The Meereenese Knot started at the Tower of Joy in 2005

[Tagganaro]

On 8/15/2018 at 10:58 AM, The Map Guy said:

 

“I was with her when she died,” Ned reminded the king. “She wanted to come home, to rest beside Brandon and Father.” He could hear her still at times. Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister’s eyes. 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. After that he remembered nothing. They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it.

I didn't want to nerd out in my original post because it would make it too long, but I think that line has three possible meaning.

Lets breakdown this paragraph

• Story L = Ned holding Lyanna's hands as she dies
• After that he remembered nothing.
• Story M = They...Howland had taken her hands
• Ned could not recall none of it

1st Scenario....is what GRRM wants us to believe

Story L + "After that he remembered nothing" + Story M + "Ned could not recall none of it"

Story M backs up Story L, "After that he remembered nothing" prepares readers for the line "Ned could not recall none of it"

Two Inconsistencies = Who are THEY? Why is it worded "Howland had taken her hand from his"...and not "his hand from her"?

 

2nd Scenario....R + L = J

Let's just assume the chronology of this flash back is Story M first, then Story L.

Example: What did you eat today? I ate pizza for lunch and I ate a bagel for breakfast.

Story M = [Ned & Howland] had found [Jon] still holding [Lyanna's] body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken [Lyanna's] hand from [Jon]. Ned could recall none of it [because Robert was standing next to him and he had to keep this secret promise].

Let's rearrange the original paragraph by this chronology:

Story M + Ned could recall none of it [because Robert was standing next to him and he had to keep this secret promise] + Story L + After that he remembered nothing *end story*

One Inconsistency = Why is it worded "Howland had taken her hand from his"...and not "his hand from her"?

 

3rd Scenario....R+ L = J & M

Same logic as 2nd scenario but add Meera

Story M = [Ned & Howland] had found [Jon] still holding [Meera's] body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken [Meera's] hand from [Jon]. Ned could recall none of it [because Robert was standing next to him and he had to keep this secret promise].

This scenario is probably even sadder...picturing two newborns next to their dying mother. Baby Jon big-spoons Baby Meera while holding her hands, protecting her already. Howland, takes Meera's hands away from Jon, and now Howland does the protecting.

NO Inconsistency. In fact, this gives Howland Reed's appearance more value in this sad flashback.

Not to keep arguing this since it seems like it's going nowhere, but I have to agree with @Ygrain and just say I don't really understand how you are reading this the way you are.  In your 3rd scenario, which you are trying to argue is what happened, are you saying that passage is describing an infant Jon "silent with grief" "holding Meera's body." The 2 bolded parts make this really tough to square with any kind of logical explanation if your reading is correct.  First of all, an infant is probably not capable of being "silent with grief."  Speaking from experience, if a baby is sad they are crying their eyes out and not feeling grief.  Second of all, the "body" certainly heavily suggests someone being dead- i.e. Lyanna.  It does not suggest a living baby who Jon would have no reason to feel grief over.  

Secondly as @Ygrain went into some detail about, phrasing it "her hand from his" makes perfect sense since that whole paragraph is basically from Lyanna's POV.  Consider the sheer amount of pronouns here, I was with her when she died, she wanted to come home, she had cried, the fever had taken her strength, she had smiled, she gave up her hold on life.  Thus it makes perfect sense that it would be described as "her" hand in that context.  And the only way to read that in a way that makes sense is if the she and her is referring to Lyanna as it has been from the start of this passage, and not a sudden change to Meera.  To me that would the definition of an "inconsistency."

 

[The Map Guy]

2 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Not to keep arguing this since it seems like it's going nowhere, but I have to agree with @Ygrain and just say I don't really understand how you are reading this the way you are.  In your 3rd scenario, which you are trying to argue is what happened, are you saying that passage is describing an infant Jon "silent with grief" "holding Meera's body." The 2 bolded parts make this really tough to square with any kind of logical explanation if your reading is correct.  First of all, an infant is probably not capable of being "silent with grief."  Speaking from experience, if a baby is sad they are crying their eyes out and not feeling grief.  Second of all, the "body" certainly heavily suggests someone being dead- i.e. Lyanna.  It does not suggest a living baby who Jon would have no reason to feel grief over.  

Secondly as @Ygrain went into some detail about, phrasing it "her hand from his" makes perfect sense since that whole paragraph is basically from Lyanna's POV.  Consider the sheer amount of pronouns here, I was with her when she died, she wanted to come home, she had cried, the fever had taken her strength, she had smiled, she gave up her hold on life.  Thus it makes perfect sense that it would be described as "her" hand in that context.  And the only way to read that in a way that makes sense is if the she and her is referring to Lyanna as it has been from the start of this passage, and not a sudden change to Meera.  To me that would the definition of an "inconsistency."

 

Can we at least all agree that GRRM wrote the whole thing inconsistently the moment he introduced the unknown "They"?

GRRM wrote his first book with the most clues since he was anticipating ASOIAF to be only three books. I don't think everything he wrote here was accidental. Our first instinct made us ask who "They" are? But what if this inconsistent line was a clever writing trick to invoke a second meaning, or a third? Is this impossible for GRRM to use this writing technique to try to trick us?

For the sake of argument, just completely forget I mentioned the 3rd scenario because it will cause some bias to the 2nd.

Your first instinct suggests that the mysterious "They" would address the logistics of the sad flashback. If you want to take what GRRM gives you first, that is fine. Keeping looking for "they"...it could be the wet-nurse, could be the mid-wife, could be Wylla, could be someone else that no one gives a duck about after reading the sad flashback. Seriously, would you guys even care about these logistical-people if GRRM never said "They"?

My second instinct suggests the mystery is with "him". "They" are Ned & Howland, "she/her" is Lyanna. There is a mystery male in the room and this is the first time baby Jon is introduced. His story is just as sad as the passage written immediately before. Ned & Howland bust into the room, finding Jon in Lyanna's dying hands. Howland takes Lyanna's hands away from Jon, carries Jon off, and Lyanna & Ned says their final goodbyes. 

So in our FIRST TOJ flashback...do you guys care are about Jon more? Or do you care about someone like a Wylla?

I know a lot reader don't want to believe the 2nd scenario because it opens the door for the 3rd, or any mystery "he" & "she".

 

But for my 3rd scenario, forget Meera and twins....let's talk Howland.

Why is Howland Reed introduced so early in this flashback? His presence seems out of place. We lose some intimacy of Ned & Lyanna with Howland there. AND why does he have to take a dead woman's hand from a living man's hand? Wouldn't it be more logical if Howland took Ned's hand away from Lyanna's dead hands? Why did GRRM write it like this? Could it have a different meaning? Does Howland play a larger role later?

 

[Tagganaro]

14 minutes ago, The Map Guy said:

Can we at least all agree that GRRM wrote the whole thing inconsistently the moment he introduced the unknown "They"?

GRRM wrote his first book with the most clues since he was anticipating ASOIAF to be only three books. I don't think everything he wrote here was accidental. Our first instinct made us ask who "They" are? But what if this inconsistent line was a clever writing trick to invoke a second meaning, or a third? Is this impossible for GRRM to use this writing technique to try to trick us?

I'm not sure I see the inconsistency with "they" either.  They is clearly referring to Howland Reed + whoever else may have been there (Wylla, etc.).

Quote

Your first instinct suggests that the mysterious "They" would address the logistics of the sad flashback. If you want to take what GRRM gives you first, that is fine. Keeping looking for "they"...it could be the wet-nurse, could be the mid-wife, could be Wylla, could be someone else that no one gives a duck about after reading the sad flashback. Seriously, would you guys even care about these logistical-people if GRRM never said "They"?

Personally I don't find the "they" pronoun anything to care about.  I can safely assume that it refers to at least Howland, plus a wet nurse, maybe a septon, maybe just some servants, etc.  I don't think there's any mystery there.

Quote

My second instinct suggests the mystery is with "him". "They" are Ned & Howland, "she/her" is Lyanna. There is a mystery male in the room and this is the first time baby Jon is introduced. His story is just as sad as the passage written immediately before. Ned & Howland bust into the room, finding Jon in Lyanna's dying hands. Howland takes Lyanna's hands away from Jon, carries Jon off, and Lyanna & Ned says their final goodbyes. 

The "they" clearly does not refer to Ned, while the "him" clearly does.  There is no mystery male.  Ned is already in the room when Howland and "they" bust into it- that's why it says "they found him holding her hand" and then it's further clarified when Ned recalls Howland taking Ned's hand away from Lyanna's...I really don't see any inconsistency or any other way to read this scene in a way that makes sense.  Furthermore the whole passage begins with Ned recalling that he was with "her" when she died- and ends with "they" bursting into the room finding "him" holding her "body"- clearly indicating that Howland and "they" came after Lyanna had already died while it was clear Ned was there before.

Quote

Why is Howland Reed introduced so early in this flashback? His presence seems out of place. We lose some intimacy of Ned & Lyanna with Howland there. AND why does he have to take a dead woman's hand from a living man's hand? Wouldn't it be more logical if Howland took Ned's hand away from Lyanna's dead hands? Why did GRRM write it like this? Could it have a different meaning? Does Howland play a larger role later?

Again, maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but it is very clear per Ned's recollection that he was alone with Lyanna when she died and that Howland, etc. burst in afterwards to find "him" holding "her body."  I don't see a huge difference (nor any difference really) between GRRM describing it as taking "her hand from his" or "his hand from hers- it comes out to the same thing.  

 What would really be confusing is if GRRM suddenly switched pronouns at the end of the passage when it couldn't be clearer that every previous "her" and "she" refers to Lyanna.  

[The Map Guy]

9 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

I'm not sure I see the inconsistency with "they" either.  They is clearly referring to Howland Reed + whoever else may have been there (Wylla, etc.).

Who are "they"? With the 1st scenario, we don't know. Therefore GRRM introduced a "mystery" in this line. GRRM is messing with the pronouns and its confusing already.

 

Pronoun confusion example:

"He killed him. Who is he?"

Everyone is turning over every rock trying to find the killer.

But what if I already caught the killer and I was asking who the dead man was?

You check his ID in his wallet and say "oh, that was easy."

 

If you want to take "They" technically word for word, "They" should have immediately referred to Ned & Lyanna. That would have made sense 99.99% of the time, but Lyanna happened to die in the previous sentence.

[Tagganaro]

1 hour ago, The Map Guy said:

Who are "they"? With the 1st scenario, we don't know. Therefore GRRM introduced a "mystery" in this line. GRRM is messing with the pronouns and its confusing already.

There's little mystery except for the one you seem to be making up.  Your 2nd and 3rd scenarios solve nothing of your issues with the word "they", as it actually make it much worse.  As I've already written and as is obvious from the text, Ned and Howland are separated throughout this period of time and Howland walks in on Ned holding a dead Lyanna.  Ned is alone with Lyanna until she dies.  That is clear.  How does using "they" to refer to Ned and Howland, who again are separate here, make more sense than using they to refer to Howland and anyone else walking in on Ned holding his dead sister.  Hence "they" found Ned holding his dead sister.  

As should be obvious, Lyanna wasn't at that tower alone with no servants, etc.  There were others there, including probably Wylla and perhaps an assortment of other servants working for House Dayne at the Tower of Joy.  You seem to want "they" to make some sort of mystery that can only be solved by your 2nd and 3rd scenarios, which again only make this "mystery" much much worse and actually make it make no sense at all.  

Because again, it is very very clear that Ned and Lyanna are alone together when she dies, as Ned says.  How does it make any sense then for "they" to refer to Ned and Howland (who walked in after Lyanna died) somehow "finding" Jon holding Meera's hand, when Ned has always been in the room with them?

[The Map Guy]

Oh, sorry for the confusion, i thought you read my other post.

The book is written like Scenario 1, its Story A + Story B in chronological order.

The theory for Scenario 2 & 3, its assumed that Story B + Story A happened in chronological order...a writing trick employed by GRRM.

 

Example of an acceptable Story B + Story A:

What did you eat today? I had pasta for lunch and a bagel for breakfast.

What did you do this summer? We went to Paris in August!  But we also spent a weekend in New Jersey in July 

 

Scenario 1 is about the servants and NO mention of Baby Jon. Most people would live with this and that is fine.

Scenario 2 is all about Ned, Lyanna, Baby Jon, Howland and no one else in our very first TOJ flashback.

[Ygrain]

Except, your supposed example contains very clear time and person references, which is why it doesn't work as a supposed alternate reading of the ToJ scenario at all.

[The Map Guy]

Q: What did you eat today?

A: I had pasta. After that, I remembered nothing. I also had a bagel.

 

Q: What did you boys do this summer?

A: Me and my new girlfriend spontaneously traveled to Paris  . After that, I remembered nothing. We also visited New Jersey, and that is where I met her, working in his mother's store.