Jump to content
SFDanny

R+L=J v.166

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lady of Mercia said:

You might be right, but I'm not interested in reading a series where the author is intentionally misleading us, or expecting us to write the story ourselves because he's certainly not putting any of this in the text. What's the point of subverting my expectation, if it turns out that there were big unwritten gaps in the story where the truth actually happened?

Just out of curiosity, have you read any of GRRM’s other books?

Edited by Frey family reunion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lady of Mercia said:

You might be right, but I'm not interested in reading a series where the author is intentionally misleading us, or expecting us to write the story ourselves because he's certainly not putting any of this in the text. What's the point of subverting my expectation, if it turns out that there were big unwritten gaps in the story where the truth actually happened?

This should be set in stone.

 

Share this post


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

Just like Jon being Ned's bastard, yes.

It's true that there is a logical connection there in Ned's dreaming mind.

I suspect that when TWOW is out, people are going to complain about what GRRM did with this area of the canon.  And when they do, I am going to remind them GRRM explicitly told them, in an SSM, that our dreams are not always literal.  He played well within the rules in my opinion and there will be no real grounds for criticism.

@JNR

And Brandon being murdered at the command of Aerys II, and Benjen being a man of the Night's Watch, and many more pieces of accurate information.

The appendix may contain intentional inaccuracies, things that are popularly "known" or believed in-world by Westerosi that are not truly accurate, or even unintentional inaccuracies created by the real world producers of the novels, but there must be a good reason to call a piece of information into question.

In Jon's case, his mother's identity is a central mystery of the first book, and the person that emerges as his likely mother as the first book goes on require us to then call into question the identity of the parent we go into the novels being certain of: his father being Ned. Jon's true paternity is radically different than what is believed across Westeros.

But for all the mystery surrounding the last year and a half of Lyanna's life, anything to do with her and Rhaegar, the circumstances of her death, etc., there's nothing remotely mysterious or questionable about the location of her death.

If it is revealed that her death occurred somewhere else in or around the mountains of Dorne, like Starfall, the appendix will still be accurate, but what will have been the point behind the [old] dream's linking of the three KG, the tower, which Rhaegar is soon revealed to have named his tower of joy, and Lyanna's bed of blood?

The distinction would make no difference in-world. At most it would swerve the readers who believe that Jon was born and Lyanna died at the TOJ. So GRRM name drops the tower of joy once in the entire series, linking it in Ned's POV to the battle with the three KG and Lyanna's bed of blood, only to reveal Jon's birth and Lyanna's death occurred elsewhere? To what end?

There's no pay off, which isn't surprising, because there's no basis or evidence for such a scenario in the first place, unlike the case of Jon's parentage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

But for all the mystery surrounding the last year and a half of Lyanna's life, anything to do with her and Rhaegar, the circumstances of her death, etc., there's nothing remotely mysterious or questionable about the location of her death.

If it is revealed that her death occurred somewhere else in or around the mountains of Dorne, like Starfall, the appendix will still be accurate, but what will have been the point behind the [old] dream's linking of the three KG, the tower, which Rhaegar is soon revealed to have named his tower of joy, and Lyanna's bed of blood?

The distinction would make no difference in-world. At most it would swerve the readers who believe that Jon was born and Lyanna died at the TOJ. So GRRM name drops the tower of joy once in the entire series, linking it in Ned's POV to the battle with the three KG and Lyanna's bed of blood, only to reveal Jon's birth and Lyanna's death occurred elsewhere? To what end?

The issue has less to do with the mystery of Jon’s parents in my opinion, but more to do with the significance of the tower of joy.  The real question that should be asked is if Lyanna wasn’t in the tower of joy, why were the Kingsguards there, why did Rhaegar name it the tower of joy, why did Ned travel there with a hand picked group of northern men and why was a battle to the death necessary.

My guess is that the tower of joy was the culmination of Rhaegar’s story arc.  And Rhaegar’s story arc seems centered on the Prince that was Promised prophecy, and Summerhall.  And both of these ideas also seem to revolve around the return of dragons to the story.  And most magic involved in this book seems center around the necessity of a blood sacrifice.

 

Share this post


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

Just like Jon being Ned's bastard, yes.

Feel free to point out the contradicting information concerning the place of Lyanna's death any time.

11 hours ago, JNR said:

I suspect that when TWOW is out, people are going to complain about what GRRM did with this area of the canon.  And when they do, I am going to remind them GRRM explicitly told them, in an SSM, that our dreams are not always literal.  He played well within the rules in my opinion and there will be no real grounds for criticism.

If that's the way you want to play it, I will happily remind how there was no proof that Rhaegar and Lyanna were even on the same continent after her disappearance. 

Besides, some people may complain. Most people are aware that the dream is not a camera recording and that the events most likely played out somewhat differently. But since "an old dream about three white knights, a tower long fallen and Lyanna in her bed of blood" is not a part of the dream but its description, I fully expect GRRM to provide a connection that is not just in Ned's mind.

/back to ignoring/

Share this post


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

It is Ned's instant recognition and description of an old dream he's had before. Its his description of the dream, before the dream even starts (for us).

It's true he's had the surrealistic dream before.   This, however, is irrelevant. 

The surrealistic dream he's had before is still the only canonical information tying Lyanna to the TOJ.  "Promise me, Ned," a waking memory, is simply not part of that dream.  Full stop.

We can interpret the surrealistic dream as literally placing her there in real life, or not, as we see fit... but GRRM's flat warning on this topic should be instructive.

Just as a little hint to folks, I'm going to point out that if you think the dream is literal, then you must find it peculiar Ned never mentions Lyanna to the Kingsguard -- not once. 

Quite a different situation is happening there, which we can deduce if we're skillful enough.  Few of us are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Feel free to point out the contradicting information concerning the place of Lyanna's death any time.

All that would be contradicted is the casual assumption by fans (not the canon) that the dream must reflect reality. 

We know, for sure, it does not reflect reality in aspects.  Whether Lyanna is one remains to be seen.

45 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

I will happily remind how there was no proof that Rhaegar and Lyanna were even on the same continent after her disappearance. 

That's true, and an excellent point; it demonstrates how absurd it is to claim R+L=J is 100% likely, or concrete, or "confirmed," or anything along these lines.  It was always, and still is, only one possibility among many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JNR said:

All that would be contradicted is the casual assumption by fans (not the canon) that the dream must reflect reality. 

We know, for sure, it does not reflect reality in aspects.  Whether Lyanna is one remains to be seen.

That's true, and an excellent point; it demonstrates how absurd it is to claim R+L=J is 100% likely, or concrete, or "confirmed," or anything along these lines.  It was always, and still is, only one possibility among many.

I think you're tilting a windmills, JNR, if you think these are the positions of most posters here.

  1. The dream reflects reality in what is confirmed outside the dream. Ned's friends are not wraiths. The sky is not covered by blue rose petals. And the conversation between Ned and the Kingsguard may never have taken place, but the content of what is said is, by and large, confirmed outside the dream. We disagree that Lyanna's death at the tower is not confirmed outside the dream.
  2. The claim that R + L =J is "100% likely, or concrete, or confirmed" Is not one that I've made or one that most of the posters in these threads have made. Perhaps it would help if you quoted who you think has made such claims. Instead, most posters seem to think R + L =J has become more likely, or nearly confirmed. Not all, but most.
  3. The problem with your formulation of "only one possibility among many" is it gives equal weight to each possibility. That is obviously not the case. Martin has kept alive at least three other possibilities to be Jon's mother - including Lady Ashara Dayne, Wylla the wet nurse, and a unnamed fisherman's daughter - but to imply these all have equal possibilities to be true is simply wrong. This is not a roll of a four-sided die. Some possibilities are more likely than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The dream reflects reality in what is confirmed outside the dream. Ned's friends are not wraiths. The sky is not covered by blue rose petals. And the conversation between Ned and the Kingsguard may never have taken place, but the content of what is said is, by and large, confirmed outside the dream.

Yep, complete agreement about all that. 

I would go a bit further still, dissenting with some of my fellow Heretics, in suggesting that the three Kingsguard were, in fact, Targ loyalists -- right to the bone.

Also, IMO, the dialogue with the KG did take place.  The dream version is not complete.. but what is given occurred nearly verbatim as it appears in the dream.  And Ned's courteous, polite tone, as rendered in the dream, also reflects the reality.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The claim that R + L =J is "100% likely, or concrete, or confirmed" Is not one that I've made or one that most of the posters in these threads have made. Perhaps it would help if you quoted who you think has made such claims. Instead, most posters seem to think R + L =J has become more likely, or nearly confirmed. Not all, but most.

I can respect that position while disagreeing with it. 

As for the "100% likely" claim, that was made by J. Stargaryen, as reported by Apple Martini, who agreed.  "Concrete" would be Dorian Martell's son (on many occasions).  I'm sure I can find the links, if you're curious, but you probably aren't.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The problem with your formulation of "only one possibility among many" is it gives equal weight to each possibility.

Ah, no, I said no such thing. 

I certainly think R+L=J is dramatically more probable than, say, Ned and the fisherman's daughter... never mind something more exotic like Hodor + Catelyn (my second-favorite crackpot theory). 

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Martin has kept alive at least three other possibilities to be Jon's mother - including Lady Ashara Dayne, Wylla the wet nurse, and a unnamed fisherman's daughter

Oh, I think we can easily demonstrate there are more possibilities than that.   They just aren't explicitly offered up on a a plate, as those three are.

This, though, is itself a subject that could be debated. 

To wit: Suppose TWOW eventually rolls out Jon's true parents, and it turns out they were never suggested by anybody in canon, and they're also not Rhaegar and Lyanna.  Will that be a logical problem for readers? 

I don't see how it can be... because nobody in the books ever suggests R+L=J either.  Yet R+L=J, obviously, is seen as a valid possible answer.  Thus it sets a precedent.

Edited by JNR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, JNR said:

As for the "100% likely" claim, that was made by J. Stargaryen, as reported by Apple Martini, who agreed.

 

Hi JNR, this is the actual story, as best I recall it. Feel free to add any details to the following. :cheers:

Apple and I would exchange PMs from time to time when she was a regular here. In one of them, I mentioned how this scene from the movie Zero Dark Thirty kind of summed up my thoughts on RLJ or legit RLJ—I can't recall which at the moment.

The scene has the main character played by Jessica Chastain, and a couple of others, assessing the likelihood that Bin Laden was in the compound she had come to believe he was. Everyone gives their percentages, 60, 80, etc. She says something like, 100%. Okay, 95% because certainty freaks you guys out, but it's 100. That resonated with me, and how I felt about the issue.

I couldn't find the original PMs with Apple, but I found one from June of 2015 referencing it. I don't recall the details of the now ~4-year-old PM or Apple's aforementioned post, but the gist was me giving my assessment of the likelihood, and expressing how certain I was, of (legit?)RLJ despite the fact that we don't know for sure. So—It's 100% for me. Okay, technically it's 95-99% because we don't know for sure, but it's 100% for me. That's not an objective truth, it's my assessment and I haven't wavered on it.

I always thought the underlying idea was pretty clear, but that might have been because it was mine so it made perfect sense to me, and then Apple as well. I think you must have misunderstood it from the start because you have consistently misportrayed it since. I *think* I pointed this out to you before, but honestly I'm not sure. It used to annoy me and I would roll my eyes whenever I saw you bring it up, but you did so many times that the effect wore off, and I never got around to setting the record straight. At some point, I figured let's face it I'm right, and if you wanted to go around telling people how I was saying (legit?)RLJ was 100% certain to come true years before it did—well, I couldn't see how that would make me look bad. Alas, I suppose I do prefer a critique accurately represent my position rather than unintentionally distort it. I'm sure you understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Actually even the dream doesn’t place Lyanna in the tower of joy as far as we know.  

Indeed. You are still missing the point though.

19 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

The dream starts at the Battle at the tower of joy, and then the dream shifts to Lyanna’s bed of blood.  

No, it doesn't. The dream never actually goes to Lyanna's bed of blood. As far as Lyanna goes, the dream only includes her supposedly screaming and calling Ned's name as the battle begins - and its clear that that is not actually Lyanna, but Vayon Poole in real life calling Ned to wake him.

19 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

We don’t know if the two events take place in the same location.

ETA:  it’s also not really accurate to say that what we read is Ned describing a dream.  It starts out that way, but at some point we’re taken directly into the dream itself.  

No.

Quote
He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood.
In the dream his friends rode with him, as they had in life. Proud Martyn Cassel, Jory's father; faithful Theo Wull; ....

Ned starts dreaming, and before we are even taken into the dream Ned recognises this old dream and tells us what it is. This dream, the one we are about to 'witness', is a dream of the knights, the tower and Lyanna's bed of blood
Neither Lyanna nor her bed of blood actually appear in the dream, but Ned tells us that just from the instant of the dream starting, he recognises it and knows what i its about. And the key thing its about, the only thing with true emotional resonance in his description of it, is Lyanna in her bed of blood. 

This dream is about Lyanna and her bed of blood, even though she doesn't appear in it.
THAT places Lyanna at the tower, even though we don't see her there at all.

16 hours ago, JNR said:

It's true he's had the surrealistic dream before.   This, however, is irrelevant. 

Its not irrelevant when people dismiss it as a 'fever dream'. Thats a deliberate deception, as its an old dream he recognises instantly and has repeating.
That places it beyond his current fevered state, though it seems the fever bleeds in some of the more fantastical elements - though that may be simply the nature of dreams mixing with memory, rather than the fever.

Simply, put, the fact that its an old and familiar dream shows that the current 'fever' element is irrelevant, and therefore calling it a 'fever dream' is a mistake - actually, a deliberate deception once this has been pointed out, as it has been many many times. 

16 hours ago, JNR said:

The surrealistic dream he's had before is still the only canonical information tying Lyanna to the TOJ.  "Promise me, Ned," a waking memory, is simply not part of that dream.  Full stop.

Agreed, thats not part of the dream. 
But, as above, Ned's description of the dream, before we even enter it, ties it firmly to Lyanna's bed of blood.

16 hours ago, JNR said:

We can interpret the surrealistic dream as literally placing her there in real life, or not, as we see fit... but GRRM's flat warning on this topic should be instructive.

And that too is a clear and obvious deception, for any who read it honestly, and are not mentally tied to discrediting the dream, to see it.

Quote

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.

Indeed it was. But, although it was a fever dream literally, thats a clear deception on GRRM's part as although Ned was fevered at the time he dreamed it this time it was an old dream that Ned recognised instantly and described in advance therefore not just a 'current fever' dream.

Quote

Our dreams are not always literal.


Indeed. Our dreams are not always literal. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. This particular dream, could be either, or both. Clearly elements of it are literal, as Ned repeatedly tells us that it is "in the dream as it was in life".
GRRM did not say "Ned's dream was not literal", or words to that effect. Instead, he gave a deceptive truth, that this dream was a fever dream. Then he pointed out that our dreams (ours, not Ned's, but lets assume that Ned's is included here anyway) are not always (as in sometimes they are, sometimes they are not) literal.

On the face of it, GRRM seems to say Ned's fever dream was not literal. But he doesn;t actually say that. 
I see this as similar to Ned not actually lying to Robert in the Wylla conversation. n the face of it, Ned appears to tel Robert that Jon's mother is Wylla. But he actually doesn't, he tells only the precise truth, which, like GRRM in this quote, is neatly deceptive.

16 hours ago, JNR said:

Just as a little hint to folks, I'm going to point out that if you think the dream is literal, then you must find it peculiar Ned never mentions Lyanna to the Kingsguard -- not once. 

No, I don't. I think at this stage Ned knows she's there and he can see they aren't going to let him through to her, period. Talking about her is just a waste of wind. Better to get the fight done with while his men are with him and have heart.

 

Share this post


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

Agreed, thats not part of the dream. 
But, as above, Ned's description of the dream, before we even enter it, ties it firmly to Lyanna's bed of blood.

Actually, the promise is a part of the dream, in a way - it is the dream part, the presumed Lyanna's voice, which prompts the response "I promise" from him when he is not awaken yet. This shows how closely the ToJ events are connected with Lyanna's dying moments because he responds to a mere prompt of his name ("Eddard. Lord Eddard") when we know from his earlier as well as later memories that the prompt phrase was actually "Promise me, Ned."

Share this post


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

To wit: Suppose TWOW eventually rolls out Jon's true parents, and it turns out they were never suggested by anybody in canon, and they're also not Rhaegar and Lyanna.  Will that be a logical problem for readers? 

I don't see how it can be... because nobody in the books ever suggests R+L=J either.  Yet R+L=J, obviously, is seen as a valid possible answer.  Thus it sets a precedent.

In general, there's no inherent problem with Jon's true parents turning out to be a couple that has thus far never been suggested in-world, as all in-world suggestions thus far have taken for granted that Ned is Jon's true father.

Which means that 1) they never consider the possibility that Jon's true father is someone other than Ned, and 2) they never consider the possibility that Jon's true mother is Ned's sister Lyanna.

This virtually guarantees that Jon's true parents will not be any couple that has been suggested thus far.

If Jon's true parents are a couple other than Rhaegar and Lyanna, it will only be a problem if it fails to be consistent with everything we know, and fails to account for everything we don't.

A Targaryen paternity is the only satisfactory explanation I have seen for why Ned felt he had to conceal the identities of not only Jon's true father, but Jon's true mother and Jon himself. 

There is not a non-Targaryen in Westeros who Ned would have had more, or any, cause to hide the identity of if they were the true father, nor did he have cause to hide the identity of the mother except that it gives away the true father.

Had Ned brought Jon home acknowledging that the child was Lyanna's, but claiming not to know who the father was, who would everybody in Westeros assume was the father?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  Quote
He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood.
In the dream his friends rode with him, as they had in life. Proud Martyn Cassel, Jory's father; faithful Theo Wull; ....
5 hours ago, corbon said:

Ned starts dreaming, and before we are even taken into the dream Ned recognises this old dream and tells us what it is. This dream, the one we are about to 'witness', is a dream of the knights, the tower and Lyanna's bed of blood
Neither Lyanna nor her bed of blood actually appear in the dream, but Ned tells us that just from the instant of the dream starting, he recognises it and knows what i its about. And the key thing its about, the only thing with true emotional resonance in his description of it, is Lyanna in her bed of blood. 

This dream is about Lyanna and her bed of blood, even though she doesn't appear in it.
THAT places Lyanna at the tower, even though we don't see her there at all.

I agree for the most part with this very excellent explanation, but for your last sentence. I would not take it a step too far, but say instead "THAT ties Lyanna and her bed of blood to the tower, even though we don't see her there."

This is what is so frustrating in discussions with the "canonistas." One not only has to ignore simple straightforward evidence that does state explicitly Lyanna dies at the Tower, but it seems there always includes a complete lack of curiosity on why Ned clearly dreams the two events into one. The combat occurs at the tower of joy, @Feather Crystal's symbolic explanations of it elsewhere excepted, that should be agreed upon by most everyone. Why then does Ned tie Lyanna's death to the same location if her "bed of blood" in fact occurs elsewhere? What is the tie that clearly ties these two events together if it is not that they occur in the same location and are close together in time? What is it that sends Ned and his companions to the Tower of Joy if it is not to get his sister? Why does Ned's dream include these two events together over multiple dreams? Why are the three Kingsguard sitting in the Tower of Joy instead of doing something in the midst of the dying days of the Targaryen dynasty? I know @Black Crow's OK corral scenario explains this to some, but with respect, really?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

This is what is so frustrating in discussions with the "canonistas." One not only has to ignore simple straightforward evidence that does state explicitly Lyanna dies at the Tower, but it seems there always includes a complete lack of curiosity on why Ned clearly dreams the two events into one. The combat occurs at the tower of joy, @Feather Crystal's symbolic explanations of it elsewhere excepted, that should be agreed upon by most everyone.

Do you miss me? :love:  

Sorry SFDanny, but there is no way to prove with absolute certainty who's interpretation is correct until GRRM writes it - and I don't care what the mummer's version has chosen to do. The author has stated that the books and the show will be different. He said the show is hitting all the 'high notes' and will ultimately arrive to the same place, but 'high notes' can be as broad as Jon learns his true parentage, the Wall is breached, and Daenerys comes to Westeros. The devil is in the details.

Share this post


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

Yep, complete agreement about all that. 

I would go a bit further still, dissenting with some of my fellow Heretics, in suggesting that the three Kingsguard were, in fact, Targ loyalists -- right to the bone.

Also, IMO, the dialogue with the KG did take place.  The dream version is not complete.. but what is given occurred nearly verbatim as it appears in the dream.  And Ned's courteous, polite tone, as rendered in the dream, also reflects the reality.

I like that you are interested in the Kingsguard's motives. That is, it seems to me, the whole reason for the author highlighting the dialogue with Ned. We are supposed to ask the same questions Ned does, and experience Ned's frustrations with the answer his dream tells him. So, "Targ loyalists -- right to the bone" is maybe one answer, but in a war in which Targaryens did not always agree what they should be doing, one must ask at least one more question, I think. Which Targaryen, or Targaryens, are they being loyal to when they stand and fight Ned and his company? I would also add one more, are there other motivations that might force them to do what they did?

16 hours ago, JNR said:

I can respect that position while disagreeing with it. 

As for the "100% likely" claim, that was made by J. Stargaryen, as reported by Apple Martini, who agreed.  "Concrete" would be Dorian Martell's son (on many occasions).  I'm sure I can find the links, if you're curious, but you probably aren't.

Not terribly. I'm curious about a lot of things, including why people reach the conclusions they do, but the actual conclusions themselves aren't always that interesting.

I like that you know who made these claims. My point was only to not paint everyone with the same brush. In my opinion, it's better to do what you just did here and make the connections to the individuals involved. I see that @J. Stargaryen has responded. He is better equipped to defend his position that I am, so I'll leave it there.

16 hours ago, JNR said:

Ah, no, I said no such thing. 

I certainly think R+L=J is dramatically more probable than, say, Ned and the fisherman's daughter... never mind something more exotic like Hodor + Catelyn (my second-favorite crackpot theory).

As long as we agree some theories have much more to support them than others, then we do indeed agree.

16 hours ago, JNR said:

Oh, I think we can easily demonstrate there are more possibilities than that.   They just aren't explicitly offered up on a a plate, as those three are.

This, though, is itself a subject that could be debated. 

To wit: Suppose TWOW eventually rolls out Jon's true parents, and it turns out they were never suggested by anybody in canon, and they're also not Rhaegar and Lyanna.  Will that be a logical problem for readers? 

I don't see how it can be... because nobody in the books ever suggests R+L=J either.  Yet R+L=J, obviously, is seen as a valid possible answer.  Thus it sets a precedent.

The reason R + L = J is seen as a "valid possible answer" is simply because there are a whole series of clues that suggest it. I would be very surprised if the answer to who is Jon's mother is someone who there has never been a clue that character was a possibility. Certainly all is possible in fantasy fiction, including deus ex machina solutions and other endings by bad writers. I don't expect one here. The four solutions we have clues for all would make some sense, but obviously some are more possible than others. I'm glad we agree on that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Do you miss me? :love:  

Sorry SFDanny, but there is no way to prove with absolute certainty who's interpretation is correct until GRRM writes it - and I don't care what the mummer's version has chosen to do. The author has stated that the books and the show will be different. He said the show is hitting all the 'high notes' and will ultimately arrive to the same place, but 'high notes' can be as broad as Jon learns his true parentage, the Wall is breached, and Daenerys comes to Westeros. The devil is in the details.

Always Feather Crystal. We don't agree on much, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy, and some times get frustrated by your approaches. 

As to the rest here, we don't disagree, especially if by the "mummer's version" you mean the HBO series. I stopped watching long ago and don't comment on what goes on there.

I do think looking for the devil in the book details is a lot of fun to discuss. Which is why I'm still here after twelve years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Mummers' version is indeed how we miserable heretics refer to the HBO nonsense.

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

 

... if by the "mummer's version" you mean the HBO series. I stopped watching long ago and don't comment on what goes on there.

I do think looking for the devil in the book details is a lot of fun to discuss. Which is why I'm still here after twelve years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, corbon said:

Its not irrelevant when people dismiss it as a 'fever dream'. Thats a deliberate deception, as its an old dream he recognises instantly and has repeating.

Agreed.  However, it's irrelevant in my case, because it's not what I said.

I didn't point out it was a fever dream, or say that that particular instance of the dream was the only thing tying Lyanna to the TOJ. 

I said simply that the dream was the only thing tying Lyanna to the TOJ... knowing as I did that Ned's had the dream more than once, and understanding why he's had it more than once.

7 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Which Targaryen, or Targaryens, are they being loyal to when they stand and fight Ned and his company? I would also add one more, are there other motivations that might force them to do what they did?

Very good questions, to be sure.  I think we agree, abstractly, that perceived and probable motive is an awfully good tool to leverage in prying out the answers to canonical mysteries.

7 hours ago, SFDanny said:

My point was only to not paint everyone with the same brush.

OK, I'll be clearer if this comes up in future.

7 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I would be very surprised if the answer to who is Jon's mother is someone who there has never been a clue that character was a possibility.

So would I.  But a mother does not define a parentage.

If we like, we can imagine... by fabricating narratives that satisfy us as individuals... where she was, and what she was doing, and with whom, spanning a timeframe of more than a year (or so it seems). 

This, actually, is what various characters in the books have done, not always arriving at the same narrative in the process.

But at the moment, that's about all we can do, because the canon doesn't provide objective answers even for a single day in that lengthy timeframe.  And as long as that's the case, all kinds of intriguing possibilities will remain on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×