Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

manchester_babe

Why do book readers hate R+L=J?

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

That is not how logic works. Logic comes to a conclusion based on a combination of facts.

Might I point out that we're discussing a piece of literature here, where logic might come only second to the author's intent? What is written, and how, can be more important than mere facts of who/where/what etc.

37 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

Example:

a ) Rhaegar is close to his friend Arthur Dayne and his wife Elia
b ) Ashara Dayne is close to her brother Arthur Dayne and lady-in-waiting for Elia

logical conclusion based on the facts: Ashara and Rhaegar are close to each other through two persons.

I have a close friend, whose husband is a close friend with my ex. Trust me, this doesn't make me and ex close. Rhaegar and Ashara may have been close in the sense of Ashara being in on whatever it was that Rhaegar and/or Elia may have been planning, but to assume that the two were in any kind of relationship would require textual support which is simply not there.

 

46 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

Lyanna + KG is a better solution

Nah, not at all. It is Rhaegar, not any of the KG, that several PoVs link to Lyanna, and it is Rhaegar to whom Ned's thoughts turn after the pondering about Robert's infidelity and bastard children, Lyanna's misgivings, and Jon. Add to it what Ned thinks about secrets too dangerous to share, and that the only secret he is known to harbour is Jon's parentage. A KG's child is an embarrassing secret, not a dangerous one, and there is zero reason why he couldn't confide such a thing to Cat, whom he loves and trusts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SirArthur said:

That is not how logic works. Logic comes to a conclusion based on a combination of facts. Example:

a ) Rhaegar is close to his friend Arthur Dayne and his wife Elia
b ) Ashara Dayne is close to her brother Arthur Dayne and lady-in-waiting for Elia

logical conclusion based on the facts: Ashara and Rhaegar are close to each other through two persons.

Robb loves Jeyne Westerling, Robb loves Jon Snow, ergo Jeyne Westerling and Jon Snow are besties?

(If you meant "close" as "no more than two hand shakes away", then so are I and His Majesty the Emperor of Japan).

Quote

e ) KG father no children. 

So if Ned hides KG + Lyanna, he protects the honor of the KG. It is still state unknown, however c) is true in that case. See, a better solution that Rhaegar. 

So, in this scenario, a knight of the Kingsguard broke his sacred vows big time - and the Ned, instead of exposing his faithless ass, is more than supportive, at a considerable personal cost? At the same time giving poor Ser Jaime shit for... oh. For breaking the Kingsguard vows.

It's not logical. It's inconsistent with what we do know about Ned and his views on laws, vows, duty and the KG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Might I point out that we're discussing a piece of literature here, where logic might come only second to the author's intent? What is written, and how, can be more important than mere facts of who/where/what etc.

Might I point out that I did not start throwing the word logic around. Just saying. I'm just working with it. 

 

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

I have a close friend, whose husband is a close friend with my ex. Trust me, this doesn't make me and ex close.

I really was thinking about adding a line for people not understanding the sentence, else the entire world would be close to each other. But this is pointless, if you do not want to understand the example but instead look for cheap ways of finding an error. I assume you are still one person away from your ex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Robb loves Jeyne Westerling, Robb loves Jon Snow, ergo Jeyne Westerling and Jon Snow are besties?

No. I wrote: 

Quote

Ashara and Rhaegar are close to each other through two persons.

The "through two persons" is the most important part. 

 

Quote

 

So, in this scenario, a knight of the Kingsguard broke his sacred vows big time - and the Ned, instead of exposing his faithless ass, is more than supportive, at a considerable personal cost? At the same time giving poor Ser Jaime shit for... oh. For breaking the Kingsguard vows.

 

Did Ned dishonour Jaime in public with charges unknown to the public ? (Well I guess he wanted to do it. I'm unsure what about Jaime. Still, Ned has family involved in case Jon, that changes perspective. Unless of course you claim that Ned has to treat his own family the same as Jaime. I guess the Lannisters have to do the same then.  ) Also 

1 hour ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

It's not logical. It's inconsistent with what we do know about Ned and his views on laws, vows, duty and the KG.

You want "logic" and then you do not accept the result. Instead now Ned has no character flaw and there can't possibly be a text hint. Like Ned Dayne. The big thing Ned did for house Dayne. Also has no answer. No I will not claim that under any cicumstances Arthur has to be the father. This is not what my conclusion was. It is just to show you that the text has other options available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

No. I wrote: 

The "through two persons" is the most important part. 

With the most important part, or without the most important part, it's the same fallacy of four terms.

21 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

Did Ned dishonour Jaime in public with charges unknown to the public ?

Huh?

If a knight of the Kingsguard knocked Lyanna up, then he dishonored himself. It's on him, not on Ned.

But, miracle of miracles, Ned holds the TOJ three at the highest esteem. As if they hadn't dishonored themselves at all.

 

21 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

(Well I guess he wanted to do it. I'm unsure what about Jaime. Still, Ned has family involved in case Jon, that changes perspective. Unless of course you claim that Ned has to treat his own family the same as Jaime. I guess the Lannisters have to do the same then.  ) Also 

You want "logic" and then you do not accept the result. Instead now Ned has no character flaw and there can't possibly be a text hint. Like Ned Dayne. The big thing Ned did for house Dayne. Also has no answer. No I will not claim that under any cicumstances Arthur has to be the father. This is not what my conclusion was. It is just to show you that the text has other options available. 

Sorry, bro, you lost me.

Live long and prosper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

That is not how logic works. Logic comes to a conclusion based on a combination of facts. Example:

a ) Rhaegar is close to his friend Arthur Dayne and his wife Elia
b ) Ashara Dayne is close to her brother Arthur Dayne and lady-in-waiting for Elia

logical conclusion based on the facts: Ashara and Rhaegar are close to each other through two persons.

What you provide are assumption. The logical conclusion would not be that Rhaegar is the father, the logical conclusion is that Rhaegar knowns about what is going on. based on

Your misinterpretation of the concept of logic is that it requires specific/common facts: it does not.

Logic is dictated by clear and sensible thought, based on the circumstances presented. What you're thinking of is concrete evidence vs. circumstantial evidence.

57 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

Fact c) is logical wrong. As the KG have a higher "opportunity".
Fact d) needs support context and only gives us the information that Rhaegar must have 3 children. Assuming Rhaegar from this fact is a circle though.
Fact b ) tells us that there must be a reason for claiming him as his own. The assumption here is that Rhaegar is the only solution for this problem. 
Fact a) , if thougth through to the end, contradicts the love story, we need, based on interviews from GRRM about Rhaegar and Dany's thoughts about Rhaegar. 

What remains is b with support of c: Jon must be Rhaegars because Ned hides his parents and Rhaegar was in proximity. And the assumption is that Rhaegar is the solution. I would not call that logical. It is also not not logical. It just is state unknown. The only conclusion we can draw is that Rhaegar was in proximity. Based on the facts you presented, Lyanna + KG is a better solution. We know this because of support fact

e ) KG father no children. 

So if Ned hides KG + Lyanna, he protects the honor of the KG. It is still state unknown, however c) is true in that case. See, a better solution that Rhaegar. 

Correction. Point [C] is correct, due to the vows required to be a member of the Kingsguard. Of those that have been mentioned in the story thus far, Lewyn Martell, Jaime Lannister and Aemon Targaryen are the only ones suspected of having mistresses (pre-Robert, who seemed to be lax on everything).
Of the three, only one has been confirmed, and another was thought to be propeganda by a vindictive ruler, hoping to discredit his heir, and the last is only a thought of someone else. This also brings to mind the dialogue in Ned's dream in which the members spoke of honor and duty, while Viserys was halfway to Braavos. Thanks for the reminder.

Point [D] states that Rhaegar (thought he) needed three children and his wife was barren. It also brings to mind the the fact that he  named Lyanna the Queen of Love and beauty, which is a sort of proposal (for unmarried men), or a pledge of devotion:

  • Barristan thought to name Ashara
  • Jorah named Lynese
  • Criston Cole named Rhaenyra his Queen of Love and Beauty on several occasions

It presents a pattern of some sort of devotion or a certain level of regard.

Point does not assume anything. You do realize these are not all meant to operate independently. That's not how logic/evidence works. You take seemingly out of place things and form a case that points to something more plausible.
What I'm saying is, of all the reasons Ned would need to hide the parentage of a child from his own wife, being Rhaegar Targaryen's son is the most sensible.

  • If he were Robert's, there would be no point. Just say, This is Robert's bastard by Lyanna. We'll take care of him.
If he is Brandon's, tell her This is Brandon's bastard. We'll raise him here so that he is not a threat. I wlll claim him as my own. If he is Arthur's, give him to Starfall.

Hiding this from Cat makes no sense what so ever. That's logic.

Point [A] is meant to head off any argument that it might have been Aerys that had Lyanna kidnapped, as opposed to Rhaegar spiriting her away.
As an aside, held and imprisoned hold two different meanings.
The point is, if Aerys had been responsible for Lyanna's situation, she'd be broiled alive
Point [E?] makes less sense than any other point listed. It assumes that- after Jaime killed the Aerys, and the Kingsguard "kidnapped" his sister- Ned would want to protect their honor. For what purpose? This more in favor of R+L=J than anything. There was no other FEASIBLE reason for three anointed knights of the Kingsguard to be there waiting for Ned, and for Ned to pretend that the child is his.

Because what you're suggesting is:

  • Two members (one of whom is famed for his unflinching honor) of the Kingsguard (plus Rhaegar) kidnapped the daughter of a  high lord and held her captive in Dorne and had their way with her.
They were later met by the the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, who had orders to bring Prince Rhaegar back. But the Lord Commander also stayed after Rhaegar left, because when in Rome. Then these men stopped to prattle on about the honor of the Kingsguard when Ned appear, despite their forsaking of their vows. Then Ned took the Kingsguard (we don't know whose child it is) and raised it as his own.

Really? That makes more sense than R+L=J.

57 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

People (like JNR) have been looking for years for a real source that can tell us exactly what GRRM asked D&D. The best we know so far is, that he asked about Jon's mother. 

They stated in an interview that when they met with George, he asked them who they thought Jon's mother was, and based on that answer, he allowed them to do the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/04/2018 at 11:35 AM, Jon_Stargaryen said:

They're about two months apart, if my calculations are correct. It wouldn't be difficult to make them seem like they're the same age.

The problem with that theory is that at least two people have either questioned Jon, or figured it out on their own: Aemon (told Sam), Stannis (questioned which baby was which).

The post you quoted was part of an exchange on Jon and Robb's ages. I claimed Jon and Robb have to be very close in age, regardless of who is older and who is younger. My point was that you simply cannot pass a 9mo old baby for a 3mo old. And then someone brought up the babies at the Wall and that swap. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SirArthur said:

No. I wrote: 

The "through two persons" is the most important part.

That's the same basic principle. Rhaegar befriending Arthur and Ashara befriending Elia doesn't create a relationship between them.

2 hours ago, SirArthur said:

Did Ned dishonour Jaime in public with charges unknown to the public ? (Well I guess he wanted to do it. I'm unsure what about Jaime. Still, Ned has family involved in case Jon, that changes perspective. Unless of course you claim that Ned has to treat his own family the same as Jaime. I guess the Lannisters have to do the same then.  ) Also 

It's not about shaming him publicly. Ned didn't even want Jaime in his house, and advocated (along with Stannis) for having him take the black.

How does that mesh with hiding another oath-breaker's secrets?

2 hours ago, SirArthur said:

You want "logic" and then you do not accept the result. Instead now Ned has no character flaw and there can't possibly be a text hint. Like Ned Dayne. The big thing Ned did for house Dayne. Also has no answer. No I will not claim that under any cicumstances Arthur has to be the father. This is not what my conclusion was. It is just to show you that the text has other options available. 

Ned has several character flaws:

  • He's too trusting (Littlefinger)
  • He's too compassionate (Cersei/Joffrey)
  • He's loyal to those who don't deserve it (Robert)

Returning their sword was a pretty big thing.

There are other options, but none of them are very solid/convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SirArthur said:

Might I point out that I did not start throwing the word logic around. Just saying. I'm just working with it. 

I'm afraid the word doesn't mean what you think it does then.

8 hours ago, SirArthur said:

I really was thinking about adding a line for people not understanding the sentence, else the entire world would be close to each other. But this is pointless, if you do not want to understand the example but instead look for cheap ways of finding an error. I assume you are still one person away from your ex.

So perhaps instead of scoffing at people for not understanding, you might want to start working on clarity of expression instead. You make a stupid and invalid argument, get all uppity when called out on it, and happily ignore why your argument doesn't work as a basis for establishing Rhaegar-Ashara relationship, just like you ignore what the text gives away about Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are upset that the "Great Awesome Super Secrit Mysteriez (!!!1!!one!!2!)" has been solved 15 years ago, while WoW, let alone any ending to this series isn't anywhere on the horizon.

There's no other reason, no matter what people claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jon_Stargaryen said:

Making your belief in something known is a far cry from stating something as fact.

Not really.  These people are making flat objective statements, such as the probability of R+L=J being 100%, which indicate extreme mathematical naivete.

23 hours ago, Jon_Stargaryen said:

GRRM stated that he gave D&D the go ahead after they guessed correctly the parentage of Jon Snow (though you could say they're taking creative license to shift the story/GRRM lied/misled everyone).

This is a classic instance of bullshit fanon that's become popular on this site.  

It simply never happened.

GRRM stated that they correctly guessed Jon's mother.  If you think a mother is the same concept as parents, you're doing a great disservice to your father.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2018 at 0:18 PM, JNR said:

Not really.  These people are making flat objective statements, such as the probability of R+L=J being 100%, which indicate extreme mathematical naivete.

Haven't seen many of those, but I don't have any proof that they don't exist.

Quote

This is a classic instance of bullshit fanon that's become popular on this site.  

It simply never happened.

GRRM stated that they correctly guessed Jon's mother.  If you think a mother is the same concept as parents, you're doing a great disservice to your father.  

So, you're presenting an argument based on semantics. You clearly understood what I meant, correct? So, it's less bullshit, as opposed to an incomplete statement, right? I mean bullshit is a lie, but what I did was give an incomplete statement, based on information that is well documented (which is how you knew what I meant).

It is correct that they were given the task of guessing who Jon's mother is, so it is true that I misspoke (typed), however, it is also true- by your own admission- that Lyanna is Jon's mother, meaning Ned- who was leagues away for nearly a year, and was her brother who was disgusted by Cersei/Jaime- cannot be the father.

This leads us back to R (with Rhaegar being the only person- who had not sworn an oath of celibacy to be near Lyanna)+L=J.

Thanks for the correction by the way.

Edit:

You also missed where I later (before you posted your rebuke) posted this:

Quote

They stated in an interview that when they met with George, he asked them who they thought Jon's mother was, and based on that answer, he allowed them to do the show.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JNR said:

Not really.  These people are making flat objective statements, such as the probability of R+L=J being 100%, which indicate extreme mathematical naivete.

Could part of that be hyperbole? I use exaggerations like this for emphasis all the time. 

7 hours ago, JNR said:

This is a classic instance of bullshit fanon that's become popular on this site.  

It simply never happened.

GRRM stated that they correctly guessed Jon's mother.  If you think a mother is the same concept as parents, you're doing a great disservice to your father.  

True. And even just the mother... the fact that some are using the abomination for validation on anything is a ducking scary thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Lyanna's "abduction" by Rhaegar as an inversion of Tyrion's by Cat. Both were an action of opportunity, rather than one of planning. Rhaegar foolishly thought he could save the realm by securing Lyanna from Aerys, and was unable to release her to the Starks before his death. Cat foolish didn't think that kidnapping Tyrion could provoke a war, and ultimately released him to his own freedom.

I don't really like inversion theories, so I would need to see more before I would be satisfied by it, but it's a start. I just don't see much evidence for R+L=J; most of the evidence rests on associations between Jon and kings or kingship, but that is as easily a reference to his lineage as a King of Winter, or possibly even to some as yet unspecified lineage.

But between the double dose of northern in Jon, the way George plays with connections between Jon's northern looks and his parents, and the ghost of Brandon and Jon snow's mother lying in bed between Cat and Ned, I'm reasonably convinced that B+L=J. The statues are one half of Ned's promise to Lyanna, the other half being a promise to introduce Jon to his parents (which HBO went out of their way to add a scene to convey, probably at Martin's direction).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Millimidget said:

I see Lyanna's "abduction" by Rhaegar as an inversion of Tyrion's by Cat. Both were an action of opportunity, rather than one of planning. Rhaegar foolishly thought he could save the realm by securing Lyanna from Aerys, and was unable to release her to the Starks before his death. Cat foolish didn't think that kidnapping Tyrion could provoke a war, and ultimately released him to his own freedom.

Is this really an inversion? I'm thinking more in terms of a parallel. If it was pre-planned or not depends on if the dry roses that Lyanna was holding on her deathbed were the blue roses crown from Harrenhal.

7 minutes ago, Millimidget said:

I just don't see much evidence for R+L=J; most of the evidence rests on associations between Jon and kings or kingship, but that is as easily a reference to his lineage as a King of Winter, or possibly even to some as yet unspecified lineage.

Huh? Never seen anyone making a case on this. Most people follow Lyanna's association with blue roses, and the only person she ever got them from was Rhaegar. Among other things.

7 minutes ago, Millimidget said:

But between the double dose of northern in Jon, the way George plays with connections between Jon's northern looks and his parents, and the ghost of Brandon and Jon snow's mother lying in bed between Cat and Ned, I'm reasonably convinced that B+L=J.

Where is it referred that Brandon't ghost somehow taints Cat and Ned's marriage?

Besides, even if two ghosts of the past cast such a shadow, it doesn't mean that the two were an item. Plus, there is the matter of timeline - Lyanna went missing before the Rebellion, which lasted about a year, and Jon was born 8-9 months before Dany, who birth was 9 months after the Sack. That places Jon's conception months after Brandon's death.

7 minutes ago, Millimidget said:

The statues are one half of Ned's promise to Lyanna, the other half being a promise to introduce Jon to his parents (which HBO went out of their way to add a scene to convey, probably at Martin's direction).

Sorry, this doesn't work. Lyanna was fearful when pleading Ned, practically as if clinging to her life until the promise was made. How does having a statue built become such a concern for a dying mother? Revealing the parentage doesn't come close to such a concert, either, and it doesn't explain why Sansa pleading with Ned to protect Lady kicks off a memory of Lyanna pleading, in the context of Robert being perfectly comfortable with murders of children.

Furthermore, Ned thinks about the price he paid to keep the promises to Lyanna, and about secrets too dangerous to share, even with ones he loves and trusts. The former makes sense for various theories if a part of the promise was to keep Jon's identity secret (the price then being the stain on his honour, his lies and the discord in his marriage), but the latter absolutely doesn't work for B+L. It would be certainly a very embarrassing secret, and a scandal, should it out, but it's not like anyone would lose their head or status or whatever over it. Whereas, with R+L, Ned is committing treason against his friend and king, and harboring Jon poises a risk for his own children, which is exactly the situation with Cat the result of which he never wants to find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Is this really an inversion? I'm thinking more in terms of a parallel. If it was pre-planned or not depends on if the dry roses that Lyanna was holding on her deathbed were the blue roses crown from Harrenhal.

She was holding one dead rose, not the crown of roses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Millimidget said:

But between the double dose of northern in Jon, the way George plays with connections between Jon's northern looks and his parents, and the ghost of Brandon and Jon snow's mother lying in bed between Cat and Ned, I'm reasonably convinced that B+L=J. The statues are one half of Ned's promise to Lyanna, the other half being a promise to introduce Jon to his parents (which HBO went out of their way to add a scene to convey, probably at Martin's direction).

I'm not inclined to BLJ based on the ghost of Brandon and Lyanna lying between Ned and Catelyn.  I interpret that as Ned's reluctance; his sense that everything was meant for Brandon.  Catelyn rejects Jon (Lyanna's son) and I think these are the obstacles that come between Ned and Catelyn in Ned's mind.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A piece of literature has its own internal logic. What is more believable both psychologically and in the general context of the book: that Ned would give up his own honour, put a permanent strain on his marriage, upset his wife and deny Jon the knowledge of who his parents were just so no one (not even Catelyn or Jon) could learn that a certain KG of the king Ned helped to depose broke his vow and dishonoured himself by fathering a child - or that he would do all that in order to protect Jon's life and the safety of his whole family? 

For the former reason, all that personal sacrifice and anxiety caused to people close to him (Jon and Catelyn) seems a ridiculously high price to pay over a ridiculously long time. For the latter (human lives at stake) it seems a price worth paying. 

In the context of the novel, it would be strange if Ned made all that sacrifice to protect an oath-breaking KG, yet, would never think of him with bitterness. What is more, he would think of the three KG's involved in the story with apparent admiration - not a thought spared to dishonour and oath-breaking. Also, one of the major themes in connection with Ned is protecting the lives of innocent children in the turmoil of war - not protecting the honour of unworthy strangers at any personal cost. Ned was greatly appalled by the "grim necessity of war" - the murder of Rhaegar's two little children. He objected to sending an assassin after Dany and her unborn child so strongly that he was ready to give up his office as Hand rather than being part of such a plan. He put himself at great risk in order to protect the children of his enemy (Cersei's children), to give them a chance to escape Robert's revenge. Finally, he agreed to acknowledge Joffrey as the rightful king exclusively in order to protect the lives of his children. We also know that he instilled this principle in his children as well - see how Jon protects Mance's child (the child of his enemy) once during the battle, when the child was born, and secondly against Mel's fires. Protecting children's lives is a major theme of Ned's character and story. Protecting the lost honour of adults responsible for their own deeds is not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LynnS said:

She was holding one dead rose, not the crown of roses.

Nonsense. "Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black." says absolutely nothing about the number or shape of the roses. Even the colour is an enigma, as pale blue roses don't exist in RL and there is no telling what colour they might be when they dry, so it might be either them, or more usual dark red roses that do look almost black when they dry. Also,if it was a single rose or a bouquet, it would be unusual to hold the blossoms instead of stems (and which would be the case if she was holding a wreath) but there is simply not enough information on what those roses were: a single one, a bouquet, a wreath, or even potpourri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Nonsense. "Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black." says absolutely nothing about the number or shape of the roses. Even the colour is an enigma, as pale blue roses don't exist in RL and there is no telling what colour they might be when they dry, so it might be either them, or more usual dark red roses that do look almost black when they dry. Also,if it was a single rose or a bouquet, it would be unusual to hold the blossoms instead of stems (and which would be the case if she was holding a wreath) but there is simply not enough information on what those roses were: a single one, a bouquet, a wreath, or even potpourri.

Yes, we don't know the color of the rose except that it was dead and black and she was clutching it hard enough to cause the petals to come off when she let go.  The notion that Lyanna carted around the laurel of roses and was clinging to them as she died is stretching it.   That's what I call nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×