Heresy 210 and the Babes in the Wood

[PrettyPig]

4 hours ago, Tucu said:

The spanish blogger said she had photos and recordings to prove the interview was real; the "proof" was never posted. I think it is safe to assume it was a fake.

Does George even do interviews with bloggers anymore?  I assumed he was too high on the food chain for that these days.

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

Tywin knew that Robert saw himself as a hero, and hero's don't kill children (or kidnap maidens, perhaps?).

That's a fair point, but seeing yourself as a "hero" and actually being one can be two different things. It may have just been a show - an image that he liked projected. If he was relieved to see the dead bodies of two little children, then that's not a true hero. I see Robert's character as being charismatic, maybe even ego-centric, but also feelings of entitlement. He truly desired the power and prestige - he just didn't like the day to day responsibilities, i.e., the counting coppers, etc.

[JNR]

13 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Just to be slightly pedantic, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, was actually warned to avoid castles in general. No particular one was specified, but he did indeed die in the First Battle of St. Albans [north of London], hacked to death outside the Castle Inn.

This is definitely what GRRM had in mind, yes.  It's an old tale that finds its way into various other old tales.

Perhaps a bit ironic that GRRM's distortion of this old tale is exactly the kind of inadvertent distortion of myths that GRRM so painstakingly includes in ASOIAF to make his world more realistic.

13 hours ago, Black Crow said:

GRRM is indeed issuing a warning little heeded by some

I suppose one could take it that way.  I just focused on his thinking as revealed by his phrasing.  For instance, we know from this

18 hours ago, JNR said:

You have to handle them very carefully; I mean, they can add depth and interest to a book, but you don’t want to be too literal or too easy

...that GRRM perceives himself as a puzzle-builder.

"Too easy" is a criticism we might apply to a puzzle.   One doesn't really think of a story per se as being "too easy."

Similarly, "very carefully" tells us that he is going to some trouble to build his puzzles.  He's taking his time and thinking them through.

And finally, of course, the whole context tells us that he is using prophecies as a means to build his puzzles. 

In time, assuming any more novels are published, I think we'll see that his efforts pay off handsomely.

[Black Crow]

I don't disagree with you at all but I think that warning is a fair description. This is very much on the same level as his other warning that "Ned's account,... was in the context of a dream... and a fever dream at that. Our dreams are not always literal

[JNR]

2 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I don't disagree with you at all but I think that warning is a fair description. This is very much on the same level as his other warning

Well, in that other case, GRRM was responding directly to a specific reader who was blatantly slanting toward a particular theory:

Quote

Lyanna is in the tower, she asked Ned to promise him something. This, so says the general consensus is little Jon Snow, who is Lyanna's and Rhaegar's. No sense denying this ;)

Heh -- actually, there's a great deal of sense denying it.  So yes, I think you're right that when GRRM replies

Quote

our dreams are not always literal

...that was indeed meant as a warning to that particular reader: "Maybe you shouldn't jump to such trivially easy conclusions."

In the case of the quote about prophecies, that's from a long interview and the interviewer is taking a much more general approach:

Quote

Another curious thing of your books is that you give us a lot of hints through the Red God flames, the words of the Ghost of the High Heart or through the visions of the House of the Undying…

[Laughs] Well, are they spoilers? You have to look them very carefully to figure out what they mean. Not all of them mean what they seem to mean...

Surely the plot is very unpredictable despite all the prophecies you give to help us...

[Laughs] Prophecies are, you know, a double edge sword. You have to handle them very carefully; I mean, they can add depth and interest to a book, but you don’t want to be too literal or too easy [snip]

Is this a warning to the interviewer? 

It's certainly possible.  I just think, partly because GRRM's literally laughing, that he's more... amused.

He is all too aware that only a fraction of a fraction of his readership is going to interpret the hints well enough to "figure out what they mean," and the interviewer seems to think so too -- hence remarking that the plot remains "very unpredictable" despite all the clues GRRM dishes up.  So I think they are largely agreeing here.

That whole interview is pretty cool.  For instance, it more or less establishes, as I've often suggested, that there is no central protagonist:

Quote

 

But who is the hero of A Song of Ice and Fire?

I don’t know. Anyone is the hero of its own story... and I have more than a dozen viewpoint characters, and they all are heroes...

 

Those who feel ASOIAF is just typical genre fantasy -- that it has a central hero, who is Jon, and the so-called puzzles are way overblown and mostly just our imagination -- may find this interview steers them down another path.

[Matthew.]

19 hours ago, Black Crow said:

That historical correction aside, yes GRRM is indeed issuing a warning little heeded by some

To be fair, there is a difference between aspiration and execution; GRRM tells me I should be careful about interpreting his prophecies, while the actual contents of the five published books tells me that simple answers are mostly reliable, and the visions and prophecies are (IMO) among the most clumsy content of the books--for example, the interview that prompted that response cited the GoHH visions, which includes on-the-nose symbols like Catelyn as a fish, Euron as a drowned crow, and a Faceless Man as...errr, a man with no face. 

An earnest question: What, to this point, would we characterize as a fulfilled prophecy that was cleverly done--that had a misleading initial interpretation (from the perspective of the reader, not of characters in world), and played out in an ironic or unexpected fashion? 

This is not to disagree with the actual underlying premise regarding the topic: both TPtwP and MMD's unintentional(?) "when the sun rises in the east..." prophecy are areas where I suspect GRRM has a good payoff planned--emphasis on planned, rather than published; what has happened in the interim, while a variety of topics await their 20+ year planned payoffs, is a lot of bloat, as every mage, mystic, priest, and weary traveler resting on a weirwood stump is utilized as a lame foreshadowing device. Reader expectations (and interpretations) have been shaped accordingly.

[Brad Stark]

3 hours ago, JNR said:

Well, in that other case, GRRM was responding directly to a specific reader who was blatantly slanting toward a particular theory:

Heh -- actually, there's a great deal of sense denying it.  So yes, I think you're right that when GRRM replies

...that was indeed meant as a warning to that particular reader: "Maybe you shouldn't jump to such trivially easy conclusions."

But was GRRM actually warning the interview (and us) that not only is the dream not literal, but the difference from what really happened is significant?  Or was this just the quickest idea he had to avoid giving away Jon's parents in a published interview? 

[Black Crow]

6 hours ago, JNR said:

That whole interview is pretty cool.  For instance, it more or less establishes, as I've often suggested, that there is no central protagonist:

Those who feel ASOIAF is just typical genre fantasy -- that it has a central hero, who is Jon, and the so-called puzzles are way overblown and mostly just our imagination -- may find this interview steers them down another path.

Yes and its worth returning again to the infamous 1993 synopsis:

Five central characters will make it through all three volumes, however, growing from children to adults and changing the world and themselves in the process. In a sense, my trilogy is almost a generational saga, telling the life stories of these five characters

Now the characters he identified back then may have changed or rather expanded in number, but this story as conceived and and indeed written is certainly not revolving around a single central character

[dmfn]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

Now the characters he identified back then may have changed or rather expanded in number, but this story as conceived and and indeed written is certainly not revolving around a single central character

I like this, and the above quote about how every character is the hero of their own story. The POVs go a long way toward building empathy for the characters, Jaime being a prime example. 

That being said, I kinda get this feeling like our early exposure to so many Stark POVs has us placing them in the default protagonist roles. God forbid I start another R+L tangent (which there have surely been enough of to last a lifetime), but are the Starks- a supposed bastard, a murder-happy child, a naive 'princess', and w/etf Rickon is supposed to be- even good tropes for heroes in a GRRM book? We know they have plenty of skeletons in their closets, or bloody guts in the trees, as it were. 

If a battle between Ice and Fire is what we're waiting for, who are we supposed to want to win? Insane/incestous dragon lords, or human sacrificing tree-worshipers who are mysteriously connected to the deadly, frozen North?

[Frey family reunion]

On 7/23/2018 at 11:42 AM, PrettyPig said:

I think it’s simpler than that... this particular aspect is all political; although there is certainly a magical aspect, it is concurrent but separate from the political aims.    IMO, Aerys consented because he was baited with the carrot of Dorne – House Martell dangled full unification under his nose, probably with some extra seasoning about reuniting the blood of the  dragon and the blood of Nymeria to fulfill some old prophecy (although I think this may have been a carrot for Rhaegar moreso than Aerys), and he fell for it.  

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that Aerys would have arranged Rhaegar's marriage to Elia in fulfillment of TPTWP prophecy, far from it.  My guess is that Aerys would have already thought that the prophecy would have been fulfilled through Rhaegar's birth.  If Aerys had reason to believe that Rhaegar wasn't his, then I suspect Rhaegar and Rhaella would have already been turned over to his pyromancers.  And there is also the possibility that Aerys may not have been heavily invested in the prophecy, or perhaps resentful of it.  (Even though if the tower of joy dealt with some part of TPTWP prophecy, Hightower's presence is an indication that Aerys may have been involved).  

I don't think your theory is incompatible with mine.  What I'm suggesting is that Aerys may have been more amenable to a political match with Dorne if he had reason to believe that Elia was his own blood.  So while the carrot of Dorne's full unification, may have been tempting (but weren't they already pretty much unified?) it was the Princess of Dorne convincing Aerys that Elia was his own blood, might have been what sealed the deal.  

If nothing else, it would add to GRRM's enjoyment of fulfilling a prophecy in an unexpected way.  After all if you try to force a prophecy, it usually doesn't turn out as intended.  So I'm suspicious that a forced marriage between Aerys and Rhaella solely to fulfill the prophecy is going to so neatly accomplish this.  It would be a neat twist, if Aerys and Rhaell were genetically incapable of having a child together, hence all the stillbirths early deaths.  It's only their secret bastards that live on.  But since the prophecy will not be denied, a political match with Dorne is what brings Aerys' daughter, Elia, together with Rhaella's son, Rhaegar, and hence the prophecy gets fulfilled.

[Frey family reunion]

On 7/23/2018 at 5:11 PM, PrettyPig said:

I think the current-day equivalent of this will turn out to be Jorah carrying Dany inside Mirri’s tent (as the shadows dance) as she goes into labor- entry during the ritual being something that Mirri expressly said was verboten.     Rhaego dies (supposedly), but she is able to hatch her dragons.   Dany even wonders after what consequences a wounded Jorah may have suffered as a result of that act.

Perhaps LC Dunk in his show of valor went against orders and carried a laboring Rhaella OUT - the baby lives, the dragons do not.   And obviously we know what consequences befell Dunk as a result of his actions...

That's my thought as well.  That Rhaegar was meant to be a sacrifice at Summerhall and Dunk put a stop to it.

[JNR]

10 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

But was GRRM actually warning the interview (and us) that not only is the dream not literal, but the difference from what really happened is significant?  Or was this just the quickest idea he had to avoid giving away Jon's parents in a published interview? 

It wasn't a published interview.  It was apparently an e-mail response to a particular reader that was forwarded to Ran eventually, like a lot of early SSM content.

But any way you slice it, his idea was clearly that that reader should be careful about jumping to conclusions pertaining to the ToJ sequence, because the only source for that is a dream, and dreams aren't always literal. 

So IMO, GRRM wasn't dismissing the reader's interpretation; he was suggesting a more open mind might be helpful.

7 hours ago, Black Crow said:

this story as conceived and and indeed written is certainly not revolving around a single central character

Unless it's Westeros, of course.   But a continent is a pretty abstract hero.

[Frey family reunion]

24 minutes ago, JNR said:

It wasn't a published interview.  It was apparently an e-mail response to a particular reader that was forwarded to Ran eventually, like a lot of early SSM content.

But any way you slice it, his idea was clearly that that reader should be careful about jumping to conclusions pertaining to the ToJ sequence, because the only source for that is a dream, and dreams aren't always literal. 

So IMO, GRRM wasn't dismissing the reader's interpretation; he was suggesting a more open mind might be helpful

I agree.  And while Ned's memory corroborates the battle of the tower of joy, and Ned's memory corroborates Lyanna's death bed, the only part of the dream that Ned's memory does not corroborate is the linking of the two in time and place.

[SirArthur]

30 minutes ago, JNR said:

But any way you slice it, his idea was clearly that that reader should be careful about jumping to conclusions pertaining to the ToJ sequence, because the only source for that is a dream, and dreams aren't always literal. 

But isn't that the point ? A literal interpretation would be that only two rode away. No baby, no nurse. It gets even crazier, if you think about the literal questions Ned asks Hightower. He asks exactly the problems the ToJ has. Why is Hightower not at the Trident ? Why is not at least one of the remaining KG at Dragonstone ? And Hightower literaly answers with "the Kingsguard does not flee". So he was not at the Trident and fled.

The answer "baby King" is not an answer at all, it is flat out an ignorance of the dialogue between Ned and Hightower. So the question itself was already highly interpretation and yet GRRM said it is not literal. 

So if we take GRRM literal, he says that the "baby king" interpretation is too literal. 

 

 

[Brad Stark]

Aerys sent Steffan Baratheon to look for a suitable bride for Rhaegar.  Elia was chosen because they couldn't find anyone better suited. 

[Black Crow]

13 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

But was GRRM actually warning the interview (and us) that not only is the dream not literal, but the difference from what really happened is significant?  Or was this just the quickest idea he had to avoid giving away Jon's parents in a published interview? 

Not in the context. 

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

January 02, 2002

CONCERNING THE TOWER OF JOY

I have a question which I'm sure you can (and will?) answer. It's about the Tower of Joy. The image we get from Ned's description is pretty powerful. But it doesn't make sense. The top three kingsguards, including the lord commander and the best knight in ages, Ser Arthur Dayne are present there. Lyanna is in the tower, she asked Ned to promise him something. This, so says the general consensus us little Jon Snow, who is Lyanna's and Rhaegar's. No sense denying this

However, what are the Kingsguards doing fighting Eddard? Eddard would never hurt Lyanna, nor her child. The little one would be safe with Eddard as well, him being a close relative. So I ask you, was there someone else with Lyanna and Jon?

You'll need to wait for future books to find out more about the Tower of Joy and what happened there, I fear.

I might mention, though, that Ned's account, which you refer to, was in the context of a dream... and a fever dream at that. Our dreams are not always literal.

Also, did the Kingsguards know what was in the Tower?

Certainly.

GRRM has already answered the question, or rather, declined to answer the question. The business of dreams not being literal is tacked on as an extra afterwards

[JNR]

4 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

while Ned's memory corroborates the battle of the tower of joy, and Ned's memory corroborates Lyanna's death bed, the only part of the dream that Ned's memory does not corroborate is the linking of the two in time and place

I'm with you... though the fan GRRM was responding to took things at least two steps further:

1. Baby Jon was in the ToJ with Lyanna

2. Baby Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna

This stuff (I'm sure you would agree) is definitely not in either Ned's dream or Ned's waking memory.   Purely fan extrapolation.

4 hours ago, SirArthur said:

The answer "baby King" is not an answer at all, it is flat out an ignorance of the dialogue between Ned and Hightower.

If I follow you correctly, I not only agree with you, I've written long posts debunking the baby king concept.

Also, since I debunked it, the "baby King" concept took a kick in the balls from the World book's statement that Aerys named Viserys his heir before the Sack.  

Because if that's true, then obviously neither Jon nor anybody but Viserys could possibly have been the Targaryen king.  Hightower, Dayne, and Whent surely would have known it, too, so their behavior at the TOJ could not have been about King Jon, First of His Name.

[Frey family reunion]

28 minutes ago, JNR said:

I'm with you... though the fan GRRM was responding to took things at least two steps further:

1. Baby Jon was in the ToJ with Lyanna

2. Baby Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna

This stuff (I'm sure you would agree) is definitely not in either Ned's dream or Ned's waking memory.   Purely fan extrapolation.

The fact that Lyanna dies in a bed, casts all sorts of doubt in my mind that she was also in a tower that Ned was able to singlehandedly pull down.  The only other possibility is if she were in some sort of tent set up nearby, and once again, there shouldn't be a bed within.

[SirArthur]

36 minutes ago, JNR said:

If I follow you correctly, I not only agree with you, I've written long posts debunking the baby king concept.

Also, since I debunked it, the "baby King" concept took a kick in the balls from the World book's statement that Aerys named Viserys his heir before the Sack.  

Because if that's true, then obviously neither Jon nor anybody but Viserys could possibly have been the Targaryen king.  Hightower, Dayne, and Whent surely would have known it, too, so their behavior at the TOJ could not have been about King Jon, First of His Name.

I agree. Although my point was more about GRRM calling the "baby king" version as too literal and I wanted to point out, that it is not literal at all, when it comes to Lyanna or a possible child. 

[Brad Stark]

30 minutes ago, JNR said:

Also, since I debunked it, the "baby King" concept took a kick in the balls from the World book's statement that Aerys named Viserys his heir before the Sack.  

Because if that's true, then obviously neither Jon nor anybody but Viserys could possibly have been the Targaryen king.  Hightower, Dayne, and Whent surely would have known it, too, so their behavior at the TOJ could not have been about King Jon, First of His Name.

We have no idea that Hightower, Dayne, Whent or anyone else would honor the mad King's wish for succession.  With Visceris dead, it becomes even more doubtful. 

It does not matter at all whether Jon or Griff really are Rhaegar's kids or if Dany is his brother.  It only matters who believes and supports them.  

This is the biggest problem I have with everything in support or against j=r+l.  If it is true, unless Jon or someone else knows, it is irrelevant.  Even if Howland knows but keeps it a secret, it is irrelevant.  It would take a great House believing it to become relevant, and no one is arguing that happens.