and the Sack.  Can't recall all details but it was an interesting proposition.

[Melifeather]

20 hours ago, ReturnOfCaponBreath said:

Well it's wonderfully poetic and creative but I think the biggest challenge to it would be that if this were revealed to be the truth readers would collectively just say WTF? and it would damage the legacy of the books as readers would consider it so left field as to have come from seemingly nowhere in their opinion.

I had to return to this to point out that much of my ideas are coming from the Vikings and their stories about Ragnarok. There is a great serpent in those stories called Jormundand that is one of three children of Loki and Angrboda. He is depicted as biting his own tail which is the traditional depiction of the ouroboros or wheel of time. Jormundand can freeze time or move it backwards and forwards. Being that many of GRRM's Stark characters are inspired of Norse/Viking lore, like Fenrir for Bran, it only makes sense that Jormundand is represented in ASOIAF by a greenseer type position. I say "position", because obviously Bloodraven is inspired of Odin, but I think we will learn that he has the powers of Jormundand.

[JNR]

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I also note with amusement that the portion of the Worldbook that George did write (I think) was the chapters of the False Spring and Robert's Rebellion.  In those chapters he dates the Battle of the Trident as occurring in the same year that Lyanna disappeared.  I know that Ran has claimed that this is an error, but after many edits and corrections (at least last I bothered to look) that date has remained uncorrected.

Yes, I think Ran is right about that in a factual sense.

I'm pretty sure Lyanna was 14 at Harrenhal and 16 when Ned eventually found her.  Similarly, Jaime was 15 when he joined the KG at Harrenhal, and 17 when he killed Aerys. 

Ergo, it seems pretty clear there were about two years between Harrenhal and the Sack, and since the war was about a year long, there was roughly a year between Harrenhal and the kickoff of the Rebellion (give or take a turn or two).

However, I can also very easily see why GRRM would have left the World book text unchanged, if indeed that is the case.

Quote

The book is written from the viewpoint of a maester at the Citadel, one who hopes to pass its knowledge on to someone sitting on the Iron Throne. As such, the author may have … rearranged events to suit the interests of a particular royal family. “So who knows if it’s really true or not!” Martin chuckled.

If Yandel thought the truth about that timeframe was a story King Robert would dislike, he might simply fudge the truth.

And if GRRM had that idea in mind, such an error in the World book text would go uncorrected, because if it were corrected, it would no longer reflect what the character Maester Yandel had actually written (knowing it to be wrong) to please Robert.

[PrettyPig]

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

I had to return to this to point out that much of my ideas are coming from the Vikings and their stories about Ragnarok. There is a great serpent in those stories called Jormundand that is one of three children of Loki and Angrboda. He is depicted as biting his own tail which is the traditional depiction of the ouroboros or wheel of time. Jormundand can freeze time or move it backwards and forwards. Being that many of GRRM's Stark characters are inspired of Norse/Viking lore, like Fenrir for Bran, it only makes sense that Jormundand is represented in ASOIAF by a greenseer type position. I say "position", because obviously Bloodraven is inspired of Odin, but I think we will learn that he has the powers of Jormundand.

Something of an aside, but did you see the newest thread I posted in my Marvel forum?   It touches on this, but with a twist I'm working out.  Have a look, you may enjoy it!

[Matthew.]

16 hours ago, JNR said:

That was more than three months before you think Jon was conceived.  Hence, it doesn't seem to be relevant.

It doesn't seem relevant because you have misunderstood me.

I'm not attempting to establish a strict window, but do the very opposite: I'm open to a relatively generous time frame in which Jon might have been conceived, and, even by that standard, Rhaegar still has the best text based case for motive and opportunity.

I brought up the dates GRRM listed because they're the nearest thing we have to a guide on the time frame, and even GRRM within his own answer acknowledges that he's not so great when it comes to tracking strict dates and chronology--thus, I am open to people's theories that don't adhere to that time frame.

I am not claiming that Jon was conceived exactly nine months before the Sack, I'm assuming he was conceived at some nebulous period that might cover a spectrum of time stretching from, say, the first week or two before she's abducted - granting "opportunity" to any speculative lovers that were in the Riverlands at the time - to the first several months after her disappearance. 
 

16 hours ago, JNR said:

OK.  Cite the text that establishes their shared location three months into the Rebellion.

You fully understand why Rhaegar has 'opportunity' based on the text:

-Rhaegar fell upon Lyanna and abducted her prior to the beginning of the Rebellion

-We don't 'see' her again until her death, a death that is presented in such a way that the reader is inclined to associate it with the KG who missed the Trident and the Sack, to associate it with the Tower of Joy (so-named by Rhaegar Targaryen, establishing that he had been there at some point or another, and had reason to find joy in the location)

What the text establishes is the idea that Lyanna was Rhaegar's hostage before the Rebellion began, and remained his hostage until the war ended--by inference, if she was anywhere at all three months into the Rebellion, she was wherever Rhaegar was keeping her, a notion that is reinforced by Robert's accusation. Theoretically, any of Rhaegar's co-conspirators would also have 'opportunity' at this point in time, but Rhaegar is the only one for whom the text also establishes motive.
 
What's at issue is not what is "objectively true," but what can be reasonably established by the text--of all of the various L+X scenarios, RLJ is the most consistent with the text we have to draw upon. The next nearest, IMO, might be Lyanna + Robert, if we assume they were having pre-marital relations, and we interpret Rhaegar's actions as him abducting the Stark-Arryn-Baratheon conspiracies would-be heir.

[Melifeather]

51 minutes ago, PrettyPig said:

Something of an aside, but did you see the newest thread I posted in my Marvel forum?   It touches on this, but with a twist I'm working out.  Have a look, you may enjoy it!

I did and I enjoyed it. I toyed with linking to it, but thought you might want to be the one to provide the link?

Back tracking... since the great serpent lays underwater, maybe we should consider Euron as playing Jormundand's role? Thoughts?

Backtracking thought number two...since "under the sea" also means underground...I'm back to leaning moreso towards greenseers.

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, Matthew. said:

-Rhaegar fell upon Lyanna and abducted her prior to the beginning of the Rebellion

-We don't 'see' her again until her death, a death that is presented in such a way that the reader is inclined to associate it with the KG who missed the Trident and the Sack, to associate it with the Tower of Joy (so-named by Rhaegar Targaryen, establishing that he had been there at some point or another, and had reason to find joy in the location)

What the text establishes is the idea that Lyanna was Rhaegar's hostage before the Rebellion began, and remained his hostage until the war ended--by inference, if she was anywhere at all three months into the Rebellion, she was wherever Rhaegar was keeping her, a notion that is reinforced by Robert's accusation. Theoretically, any of Rhaegar's co-conspirators would also have 'opportunity' at this point in time, but Rhaegar is the only one for whom the text also establishes motive.
 

Not to disagree with this but I would like to emphasis the information gap between Lyanna's abduction and death.

Whatever anybody else might know, we know nothing, literally nothing.

At no point does Lord Eddard ever speak of searching for Lyanna, and there is no evidence that he was actively looking for here when the rencounter took place at the tower.

Was she believed to be dead?

The tower is a false clue, because we have no evidence that Lyanna was actually there, with or without Rhaegar.

We have talked before about the practical difficulty in two supposed lovers hiding out in a tower in the Dornish Marches when Rhaegar has so grievously upset the Dornishmen.

Lord Eddard recalls that it was said Rhaegar had called it the tower of joy [lower case initial letters] and who are we to doubt it. Was it as so many assume because he and Lyanna were being very naughty over a period of months or did he name it thus because that was where he met his beloved Elia as she came out of Dorne to be his wife?

[Melifeather]

12 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Lord Eddard recalls that it was said Rhaegar had called it the tower of joy [lower case initial letters] and who are we to doubt it. Was it as so many assume because he and Lyanna were being very naughty over a period of months or did he name it thus because that was where he met his beloved Elia as she came out of Dorne to be his wife?

Or could it have a more sarcastic meaning like, "oh joy, the there's the wasteland desert of Dorne", or "oh joy, my ex is calling me on the phone...." "that tower, boy, was that loads of fun or what..."

[wolfmaid7]

22 hours ago, Lord Wraith said:

Slender, graceful, and quick doesn't strike me as Baratheon ish.

No more than Florent ears on two Baratheon children.See what I am getting at?

As stated above streangth and temper are.

On 6/14/2017 at 11:37 AM, ReturnOfCaponBreath said:

Your original point was that beds of blood is only ever used about women who wear swords.  It isn't. In the same way as in the real world when we say someone has a bun in the oven we are never talking about bakers.

Even in the ambiguous world of GRRM some things only have 1 meaning.

My original point as in my post to Feather and the many times I have said on this board is that "beds of blood" contextually have been characterized as battles and two women in this series have been more or less have been scolded as such.

Now I am making the assumption that birthing bed and beds of blood mean the same.From this:

“I know every secret of the bloody bed, Silver Lady, nor have I ever lost a babe,” Mirri Maz Duur replied.

“The Lamb Woman knows the secrets of the birthing bed,” Irri said. “She said so, I heard her.”

I could be wrong or Irri could be making an assumption about that.

MirrI  just finished patching up Drogo so this could also be interpreted as not only does she know how to treat battle wounds but she's a pro at delivering babies.

Either way my point is valid.Childbirth is akin to battle.We have two women who like Lyanna carried swords and are told their battles should be in the birthing bed and not fighting.

“Will it come to war?” asked Greydon Goodbrother as the sun was lightening the hills. “A war of brother against brother?”

“If the Drowned God wills it. No godless man may sit the Seastone Chair.” The Crow’s Eye will fight, that is certain. No woman could defeat him, not even Asha; women were made to fight their battles in the birthing bed.”

And Randall Tarly to Brienne.

“The gods made men to fight, and women to bear children,” said Randyll Tarly. “A woman’s war is in the birthing bed.”

 

[wolfmaid7]

9 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Not to disagree with this but I would like to emphasis the information gap between Lyanna's abduction and death.

Whatever anybody else might know, we know nothing, literally nothing.

At no point does Lord Eddard ever speak of searching for Lyanna, and there is no evidence that he was actively looking for here when the rencounter took place at the tower.

Was she believed to be dead?

The tower is a false clue, because we have no evidence that Lyanna was actually there, with or without Rhaegar.

We have talked before about the practical difficulty in two supposed lovers hiding out in a tower in the Dornish Marches when Rhaegar has so grievously upset the Dornishmen.

Lord Eddard recalls that it was said Rhaegar had called it the tower of joy [lower case initial letters] and who are we to doubt it. Was it as so many assume because he and Lyanna were being very naughty over a period of months or did he name it thus because that was where he met his beloved Elia as she came out of Dorne to be his wife?

AGREE!!!

[Frey family reunion]

3 hours ago, JNR said:

Yes, I think Ran is right about that in a factual sense.

I'm pretty sure Lyanna was 14 at Harrenhal and 16 when Ned eventually found her.  Similarly, Jaime was 15 when he joined the KG at Harrenhal, and 17 when he killed Aerys. 

Ergo, it seems pretty clear there were about two years between Harrenhal and the Sack, and since the war was about a year long, there was roughly a year between Harrenhal and the kickoff of the Rebellion (give or take a turn or two).

However, I can also very easily see why GRRM would have left the World book text unchanged, if indeed that is the case.

If Yandel thought the truth about that timeframe was a story King Robert would dislike, he might simply fudge the truth.

And if GRRM had that idea in mind, such an error in the World book text would go uncorrected, because if it were corrected, it would no longer reflect what the character Maester Yandel had actually written (knowing it to be wrong) to please Robert.

No I get the conceit of the Worldbook, but it would be a pretty obvious mistake to spot if Yandel got the year wrong that the Battle of the Trident occurred, even for Robert.  (After all he was there).

My main point is that I don't think it's impossible for Lyanna to have conceived Jon (or whoever) before she disappeared.  Especially if we move Jon's birth up to the battle of the Trident.  This is especially true if you give Lyanna an unusually long gestation period that may  have required a C-section.  My sneaking suspicion is that Jon's story arc owes a bit to the Volsunga saga which starts with an unusually long pregnancy only ended with a c-section that causes the death of the mother of the heroic lineage.

[Black Crow]

33 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Or could it have a more sarcastic meaning like, "oh joy, the there's the wasteland desert of Dorne", or "oh joy, my ex is calling me on the phone...." "that tower, boy, was that loads of fun or what..."

As Tyrion is want to remark in times of adversity "oh joy"

But seriously, the motivation for thus naming it, could very easily refer to Elia of Dorne rather than Lyanna. The first is eminently plausible, particularly if the landmark was chosen for a rencounter, while the latter rests on a dodgy dream which puts the fight and Lyanna in the same place at the same time.

We simply don't know and can't therefore cite it as "evidence"

[wolfmaid7]

35 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

As Tyrion is want to remark in times of adversity "oh joy"

But seriously, the motivation for thus naming it, could very easily refer to Elia of Dorne rather than Lyanna. The first is eminently plausible, particularly if the landmark was chosen for a rencounter, while the latter rests on a dodgy dream which puts the fight and Lyanna in the same place at the same time.

We simply don't know and can't therefore cite it as "evidence"

Hell it could be a a Sacred band of Thebes meeting place for Rhaegar and the boys....I kid of course...Not really