Heresy 204; of cabbages, prophecies and kings

[Matthew.]

5 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Its quite different with Danny's questions about Rhaegar.There wasn't any hesitation.What he said was the truth.

And what he knew was what everyone else did.If he knew what was in Rhaegar's heart he could have added more info.

You are right that its not a straightforward question.It was an open-ended one which when answered would have just re-I forced what everyone knew.

This is the issue with this.To add details if you had it to a widely held belief gives nothing away.It is nothing for Selmy to add details where relevant to an already wildly held belief.

At this point, we disagree over the basic nature of Dany's question, and what would constitute a satisfactory answer.

To me, her question carries shades of her "surely he was a peerless warrior" question; she's not just asking a question, she's probing for a justification as to why he would do something that casts him in such a negative light--"did Elia treat him so poorly?" She's trying to reconcile the irreconcilable--the glorification of Rhaegar (especially among those with whom she has had contact) vs. what he is widely accused of doing.

In that regard, "because he loved Lyanna" doesn't really explain why an ostensibly good person did a terrible thing.

_____

I would also reiterate that there exists a wide middle ground between absolute knowledge and absolute ignorance.

To use a theoretical example, lets say that Aerys was the one that had ordered the 3 KG to stay in Dorne; as Eddard's fever dream exchange suggests, their absence from the Trident and KL is notable. 

With that in mind, is it fair to say that various people - the small council, the remaining KG, etc. - might be curious about their absence? Might Aerys speak broadly - "they're in Dorne on my orders" - without giving specific details of their precise location, and why they've been ordered to be there? 

Returning to Barristan, it may be that Rhaegar was willing to give certain broad answers (even as a cover story) to his allies without spelling out specifics.

[Matthew.]

2 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

I get what you are saying but I disagree because you are giving me a maybe scenario.I am not seeing any evidence that Rhaegar told Selmy anything.This is where I think the disagreement originates.

Maybe he did is not evidence though it can be true.I am just saying Selmy while having a few opportunities to devulge more has not.He just restates the front page.

How can I shut down an analysis if it begins with maybe? Now, I am not hindering you from speaking your mind aren't I? Nor is my opinion swaying others to corral and impede your thoughts. I am simply disagreeing with you on what Selmy knows.

My point is that the latter ("I'm disagreeing") doesn't properly relate to the former ("you present a maybe scenario"). Disagreement places an either/or choice on what I am saying, a false choice. One can treat many different hypotheticals as potentially true. To disagree with a "maybe" is to suggest that there is no open question to be explored.

If that's the case then...well, yes we do disagree. I absolutely do not believe we have enough text to demonstrate why Barristan believes what he believes.

To use a non-controversial (maybe!?!?! who knows anymore) example, observing that Marwyn might be lying to Sam with his gray sheep speech is a fair thing to keep in mind; to insist he's lying at the expense of exploring the whole gray sheep thing only leads to less discussion.

Call me cynical, but when a poster responds to a "maybe" with an insistence on incredulity, I can't help but feel that the underlying motive (even if they don't realize this is what they're doing) is to dismiss lines of discussion that either do not align with their theories, or are not within their areas of interest--that their incredulity is meant to make the conversation go away.
____
"Lets discuss the potential implications of Howland Reed meeting with the Green Men."

'We can't verify that Howland Reed ever met with the Green Men. We can't verify that he ever went to the Isle of Faces. We can't verify that he was at Harrenhal. We can't verify that Meera and Jojen are who they claim to be.'

"Oh...okay. Now what?"

[JNR]

1 hour ago, Matthew. said:

"Lets discuss the potential implications of Howland Reed meeting with the Green Men."

'We can't verify that Howland Reed ever met with the Green Men. We can't verify that he ever went to the Isle of Faces. We can't verify that he was at Harrenhal. We can't verify that Meera and Jojen are who they claim to be.'

"Oh...okay. Now what?"

OK, let's take a look at that.

First, Meera's story of the KotLT story is extremely detailed and remarkably long.  In fact, it's the longest story told by anyone in the entire canon.  

The huge amount of detail she supplies also aligns very neatly with information about the Harrenhal tourney we have from other sources.   For instance, the people she says were there, such as the Starks, we mostly do know were in fact there.  The people she says weren't there, like Tywin, we know indeed weren't there.  We could create a list of verified facts and it would not be short.

So it sure seems likely that Meera didn't make it all up… but instead, she got it from a very well-informed source, and that authority, as heavily implied, was her father. 

Furthermore, it appears likely he told that story to his children many times, very consistently, for them to have memorized the whole thing. (Notice that Jojen never thinks Meera told the story incorrectly.)

Now… in contrast, Robert's tale of Rhaegar raping Lyanna hundreds of times… and Selmy's tale of Rhaegar loving his lady Lyanna… do not have any detail at all.  They aren't long at all.   

My summary of their tales, in fact, is just about as long as the original text.  

Could they have settled on these simple ideas on their own, to reflect their personal opinions of Rhaegar based on their hugely different personal experience with him?  It sure seems like they could have.   Whereas I'm not sure what personal motive Meera would have, to make up such a tale about the KotLT, whose identity she isn't even sure of.

And finally, Robert's and Selmy's stories contradict each other.  Nothing and nobody contradicts Meera's tale of the KotLT, as far as I can recall.

So this is why Robert and Selmy's authority, re Rhaegar and Lyanna, appears to me to be far more easily impeached than Meera's authority re the KotLT.   

(I could discuss the numerous logical problems with Craster's wife's simple tale re the Popsicles just as easily… but since I've done that many times in the past, and you apparently forgot, I'm not sure there's much point. )

[Matthew.]

4 hours ago, JNR said:

The huge amount of detail she supplies also aligns very neatly with information about the Harrenhal tourney we have from other sources.   For instance, the people she says were there, such as the Starks, we mostly do know were in fact there.  The people she says weren't there, like Tywin, we know indeed weren't there.  We could create a list of verified facts and it would not be short.

So it sure seems likely that Meera didn't make it all up… but instead, she got it from a very well-informed source, and that authority, as heavily implied, was her father. 

...

And finally, Robert's and Selmy's stories contradict each other.  Nothing and nobody contradicts Meera's tale of the KotLT, as far as I can recall.

What you describe is that an extraordinarily famous and well attended tournament occurred, and that a mystery knight made a stir ( that wasn't the question, the question was whether or not we can talk about Howland's place in things, especially as regards the more mystical elements) and that Meera is aware of the details of this famous event.

What this tells us is that Howland could have taken a widely known story, and retold it with his own flourish--the sojourn to the Isle of Faces, the event re-contextualized as perhaps being a bit of old god justice..."by the way Meera, that knight was short of stature," wink wink, nudge nudge.

To be clear, in practice, I don't subjectively doubt a single detail of the story, but you are still speaking as an attorney; you are not factually demonstrating that Howland was at Harrenhal, you are advocating for why Meera's story should be believed. You are inviting me to speculate on the basis of her unverifiable story, and take many things on faith.

Incidentally, my subjective reason for believing her is a personal disinclination toward theories of the text that are built on throwing out wide swathes of said text. 
_____

As to Barristan and Robert, I don't know that it is accurate to say their stories contradict each other--their interpretations of Rhaegar contradict each other, but both agree that he was infatuated with Lyanna. Any character that sees fit to opine on the subject seems to agree on that basic premise: for some reason or another, the wolf girl caught Rhaegar's eye. 
eg... :

Quote

Ser Kevan remembered the girl she once had been, so full of life and mischief. And when she'd flowered, ahhhh … had there ever been a maid so sweet to look upon? 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. The northern girl had a wild beauty, as he recalled, though however bright a torch might burn it could never match the rising sun.

Here, Kevan's point of view is hardly as romantic as Barristan's...he speaks of women's value mostly in terms of the sons they can produce, but nonetheless, this is still a personal context of a recurring narrative. "Rhaegar wanted sons." 

What nobody, anywhere (so far) has suggested is that Rhaegar was a man falsely maligned, that the whole thing of linking Rhaegar with Lyanna is just revisionist history; perhaps we will get that from Jon Connington's POV.
 

5 hours ago, JNR said:

(I could discuss the numerous logical problems with Craster's wife's simple tale re the Popsicles just as easily… but since I've done that many times in the past, and you apparently forgot, I'm not sure there's much point. )

This offer might be made half-heartedly, but I would appreciate it in truth, as I only recall arguments related to the perceived credibility of the wives.

[Black Crow]

10 hours ago, LynnS said:

I'm not getting that jousting is for girls or anyone who hasn't been sufficiently trained even if they do ride at rings .  LOL.

Unless Martin imagines a kindler, gentler form of jousting;  I don't see Lyanna taking out three knights even if she could skinchange a horse.  I have my doubts about Howland as well.

 

very nice one 

[Black Crow]

12 hours ago, Matthew. said:

At this point, we disagree over the basic nature of Dany's question, and what would constitute a satisfactory answer.

To me, her question carries shades of her "surely he was a peerless warrior" question; she's not just asking a question, she's probing for a justification as to why he would do something that casts him in such a negative light--"did Elia treat him so poorly?" She's trying to reconcile the irreconcilable--the glorification of Rhaegar (especially among those with whom she has had contact) vs. what he is widely accused of doing.

In that regard, "because he loved Lyanna" doesn't really explain why an ostensibly good person did a terrible thing.

_____

I would also reiterate that there exists a wide middle ground between absolute knowledge and absolute ignorance.

To use a theoretical example, lets say that Aerys was the one that had ordered the 3 KG to stay in Dorne; as Eddard's fever dream exchange suggests, their absence from the Trident and KL is notable. 

With that in mind, is it fair to say that various people - the small council, the remaining KG, etc. - might be curious about their absence? Might Aerys speak broadly - "they're in Dorne on my orders" - without giving specific details of their precise location, and why they've been ordered to be there? 

Returning to Barristan, it may be that Rhaegar was willing to give certain broad answers (even as a cover story) to his allies without spelling out specifics.

While I appreciate the well thought out points both you and JNR are making, I think ultimately we need to bear in mind we are not weighing historical evidence, but a work of fiction. What is GRRM as an author trying to convey to us as readers?

Lyanna disappears and later turns up dead. Prince Rhaegar gets the blame. On the one hand he's accused of abducting and raping her - repeatedly*. On the other hand we are told its a love story and elopement.

Evidence for the first is literally non-existent

Primary evidence for the second is also non-existent. Instead we have stories such as the Knight of the Laughing Tree, which have been seized upon as evidence for Prince Rhaegar going completely doolally and throwing away all the political planning and maneouvering which brought everyone to Harrenhal in the first place, just because he has "discovered" that an anonymous armoured figure was really a girl

Barristan, who might be able to answer the question, neither confirms nor denies but mutters vague and tactful platitudes, which can be interpreted either way.

Now obviously something happened, but we don't know what it was and far from feeding us genuine clues, Barristan's testimony is a warning that the love story isn't to be relied on any more than the abduction and rape

*ie; whatever happened wasn't a hit and run

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

very nice one 

This is interesting as well, although some pages are redacted; Martin may have included something of a chivalric romance element, casting Lyanna as the mistress, muse or inspiration.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=O0-D57pOb4sC&pg=PA84&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Black Crow]

Whilst I have to stress that there is absolutely no textual evidence to link Rhaegar to the story of the Knight of the Laughing tree, this parallel did occur to me:

  ...a warrior who knew no fear. “And that was the fault in him,” she would add, “for all men must know fear.” A woman was his downfall; a woman glimpsed from atop the Wall, with skin as white as the moon and eyes like blue stars. Fearing nothing, he chased her and caught her and loved her, though her skin was cold as ice, and when he gave his seed to her he gave his soul as well.
He brought her back to the Nightfort and proclaimed her a queen and himself her king, and with strange sorceries he bound his Sworn Brothers to his will.

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

Whilst I have to stress that there is absolutely no textual evidence to link Rhaegar to the story of the Knight of the Laughing tree, this parallel did occur to me:

  ...a warrior who knew no fear. “And that was the fault in him,” she would add, “for all men must know fear.” A woman was his downfall; a woman glimpsed from atop the Wall, with skin as white as the moon and eyes like blue stars. Fearing nothing, he chased her and caught her and loved her, though her skin was cold as ice, and when he gave his seed to her he gave his soul as well.
He brought her back to the Nightfort and proclaimed her a queen and himself her king, and with strange sorceries he bound his Sworn Brothers to his will.

If I have to go with a symbolic Night King, I'd go with Robert who is described as fearless:

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Daenerys II

The Usurper will kill you, sure as sunrise, Mormont had said. Robert had slain her gallant brother Rhaegar, and one of his creatures had crossed the Dothraki sea to poison her and her unborn son. They said Robert Baratheon was strong as a bull and fearless in battle, a man who loved nothing better than war. And with him stood the great lords her brother had named the Usurper's dogs, cold-eyed Eddard Stark with his frozen heart, and the golden Lannisters, father and son, so rich, so powerful, so treacherous.

Quote

A Dance with Dragons - Davos I

"Be that as it may. My father sat where I sit now when Lord Eddard came to Sisterton. Our maester urged us to send Stark's head to Aerys, to prove our loyalty. It would have meant a rich reward. The Mad King was open-handed with them as pleased him. By then we knew that Jon Arryn had taken Gulltown, though. Robert was the first man to gain the wall, and slew Marq Grafton with his own hand. 'This Baratheon is fearless,' I said. 'He fights the way a king should fight.' Our maester chuckled at me and told us that Prince Rhaegar was certain to defeat this rebel. That was when Stark said, 'In this world only winter is certain. We may lose our heads, it's true … but what if we prevail?' My father sent him on his way with his head still on his shoulders. 'If you lose,' he told Lord Eddard, 'you were never here.' "

If he was pursuing Lyanna from battlefield to battlefied and only catches her when she is dead; I think she qualifies as his corpse queen.  I can see him espying Lyanna from the Walls for Winterfell and starting his pursuit.  He climbed too high and was struck down.

 

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

If I have to go with a symbolic Night King, I'd go with Robert who is described as fearless:

If he was pursuing Lyanna from battlefield to battlefied and only catches her when she is dead; I think she qualifies as his corpse queen.  I can see him espying Lyanna from the Walls for Winterfell and starting his pursuit.  He climbed too high and was struck down.

I was simply thinking of the scenario that we're presented with - albeit not in the text - where Rhaeghar spies the fair Lyanna and instantly becomes so infatuated with her as to carry her off for for months of houghmagandie in a lonely watchtower while the sworn brothers pretend they can't hear anything and the kingdom goes to hell.

[LynnS]

24 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

I was simply thinking of the scenario that we're presented with - albeit not in the text - where Rhaeghar spies the fair Lyanna and instantly becomes so infatuated with her as to carry her off for for months of houghmagandie in a lonely watchtower while the sworn brothers pretend they can't hear anything and the kingdom goes to hell.

 

[Melifeather]

There are other explanations for Lyanna's disappearance that don't include a love story nor abduction by Rhaegar. 

How Lyanna Disappeared

We are provided details of how a maiden disappears from a castle in the Bael the Bard story, which is repeated throughout the books. Bael gains entrance to the castle under disguise. Bael isn't human nor an individual character in the books, but rather the various disguises people have used to abduct a maiden. In the original story he's a singer. In each Bael kidnapping we get additional details.

Petyr BAELish, who's sigil is a mockingbird - a bird that sings the songs of other birds, helped Sansa (who is herself a little bird) escape the Red Keep by first providing the hairnet with purple gems to poison Joffrey, then used the ensuing commotion to slip away to meet "the knight" Ser Dontos. Ser Dontos led Sansa down to Petyr's waiting ship, The Merling King, and sailed to the Vale where she assumed the identity of Petyr's daughter Alayne. Petyr has Ser Dontos killed and pushed overboard.

Yoren, a Man of the Nights Watch, played Bael when he snuck Arya out of the Red Keep. Our clue that he's Bael is his connection to Mance who was once a Man of the Nights Watch, and is currently pretending to be a singer named Abel at Winterfell. Before Arya goes into hiding she is at her fencing lessons with Syrio Forel - Arya's "knight" - who tries to protect her, but is killed. The deadly distraction that helped Arya leave was her own father's execution.

Arrianne is Bael, because she convinced a knight, Ser Arys, to sneak Myrcella out of Sunspear. Ser Arys put one of his men in his (Arys's) armor and had him stand guard over "Myrcella" who was actually her handmaiden, Rosamund. They keep the maester away by telling him that Myrcella has red spots. Ser Arys brought Myrcella on horseback to a meeting place by a well. Myrcella is attacked by Gerold Dayne, and Ser Arys the knight is killed by Areo Hotah.

In Lyanna's case I propose that "Bael" is Cersei and Tywin - that they plotted her disappearance, because they have the best and most logical motive. The "knight" they used and killed was Rhaegar, only at the time of the disappearance Rhaegar wasn't there. He was "down south", so just like Ser Arys they dressed a man in similar black armor so if anyone saw the abduction they would believe it was Rhaegar. There would also need to be a "deadly" distraction to cover the escape from the castle like the hairnet that caused Joffrey's death or the red spots that would have been deadly to the maester, and might I point out that we do have a missing Maester Walys...

[Matthew.]

10 hours ago, Black Crow said:

While I appreciate the well thought out points both you and JNR are making, I think ultimately we need to bear in mind we are not weighing historical evidence, but a work of fiction. What is GRRM as an author trying to convey to us as readers?

Not only do I agree, but one of the points I am attempting to hammer (I admit, monotonously at this point) is the latter sentiment you express--that unlike an analysis of history, or a crime scene, questions such as "what is the author trying to convey" constitute a reasonable perspective; the awareness that we are interacting with art, a thing that has been thoughtfully crafted with the reader's engagement in mind, and that 'information' (including misinformation) within the work is not an arbitrary scattering of de-contextualized vignettes and musings that add up to nothing in particular. 

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, Matthew. said:

Not only do I agree, but one of the points I am attempting to hammer (I admit, monotonously at this point) is the latter sentiment you express--that unlike an analysis of history, or a crime scene, questions such as "what is the author trying to convey" constitute a reasonable perspective; the awareness that we are interacting with art, a thing that has been thoughtfully crafted with the reader's engagement in mind, and that 'information' (including misinformation) within the work is not an arbitrary scattering of de-contextualized vignettes and musings that add up to nothing in particular.

My intent isn't to make an historical comparison regarding jousting.  I was curious about the extent of GRRM's knowledge on the subject.  I think he's probably going a little deeper than Medieval Times Dinner Theater.  He doesn't really say much about the joust at all, other than Ned's comment that "war isn't a game", or that so and so was unhorsed.

Having some idea of the stakes involved charging at an opponent full tilt, in a medieval game of chicken, where collision has consequence; paints a different picture for me than the story Meera tells.  The story is told in the style of a medieval knight's romance, something that is usually accompanied by a song and a compromised maiden. Giving Lyanna the queen of beauty's laurel casts her in the role of mistress; something that would tarnish a lady's reputation, whether there was any houghmagandie or not.   So the Stark's reaction is in keeping with the historical record for behavioral norms around adultery and the presence of women at tourneys.

There is also the practice of bearing an unusual device when appearing as a mystery knight to signal one's allegiance and the historical record that tournaments weren't just spectacle; but charged with political or religious ramifications.  None of which is overtly apparent in Meera's story of a true knight but are there nonetheless.   Typically a mystery knight would reveal his identity at some point.  In some cases, the identity is already known.  That etiquette is breached at Harrenhal, giving rise to Aerys' anger and the search for the knight who breaks the rules.

Someone had to be involved for the KoTLT to enter the lists and specifically challenge three knights in that order.  Ned wonders how Hugh of the Vale ended up in a match with Gregor Clegane which ended in Hugh's death.   I wonder the same thing about the KotLT.

I think it's highly unlikely that the KotLT is any of the usual suspects. I think we have been deliberately bamboozled by the romance tale and missed the appearance of a knight of the order of the green hand entirely.       

              

 

[Black Crow]

Worth considering in this case the significance of the laughing tree - presumably a weirwood. It provides an immediate connection with the Green Men and ultimately the Tree-huggers themselves, but is it a big issue so far as Lyanna is concerned? Yes there's a big weirwood in Winterfell but its not an obvious sigil, especially as the painting of it requires both skill and time - its not a quick and dirty sigil.

Rather its something significant and if it does speak to the Old Gods is it not more likely to be a counter to the dragons. Perhaps Aerys had good reason to throw a wobbler

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

Worth considering in this case the significance of the laughing tree - presumably a weirwood. It provides an immediate connection with the Green Men and ultimately the Tree-huggers themselves, but is it a big issue so far as Lyanna is concerned? Yes there's a big weirwood in Winterfell but its not an obvious sigil, especially as the painting of it requires both skill and time - its not a quick and dirty sigil.

Rather its something significant and if it does speak to the Old Gods is it not more likely to be a counter to the dragons. Perhaps Aerys had good reason to throw a wobbler

Yes, I think it's also possible that the green men, who we are told will play a part in the next book, have already been seeded in the story - the Mad Mouse and the High Sparrow.

As for borrowed armor, the armory at Harrenhal seems a likely place to purloin a few items:

Quote

A Feast for Crows - Brienne I

Ser Illifer crooked a bony finger at her shield. Though its paint was cracked and peeling, the device it bore showed plain: a black bat on a field divided bendwise, silver and gold. "You bear a liar's shield, to which you have no right. My grandfather's grandfather helped kill the last o' Lothston. None since has dared to show that bat, black as the deeds of them that bore it."

The shield was the one Ser Jaime had taken from the armory at Harrenhal. Brienne had found it in the stables with her mare, along with much else; saddle and bridle, chain mail hauberk and visored greathelm, purses of gold and silver and a parchment more valuable than either. "I lost mine own shield," she explained.

Quote

A Storm of Swords - Jaime VI

Lord Bolton had accoutred him as a knight, preferring to ignore the missing hand that made such warlike garb a travesty. Jaime rode with sword and dagger on his belt, shield and helm hung from his saddle, chainmail under a dark brown surcoat. He was not such a fool as to show the lion of Lannister on his arms, though, nor the plain white blazon that was his right as a Sworn Brother of the Kingsguard. He found an old shield in the armory, battered and splintered, the chipped paint still showing most of the great black bat of House Lothston upon a field of silver and gold. The Lothstons held Harrenhal before the Whents and had been a powerful family in their day, but they had died out ages ago, so no one was likely to object to him bearing their arms. He would be no one's cousin, no one's enemy, no one's sworn sword . . . in sum, no one.

 

[Matthew.]

2 hours ago, LynnS said:

My intent isn't to make an historical comparison regarding jousting.  I was curious about the extent of GRRM's knowledge on the subject.  I think he's probably going a little deeper than Medieval Times Dinner Theater.  He doesn't really say much about the joust at all, other than Ned's comment that "war isn't a game", or that so and so was unhorsed.

My apologies if I gave this impression, but my post had nothing to do with the jousting discussion--it wasn't even a suggestion that real world historical comparisons (or the basic real world physics of, say, jousting) are irrelevant; it's an on-again/off-again, multi-thread argument with JNR about discussing the text as literature vs. discussing it as a historical document (or a crime scene, or a journalistic investigation).

In the latter, premises like foreshadowing, allegorical and relational ideas, and red herrings would be logically fallacious--in literature, they are all but guaranteed, and constitute a reasonable element of discussion.

As to the joust conversation itself, the only asterisk I would add is that the tale as presented suggests, at least to me, that the mystery knight may have had the old gods on their side, so I think that does open up the possibility to candidates that might not have a prayer of unhorsing three knights under normal circumstances--eg, Howland.

The tale itself has the feel of a fable or a parable, that it is not merely meant to inform, but to impart wisdom.

[wolfmaid7]

21 hours ago, Matthew. said:

At this point, we disagree over the basic nature of Dany's question, and what would constitute a satisfactory answer.

To me, her question carries shades of her "surely he was a peerless warrior" question; she's not just asking a question, she's probing for a justification as to why he would do something that casts him in such a negative light--"did Elia treat him so poorly?" She's trying to reconcile the irreconcilable--the glorification of Rhaegar (especially among those with whom she has had contact) vs. what he is widely accused of doing.

In that regard, "because he loved Lyanna" doesn't really explain why an ostensibly good person did a terrible thing.

_____

I would also reiterate that there exists a wide middle ground between absolute knowledge and absolute ignorance.

To use a theoretical example, lets say that Aerys was the one that had ordered the 3 KG to stay in Dorne; as Eddard's fever dream exchange suggests, their absence from the Trident and KL is notable. 

With that in mind, is it fair to say that various people - the small council, the remaining KG, etc. - might be curious about their absence? Might Aerys speak broadly - "they're in Dorne on my orders" - without giving specific details of their precise location, and why they've been ordered to be there? 

Returning to Barristan, it may be that Rhaegar was willing to give certain broad answers (even as a cover story) to his allies without spelling out specifics.

To me Dany's question isn't the problem.Selmy's answer is as well as the lack of detail contained in his internal monologue.You are 100% right it is very clear what Dany is probing for you get no disgreement from me regarding that.

It still a moment where Selmy could have dropped something about what Rhaegar thought of Lyanna.So, i am still left with his statement that he can't speak as to what was in Rhaegar's heart.I see this as a general thought from Selmy that he just didn''t know intimate details.

To your latter not the same thing.Its not even close.

Rhaegar: A rebellion has arisen to upset the peace of our fair and prosperous land.....

Soldiers: Yeah!!! For the 7 Kingdoms,for the king.

Or

Rhaegar: I ran off/ kidnapped a High Lord's daughter/bethrothed and i am calling on you loyal men to defend your king/prince.

Soldiers: Yeahhh!! Um what now? n%$^%^ please. Even if he didn't lose the sellswords he hired the knights would be " so wait you interferring in what lords do now?" I'm sorry but i am not feeling you Prince Rhaegar? 

Alot of people would be walking off the battle field.Unless they to didn't care and had Rhaegar-itis.

 

20 hours ago, Matthew. said:

My point is that the latter ("I'm disagreeing") doesn't properly relate to the former ("you present a maybe scenario"). Disagreement places an either/or choice on what I am saying, a false choice. One can treat many different hypotheticals as potentially true. To disagree with a "maybe" is to suggest that there is no open question to be explored.

If that's the case then...well, yes we do disagree. I absolutely do not believe we have enough text to demonstrate why Barristan believes what he believes.

To use a non-controversial (maybe!?!?! who knows anymore) example, observing that Marwyn might be lying to Sam with his gray sheep speech is a fair thing to keep in mind; to insist he's lying at the expense of exploring the whole gray sheep thing only leads to less discussion.

Call me cynical, but when a poster responds to a "maybe" with an insistence on incredulity, I can't help but feel that the underlying motive (even if they don't realize this is what they're doing) is to dismiss lines of discussion that either do not align with their theories, or are not within their areas of interest--that their incredulity is meant to make the conversation go away.
____
"Lets discuss the potential implications of Howland Reed meeting with the Green Men."

'We can't verify that Howland Reed ever met with the Green Men. We can't verify that he ever went to the Isle of Faces. We can't verify that he was at Harrenhal. We can't verify that Meera and Jojen are who they claim to be.'

"Oh...okay. Now what?"

Yeah,and i absolutely do believe in over 5 books we have enough text to demonstrate why Barry and a half of Westeros believe what they do.

1.Rhaegar-itists

2.Westerosi tabloid singers association.

13 hours ago, Matthew. said:

What nobody, anywhere (so far) has suggested is that Rhaegar was a man falsely maligned, that the whole thing of linking Rhaegar with Lyanna is just revisionist history; perhaps we will get that from Jon Connington's POV.
 

This offer might be made half-heartedly, but I would appreciate it in truth, as I only recall arguments related to the perceived credibility of the wives.

I can't speak to what Connignton "might" give. Its been five books so one can hope

But the fact that Rhaegar's character isn't defamed to me is a clue in itself ;from a few perspective.

1. Rhaegar-itists: Unable to think of Rhaegar in any light but positive eventhough what he may have done warrented it.

Any sensible person in this story who thought this through, and wasn't affected with Rhaegar-itis would have a problem with this. Yet we have these mindsets occuring:

1. Dany's first go to thought was that her brother did what he did because " Elia mistreated" him.Not because her brother may have been just a douche.

2. Kevan assumed that had it been Cersie Rhaegar wouldn't have looked at Lyanna twice.

3.Cersie called Lyanna stupid i think.

4. Despite the " Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna and thousands died for it" he was still a ok guy.

There is something wrong with the programming of these people.According to what they believe,Rhaegar's action caused the war. He took off with Robert's bethrothed yet,Rhaegar seems to land square in the teflon Bill and Arnold bracket.

If he did it it was somehow cool and romantic,if it was any one else they would be racked over the coals.I'm sorry Robert's a terrible person yet Rhaegar is romanticized? 

6 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I was simply thinking of the scenario that we're presented with - albeit not in the text - where Rhaeghar spies the fair Lyanna and instantly becomes so infatuated with her as to carry her off for for months of houghmagandie in a lonely watchtower while the sworn brothers pretend they can't hear anything and the kingdom goes to hell.

Yeah,i heard of being love sick but this is ridiculous.Something Tyrion said to Tywin that makes this less likely for me.Even if Rhaegar kidnapped her,or she ran off with him.

To paraphrase Tyrion " When do you think my wife would sleep with me? Before or afer i tell her we killed her family?

4 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

There are other explanations for Lyanna's disappearance that don't include a love story nor abduction by Rhaegar. 

How Lyanna Disappeared

We are provided details of how a maiden disappears from a castle in the Bael the Bard story, which is repeated throughout the books. Bael gains entrance to the castle under disguise. Bael isn't human nor an individual character in the books, but rather the various disguises people have used to abduct a maiden. In the original story he's a singer. In each Bael kidnapping we get additional details.

Petyr BAELish, who's sigil is a mockingbird - a bird that sings the songs of other birds, helped Sansa (who is herself a little bird) escape the Red Keep by first providing the hairnet with purple gems to poison Joffrey, then used the ensuing commotion to slip away to meet "the knight" Ser Dontos. Ser Dontos led Sansa down to Petyr's waiting ship, The Merling King, and sailed to the Vale where she assumed the identity of Petyr's daughter Alayne. Petyr has Ser Dontos killed and pushed overboard.

Yoren, a Man of the Nights Watch, played Bael when he snuck Arya out of the Red Keep. Our clue that he's Bael is his connection to Mance who was once a Man of the Nights Watch, and is currently pretending to be a singer named Abel at Winterfell. Before Arya goes into hiding she is at her fencing lessons with Syrio Forel - Arya's "knight" - who tries to protect her, but is killed. The deadly distraction that helped Arya leave was her own father's execution.

Arrianne is Bael, because she convinced a knight, Ser Arys, to sneak Myrcella out of Sunspear. Ser Arys put one of his men in his (Arys's) armor and had him stand guard over "Myrcella" who was actually her handmaiden, Rosamund. They keep the maester away by telling him that Myrcella has red spots. Ser Arys brought Myrcella on horseback to a meeting place by a well. Myrcella is attacked by Gerold Dayne, and Ser Arys the knight is killed by Areo Hotah.

In Lyanna's case I propose that "Bael" is Cersei and Tywin - that they plotted her disappearance, because they have the best and most logical motive. The "knight" they used and killed was Rhaegar, only at the time of the disappearance Rhaegar wasn't there. He was "down south", so just like Ser Arys they dressed a man in similar black armor so if anyone saw the abduction they would believe it was Rhaegar. There would also need to be a "deadly" distraction to cover the escape from the castle like the hairnet that caused Joffrey's death or the red spots that would have been deadly to the maester, and might I point out that we do have a missing Maester Walys...

All these examples you gave Feather are very "Baelish" and it goes toward the point of how many roads Martin could have taken with this one. While it is very possible that Lyanna could have found herself in any of these i believe the Bael story as interpreted on the board has a crucial aspect missing from it.

1. The fact that Bael didn't steal the Maiden.No doubt he slept with her because he assumed the child was his according to Ygritte's story.She would have had helped from inside the castle to aid her while she was there for a year.

 

[LynnS]

8 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

As to the joust conversation itself, the only asterisk I would add is that the tale as presented suggests, at least to me, that the mystery knight may have had the old gods on their side, so I think that does open up the possibility to candidates that might not have a prayer of unhorsing three knights under normal circumstances--eg, Howland.

Yes, that is possible. We don't know what he learned on the Isle of Faces and he did arrive on the God's Eye with a fighting kit: bronze shirt, shield and spear.  The only items he appears to arrive with at the tourney is his spear.   A shield and a bronze shirt can be hidden.

I go back to the beserker scene in front of Bloodraven's cave when Bran is suddenly thrust into Hodor without making that decision himself.  The presence of a potential green man Coldhands; a servant/protector of the old gods is suggestive to me at least.    The device on the shield of the KotLT is repeated in Theon's chapter when he sees Bran's laughing face in the Winterfell wierwood.  

I'm also looking for a straight forward answer and the Mad Mouse with his own personal sigil of an albino mouse seems to have the character and skill to fit the bill.

[LynnS]

29 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

My apologies if I gave this impression, but my post had nothing to do with the jousting discussion--it wasn't even a suggestion that real world historical comparisons (or the basic real world physics of, say, jousting) are irrelevant; it's an on-again/off-again, multi-thread argument with JNR about discussing the text as literature vs. discussing it as a historical document (or a crime scene, or a journalistic investigation).

In the latter, premises like foreshadowing, allegorical and relational ideas, and red herrings would be logically fallacious--in literature, they are all but guaranteed, and constitute a reasonable element of discussion.

I understand.  There is an element of the criminal investigation in GRRM's comments about Sherlock Holmes and the butler.  He also studied as a journalist at one point, I believe.  I think we are being tasked in some ways to investigate the story using that lens.

Quote

You are acclaimed to use the point of view technique with mastery. Talk me a little bit about this method.

I’m a strong believer in telling stories through a limited but very tight third person point of view. I have used other techniques during my career, like the first person or the omniscient view point, but I actually hate the omniscient viewpoint. None of us have an omniscient viewpoint; we are alone in the universe. We hear what we can hear… we are very limited. If a plane crashes behind you I would see it but you wouldn’t. That’s the way we perceive the world and I want to put my readers in the head of my characters.

But you have a lot of characters…

Yes, in the case of A Song of Ice and Fire I have an epic story; is as huge as the story of World War Two. If I wrote about it, what viewpoint would I chose? I could choose the viewpoint of a young American soldier who is sent to Germany, but then, of course, I wouldn’t know what is happening in the Pacific or in the circles of power… So I would also choose Churchill point of view but then I only would give information of one side, so I would have to choose Hitler point of view too and then I certainly would feel so strange.