Heresy 204; of cabbages, prophecies and kings

[Melifeather]

Just now, Frey family reunion said:

And it’s not just any toy that Sandor takes from Clegane, but it’s a puppet knight.  It’s an interesting symbol to attach to Gregor.  I wonder if it just stands for the idea that Gregor is a mindless brute willing to do his master’s bidding no matter the task, or if it might mean something more. There are a few characters out there who we’re told are plagued with headaches, Gregor being one, and the Frey who got himself hung trying to free Petyr Frey, being the other (Merritt I think). Both are described as fairly stupid louts.  I wonder if the headaches may be a symptom of the presence of a skinchanger re: telepath invading the character’s mind.

Great catch regarding the toy Sandor took from his brother and the implications of it being a puppet knight! I hadn't suspected skinchanging with regards to Gregor, but I have wondered about Merritt Frey. Didn't Jaime say Merritt was hit on the head? Merritt took his injury when fighting the Kingswood Brotherhood and said the injury has left him with blinding headaches. He also reported that Wenda branded him with her fawn symbol. If you haven't read my essay regarding Robert - I theorized that the Kingswood Brotherhood was just an alias for Jamie, Barristan, Sumner Crakehall, Arthur Dayne, Robert Baratheon, and Merritt. Either they hit him on the head with the intention of killing him, or skinchanging might be another reason. It left Hodor nearly speachless, so why not splitting headaches?

[LynnS]

26 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

 I wonder if the headaches may be a symptom of the presence of a skinchanger re: telepath invading the character’s mind.  

According to Varamyr:
 

Quote

A Dance with Dragons - Prologue

Dogs were the easiest beasts to bond with; they lived so close to men that they were almost human. Slipping into a dog's skin was like putting on an old boot, its leather softened by wear. As a boot was shaped to accept a foot, a dog was shaped to accept a collar, even a collar no human eye could see.

 

[Melifeather]

9 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

He also reported that Wenda branded him with her fawn symbol.

If Wenda was indeed Lyanna, being branded by her fawn might be code for she fought the abduction using her skinchanging abilities. The skinchanging "branded" or seared his brain.

[PrettyPig]

55 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

There are a few characters out there who we’re told are plagued with headaches, Gregor being one, and the Frey who got himself hung trying to free Petyr Frey, being the other (Merritt I think). Both are described as fairly stupid louts.  I wonder if the headaches may be a symptom of the presence of a skinchanger re: telepath invading the character’s mind.  

Interesting thought...we aren’t told exactly when Gregor developed his headaches, but given his size and near-invincibility the two scenarios that immediately pop to mind are 1) control, in the way that Bran utilizes Hodor for overall strength AFTER Hodor learns to accept him, or 2) incapacitation/temporary subduement, in the way that Bran utilizes Hodor BEFORE Hodor learns to accept him.    

If the Mountain was a member of Rhaegar’s riverlands gang, and I were a young girl being sought and possibly caught by this brute, I know which one I’d do...

[Black Crow]

Do we have any hint as to why Rhaegar knighted Clegane - there is after all a terrible irony in that it was Clegane who murdered Rhaegar's wife and children

[Matthew.]

4 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

There is a fundamental difference Matthew.What's missing is factual elements.Its not like the belief isn't wildly held in story.There is just no fact anywhere.

First-hand facts have not yet been presented to the reader, but that does not inherently refute the beliefs of the in-world characters, because they (such as Barristan) have not deigned to share what the foundation was for their beliefs. We have no idea whether or not what the characters believe sprang from certain facts being revealed over the course of the war, or whether they're pure head canon. To keep using Barristan as an example, one could suggest that his conclusion was crafted out of rumor and a personal desire to cast Rhaegar's (ostensible) actions in a good light.

Or he could believe that Rhaegar loved Lyanna because Rhaegar told him he loved Lyanna.

The thing is, there is no objective, unbiased standard by which we might determine what is the most "plausible" source of his beliefs, but what we can determine is that his point of view has an important distinction that is missing from, say, Cersei's point of view, or Dany's point of view: Barristan is among those that might have spent time with Rhaegar after his prolonged absence.

To belabor the point, this is not an either/or choice where I'm saying that Barristan must be believed, I am saying that his information should be considered, rather than be dismissed outright so that one can erroneously declare a theory to be implausible.
 

4 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Absence of verifiable fact is a fallacy.

That is holding out for a hope.To quote you we are 5 books in.

It is easy enough to introduce greater nuance to the beliefs characters hold--including the nearest thing the text might have to a "verifiable" version of past events, which would be a weirwood vision.

Barristan might share more details of the tail end of the war in his POV, as might Jon Connington; Howland Reed was present for Lyanna's death, so he also has important information to share.
 

3 hours ago, Black Crow said:

So why should we believe the second version just because it contradicts the first.

"You should believe the second," is absolutely not what I said--my point is that both variations occur under the umbrella of "Rhaegar disappeared with Lyanna," so any speculation we explore about her disappearance could be false, but it is not baseless, it is not a totally blank canvas where "Rhaegar abducted Lyanna" and "Stannis abducted Lyanna" are equally plausible sentiments; one of those ideas proceeds from the text, the other does not.

I am advocating for the idea that nothing in the text is arbitrary, and that unverified information (which was, ultimately, introduced by the omniscient author) still holds a function--clarification, misdirection, or verisimilitude. It is this same reader logic that leads you and I to lend credence to what Craster's wives have to say, the awareness that the man who wrote their dialogue is the same man who invented the Others, and that that man is speaking 'through' them.

In the abstract, I think I am promoting the very reasonable point of view that the contents of A Song of Ice and Fire are a good basis for understanding A Song of Ice and Fire. 

[Melifeather]

2 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Do we have any hint as to why Rhaegar knighted Clegane - there is after all a terrible irony in that it was Clegane who murdered Rhaegar's wife and children

The WOIAF app just says he was knighted before the war. 

If we consider what Frey Family Reunion brought up that Gregor may have burned Sandor because he took the "puppet knight", maybe his rage included a desire to prove that he wasn't Tywin's puppet? Maybe the murders of Rhaegar's children were his own idea?

[Matthew.]

2 hours ago, LynnS said:

We are told that Varys was responsible for the rot in Aerys' rule and responsible for seeing traitors everywhere he looked.  I do think he cooked up the plan to lure Rhaegar and Brandon to a meeting and trap them with treason if Barristan's story about the perfumed seneshal is a repeat of something he's already seen.  Varys also plays two ends against the other, never afraid of the double-cross and think Tywin's was employed for the kidnapping of Lyanna.

I'm having trouble recalling--are we to understand Varys as having been personally involved in the ostensible plot to swap out Aegon VI? 

That's an interesting picture: Varys, on the one hand, undermining Rhaegar (whom many in-world felt would be a good king), while on the other hand going to great lengths to protect Rhaegar's son. Maybe it's exactly as he suggests, with all of his high minded "for the realm" talk, and everything he has done is to see that a king that has been raised with the 'correct' values is placed on the throne, but this is the sort of thing that causes me to question Young Griff's identity.

[PrettyPig]

27 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Do we have any hint as to why Rhaegar knighted Clegane - there is after all a terrible irony in that it was Clegane who murdered Rhaegar's wife and children

We aren’t told why He was knighted, nor why Rhaegar himself chose to bestow this coveted honor.  

Not only ironic, but suspicious... because had Jaime lived up to his own oath and protected Rhaegar’s children the way he apparently swore to do per his encounter with Rhaegar’s shade in the weirwood stump dream, Jaime would have been forced to go up against his father’s men, Lorch and Clegane, to save little Rhaenys and baby Aegon.    

Again, this speaks to a double cross to me.   

[LynnS]

10 hours ago, Matthew. said:

I'm having trouble recalling--are we to understand Varys as having been personally involved in the ostensible plot to swap out Aegon VI? 

That's an interesting picture: Varys, on the one hand, undermining Rhaegar (whom many in-world felt would be a good king), while on the other hand going to great lengths to protect Rhaegar's son. Maybe it's exactly as he suggests, with all of his high minded "for the realm" talk, and everything he has done is to see that a king that has been raised with the 'correct' values is placed on the throne, but this is the sort of thing that causes me to question Young Griff's identity.

The perfumed seneschal story from Barristan:

Quote

A Dance with Dragons - The Queensguard

He did not wish to be conspicuous, so when he was finished with his supper he changed out of his court clothes, trading the white cloak of the Queensguard for a hooded brown traveler's cloak such as any common man might wear. He kept his sword and dagger. This could still be some trap. He had little trust in Hizdahr and less in Reznak mo Reznak. The perfumed seneschal could well be part of this, trying to lure him into a secret meeting so he could sweep up him and Skahaz both and charge them with conspiring against the king. If the Shavepate speaks treason, he will leave me no choice but to arrest him. Hizdahr is my queen's consort, however little I may like it. My duty is to him, not Skahaz.

This sounds like a gambit he has seen before.  Just substitute a few names.  Was Barristan the one who arrested Brandon?

Aegon's identity:

Quote

A Dance with Dragons - Epilogue

"A feigned boy is what he has," said Randyll Tarly.

"That may be. Or not." Kevan Lannister had been here, in this very hall when Tywin had laid the bodies of Prince Rhaegar's children at the foot of the Iron Throne, wrapped up in crimson cloaks. The girl had been recognizably the Princess Rhaenys, but the boy … a faceless horror of bone and brain and gore, a few hanks of fair hair. None of us looked long. Tywin said that it was Prince Aegon, and we took him at his word. "We have these tales coming from the east as well. A second Targaryen, and one whose blood no man can question. Daenerys Stormborn."

So Kevan Lannister says that the boy couldn't be identified.

[JNR]

7 hours ago, Matthew. said:

a blank canvas would imply that we have so few context clues that we cannot even begin to reasonably speculate about why Lyanna and Rhaegar disappeared

Speculate -- yes, well said.

However, I'm the guy who used the phrase "blank canvas," so I know what I meant by it -- though not how others would take it, I suppose.

I was talking about the set of objective facts GRRM has provided in canon that irrefutably connect Lyanna and Rhaegar during the time in which they were missing.

There are no such facts.  That's what makes the canvas blank, as opposed to a portrait of a relationship.

Now, when you say "speculate," you're spot on.  Without actual facts, people who cite the Rhaegar/Lyanna relationship are by definition just using their imaginations (speculating).

They can talk about Harrenhal, for instance, but that doesn't establish any sort of relationship at all.  It only establishes that Rhaegar did a shocking thing, and all smiles (presumably including Lyanna's) died when he did it.  We aren't even told Rhaegar said "Hi," and Lyanna said "Hi" back.

They can imagine Lyanna was the KotLT, and that Rhaegar found and unmasked her, thus kicking off the relationship... but that flatly contradicts the canon, so it might be best not to imagine that.

Or, another frequent instance, they can imagine the rose petals in Lyanna's hand came from the crown Rhaegar gave her... but that, though a possibility, cannot be established either.

7 hours ago, Matthew. said:

With all due respect, there are a variety of subjects - eg, Craster's wives - where you give these responses that are essentially "well, I guess the reader can believe the in-world characters if they want to.

Well, I think you'll struggle quite a bit to come up with any set of facts -- never so far revealed to the reader -- that would explain both Selmy stating Rhaegar loved his lady Lyanna and Robert and Bran stating Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna.  In-world characters are constantly assuming things and are constantly wrong.

And are those even the only choices?  Of course not.  

It simply doesn't matter that Selmy says love, and Robert says rape, because there are many other options -- C-Z -- that neither of them has considered, or believes, at all.

Let me suggest something very simple: They did the same thing you just admitted you did.  They speculated... which is to say, they used their imaginations to fill in endless blanks, and thus, suit themselves.  

They had no better knowledge of where Rhaegar was, or Lyanna was, or what they were doing, or how their lives overlapped, or why... than you do.  Which is why, when challenged, you couldn't come up with a single fact from canon to justify your position.

[JNR]

8 hours ago, LynnS said:

What we are told is undefined.  But we are shown something in the right hand while the left hand conceals something else.  We still don't know what that will be.  For that reason, I won't dismiss Robert because we are told right out of the gate: don't look here and he made Robert into such an unlikeable character that nobody would look twice at him.  How can he compete with a rock star like Rhaegar?

As far as filling in the narrative, that seems to be exactly what GRRM intended.

And very well said.  I think that is indeed exactly what GRRM intended.

As someone on another site once aptly said, we do not know.

[Matthew.]

4 hours ago, JNR said:

...I know what I meant by it -- though not how others would take it, I suppose.

Great, then you might understand my frustration with comments like this:
 

4 hours ago, JNR said:

...when challenged, you couldn't come up with a single fact from canon to justify your position.

,because you are not "taking" my point correctly, or ascribing to me a position that lacks appropriate nuance. My position is that Rhaegar and Lyanna's disappearances as entangled events is a recurring element of the story. Not a proven fact of the story, but unambiguously an element, a recurring theme.

To me, a text that contains several points of view about Rhaegar's motives is not a "blank canvas" as I would define it, and definitely not an "empty narrative." To put it another way, we don't know where the story will end up, but I don't think we're starting at zero--we have some potential leads to follow.

To reiterate, I am not saying "It is factually accurate that Rhaegar loved Lyanna, or held her hostage," I am saying that both of these are premises that are rooted in the story; thus, when a reader says "I think Rhaegar abducted Lyanna," they are not inventing a point of view that they are projecting onto the text, they are discussing ASOIAF based on its contents. 

This is speculation, but it is not unreasonable speculation, and it is not an "athletic leap," or whatever other dissmissive adjectives one might wish to utilize, it is speculation that first begins with the text. As opposed to saying "I think Balon Greyjoy abducted Lyanna," which is not merely speculation, but speculation born of nothing.

With that in mind, the way I took your blank canvas comment, perhaps in error, is that it attempts to create some false equivalence between all interpretations, a roundabout suggestion that R+L is exactly as unreasonable as anything else that one might paint upon the canvas.
 

4 hours ago, JNR said:

In-world characters are constantly assuming things and are constantly wrong.

...

They speculated... which is to say, they used their imaginations to fill in endless blanks, and thus, suit themselves.

They had no better knowledge of where Rhaegar was, or Lyanna was, or what they were doing, or how their lives overlapped, or why... than you do. 

Again, I never said otherwise, and careful reading of previous posts should make this clear; eg my post about Barristan where I propose that one of the ways he arrived at his interpretation was by taking the rumors swirling around and putting a "positive" spin on it to suit his personal biases. It is one possible explanation for his interpretation, but not the only one.

Incidentally, the bolded is an example of speculation--we have no idea why Barristan believes what he believes, or why Robert believes what he believes. You cannot use the text to demonstrate the extent or provenance of Barristan's knowledge (we know only that he was left out of whatever Rhaegar was doing at Harrenhal, we do not know how freely Rhaegar was speaking before the Trident), yet you have in the past treated your speculation as true.

Which is not necessarily bad, but when you criticize others for the same thing, it begins to look like the selective application of standards; evoking the ideal of approaching the text like a journalist, or a historian, or a detective, while approaching the text as an attorney in practice.

[Black Crow]

9 hours ago, Matthew. said:

That's an interesting picture: Varys, on the one hand, undermining Rhaegar (whom many in-world felt would be a good king), while on the other hand going to great lengths to protect Rhaegar's son. Maybe it's exactly as he suggests, with all of his high minded "for the realm" talk, and everything he has done is to see that a king that has been raised with the 'correct' values is placed on the throne, but this is the sort of thing that causes me to question Young Griff's identity.

I'm not sure about this business of many feeling Rhaegar would be a good king. He was dishy and had the ladies swoon, but he was also dreamy and obsessed with stuff he'd read in books. More importantly he had no experience of governance. None if which is to say he would have made a bad king, but objectively there's nothing substantive there and he could have turned out just as much a fruitcake as his old men

[Black Crow]

9 hours ago, Matthew. said:

 

"You should believe the second," is absolutely not what I said--my point is that both variations occur under the umbrella of "Rhaegar disappeared with Lyanna," so any speculation we explore about her disappearance could be false, but it is not baseless, it is not a totally blank canvas where "Rhaegar abducted Lyanna" and "Stannis abducted Lyanna" are equally plausible sentiments; one of those ideas proceeds from the text, the other does not.

 

That wasn't a fling against you, but rather the general assumption that just because we start of with a story of kidnap and rape, it does not necessarily follow that an alternative version of the story must necessarily be true

[wolfmaid7]

14 hours ago, Matthew. said:

First-hand facts have not yet been presented to the reader, but that does not inherently refute the beliefs of the in-world characters, because they (such as Barristan) have not deigned to share what the foundation was for their beliefs. We have no idea whether or not what the characters believe sprang from certain facts being revealed over the course of the war, or whether they're pure head canon. To keep using Barristan as an example, one could suggest that his conclusion was crafted out of rumor and a personal desire to cast Rhaegar's (ostensible) actions in a good light.

Or he could believe that Rhaegar loved Lyanna because Rhaegar told him he loved Lyanna.

The thing is, there is no objective, unbiased standard by which we might determine what is the most "plausible" source of his beliefs, but what we can determine is that his point of view has an important distinction that is missing from, say, Cersei's point of view, or Dany's point of view: Barristan is among those that might have spent time with Rhaegar after his prolonged absence.

To belabor the point, this is not an either/or choice where I'm saying that Barristan must be believed, I am saying that his information should be considered, rather than be dismissed outright so that one can erroneously declare a theory to be implausible.
 

It is easy enough to introduce greater nuance to the beliefs characters hold--including the nearest thing the text might have to a "verifiable" version of past events, which would be a weirwood vision.

Barristan might share more details of the tail end of the war in his POV, as might Jon Connington; Howland Reed was present for Lyanna's death, so he also has important information to share.
 

"You should believe the second," is absolutely not what I said--my point is that both variations occur under the umbrella of "Rhaegar disappeared with Lyanna," so any speculation we explore about her disappearance could be false, but it is not baseless, it is not a totally blank canvas where "Rhaegar abducted Lyanna" and "Stannis abducted Lyanna" are equally plausible sentiments; one of those ideas proceeds from the text, the other does not.

I am advocating for the idea that nothing in the text is arbitrary, and that unverified information (which was, ultimately, introduced by the omniscient author) still holds a function--clarification, misdirection, or verisimilitude. It is this same reader logic that leads you and I to lend credence to what Craster's wives have to say, the awareness that the man who wrote their dialogue is the same man who invented the Others, and that that man is speaking 'through' them.

In the abstract, I think I am promoting the very reasonable point of view that the contents of A Song of Ice and Fire are a good basis for understanding A Song of Ice and Fire. 

Your first statement goes to my point.You are saying "facts" haven't been given to the reader about Lyanna and Rhaegar.I am saying in a fundamental way it has.

I've said this before its in the eyes of the beholder and its about what story each reader  gleans from the words on the pages.

Some are waiting for facts to support a love story,however that story came to be and unfolded.

I am saying there is a narrative that imo,from what I've read renders that narrative false.

Now I am not dismissing Barristan's statement.On the contra or is very important as it goes to the quality of the info.I have to ask myself what is the quality of his info? Is it coming from knowledge that he knows as fact or one that he assumes?

Everything Selmy has said on the matter of Rhaegar and Lyanna; from his conversation with Dany indicates he has no factual information.His info is from the rumor mill.

 

[LynnS]

4 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Your first statement goes to my point.You are saying "facts" haven't been given to the reader about Lyanna and Rhaegar.I am saying in a fundamental way it has.

- So what has been provided, clues if you will, are not facts that support one narrative over another (specifically a romance or a rape)  or,

- they are facts we've been given, and the narrative has yet to be verified?

Because some people clearly think that every fragment they have been given about Rhaegar is a fact that supports only one of these two conclusions or some combination that gets them to Jon is a Targ.  Something that seems to rest entirely on the meaning of blue roses or follow the roses.

- a blue rose growing from a chink in a wall of ice = Bran/Black Gate

- a storm of rose petals blue as the eyes of death = Bran/wights & WW

- a blood red sky = Dany, red comet, dragons = red dawn= the rising winds, the coming storm

- a black rose = Jon

- a crown of roses with hidden thorns = treachery, deceit

- blood and winter roses = Stark bloodline

- blood and fire = Targ bloodline

[Black Crow]

4 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Your first statement goes to my point.You are saying "facts" haven't been given to the reader about Lyanna and Rhaegar.I am saying in a fundamental way it has.

I've said this before its in the eyes of the beholder and its about what story each reader  gleans from the words on the pages.

Some are waiting for facts to support a love story,however that story came to be and unfolded.

I am saying there is a narrative that imo,from what I've read renders that narrative false.

Now I am not dismissing Barristan's statement.On the contra or is very important as it goes to the quality of the info.I have to ask myself what is the quality of his info? Is it coming from knowledge that he knows as fact or one that he assumes?

Everything Selmy has said on the matter of Rhaegar and Lyanna; from his conversation with Dany indicates he has no factual information.His info is from the rumor mill.

 

We as readers have been told a tale, or rather two tales, both incomplete and both with the aid of multiple parties. Both  may be equally true in the mind of the narrators; they are not trying to deceive, but as I said earlier the problem is that rather than weigh them up critically there is a widespread tendency to believe without question that because version B follows after version A, then it must be the unvarnished truth.

And no, I'm not arguing that A was the true version all along, but life is rarely simple and especially in GRRM's world

[Matthew.]

9 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I'm not sure about this business of many feeling Rhaegar would be a good king. He was dishy and had the ladies swoon, but he was also dreamy and obsessed with stuff he'd read in books. More importantly he had no experience of governance. None if which is to say he would have made a bad king, but objectively there's nothing substantive there and he could have turned out just as much a fruitcake as his old men

Oh, I agree--I was speaking more to the fact that Rhaegar was an admired figure, and that perhaps there were even those (as SlyWren's thread explores) who wanted to remove Aerys to replace Rhaegar on the throne, for reasons that are not entirely insidious. Personally, I think he would have been a morose king who would have let his small council rule the realm.

I was noting it in relation to Varys because I think, if his only interest were instilling good rule, he might theoretically have supported conspiracies to remove Aerys via council, or even groom Viserys for the role--he could have taken paths don't require mass bloodshed and ruin, which somewhat calls into question his "for the realm" rhetoric. It may be that he believes war is an acceptable price to pay for a "good king," but I do wonder if his motives go deeper than that.

One proposed variation of that idea are the Blackfyre theories, which propose that Varys was working against the "true" Targaryen regime, but I believe you have proposed that Varys might be a Faceless Man, which would also give Varys potential motives as relates to the blood of the dragon.

[Matthew.]

4 hours ago, wolfmaid7 said:

Now I am not dismissing Barristan's statement.On the contra or is very important as it goes to the quality of the info.I have to ask myself what is the quality of his info? Is it coming from knowledge that he knows as fact or one that he assumes?

Everything Selmy has said on the matter of Rhaegar and Lyanna; from his conversation with Dany indicates he has no factual information

In contrast, my interest in Selmy's info is not strictly related to its quality (though that's an important question), I find it worth exploring because I believe there is more than one way to interpret the idea that, say, he was restating something that Rhaegar had told him.

In essence, I believe many things can be simultaneously true, eg:
-Rhaegar told Barristan that he loves Lyanna, even if he doesn't in truth, and he had some reason to purposely promote a false narrative
-Rhaegar loved Lyanna, but she did not love him back, she was a hostage, Jon isn't Rhaegar's son

And various permutations thereof. 

Not only is the fact that Barristan was with Rhaegar in the march to the Trident potentially interesting, I also tend to relate it to this SSM:

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Baratheon_Brothers/

Quote

Rhaegar had Dornish troops with him on the Trident, under the command of Prince Lewyn of the Kingsguard. However, the Dornishmen did not support him as strongly as they might have, in part because of anger at his treatment of Elia, in part because of Prince Doran's innate caution

Now, we can't know specifically what Martin means here by Rhaegar's "treatment of Elia," but this gives us insight into the morale of Rhaegar's army. 

To revisit what I said a few posts back, the picture being created is that Rhaegar did not sufficiently reassure his allies after he reappeared (or perhaps he didn't even make an attempt at damage control), which I find personally interesting. One point of view is to relate this to RLJ, but it's hardly the only point of view.

For example, was Rhaegar content to let the realm believe he'd run off with Lyanna because, despite it hurting his political image, the cover story is protecting a secret that Rhaegar considered to be far more important than his repututation--more important, even, than the fate of his dynasty?

I'm feeling salty because such questions can barely be raised--not just in pro-RLJ threads, but even here, where being "anti-RLJ" (as opposed to skeptical of RLJ) is such an ideological position that it perpetually derails discussion; in this case, the very idea of treating Barristan's point of view as potentially credible is a non-starter, because treating his point of view as credible is seen as some implicit endorsement of RLJ, so the discussion then becomes about why we should dismiss what Barristan has to say.

It's this annoying thing where any subject that might tangentially relate to RLJ ideas becomes this proxy argument, often where my personal experience is that people are responding to me with arguments against things I wasn't even proposing. 

eg "I think RLJ is the third most plausible theory for Jon's parentage, behind, Eddard+Wylla and Eddard+Ashara." 'Jon will never be King of Westeros! This story isn't about some hidden heir trope!'
"The GoHH says that the PtwP will be of the line of Aerys and Rhaella." 'Jon isn't a combination of Ice and Fire! This isn't a story about some singular figure saving the world!'
"Rhaegar and Lyanna's disappearances are repeatedly treated by characters as interrelated events in the narrative--as initially introduced by Robert's point of view." 'This isn't some cliche love story!'

Truly, RLJ is the worst thing to happen to ASOIAF discussion.