The Tower of Joy

[Melifeather]

19 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Jaime makes it clear the other Kingsguard were not in King's Landing. Your theory is based on ignoring this fact. Show me evidence that Jaime was wrong and we have a basis for a discussion. Ignore the evidence and or pretend it doesn't exist and it is extremely hard to have any discussion. It becomes endless posts of made up stuff. My apologies if I come off insulting, but that is not my intent. It is to try to get you to answer a point I have made repeatedly and you ignore.

Please, Feather Crystal, believe I have no interest in endless debates over ground in which we have no basis for common footing. It ain't personal, and I will leave you to the discussion. Perhaps we can find another topic in which we can reach a basis for a better and more fruitful discussion. Until then. 

 

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

"Your Grace,” Jaime had pleaded, “let Darry stay to guard the king this once, or Ser Barristan."

Meaning, no other KG but Jaime was left behind to guard the king. If you claim that Aerys always kept three KG outside Maegor's and required a fourth to be his personal bodyguard, you need to present a textual proof. Which doesn't exist. And the reason it doesn't exist, in-world, is that Aerys was a coward and would have kept the KG close to him, not assigned to posts somewhere they wouldn't even be able to hear him.

Besides, if the KG are just outside the fortress, they are too far to do a thing, not far away. If you are far away, you are way further than just outside the fortress. 

Really, no use to continue the discussion if you insist on ignoring what's stated black on white.

 

 

This is for you both. The three Kingsguard were guarding Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon, not the king. The drawbridge was pulled up and the Kingsguard were behind it. There would be no way to help protect Aerys without letting the drawbridge down. 

The argument that Jaime doesn’t ask for them to guard the king simply has no merit, because they already were commanded to do something: guard Elia and the children, whereas Darry was available.

I am using examples from the text. The author has already demonstrated how certain events could have played out. I’m just pointing them out. Neither of you like the examples so you attack me personally instead of the text.

[Ygrain]

9 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

This is for you both. The three Kingsguard were guarding Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon, not the king. The drawbridge was pulled up and the Kingsguard were behind it. Their would be no way to help protect Aerys without letting the drawbridge down. 

Fanfiction.

And a bad one, because if they had been there, Elia and her children would have been still alive and Gregor would have been relieved of his headaches for good, along with his head.

And being cut off by a drawbridge still doesn't qualify as "far away". 

 

Zero grounds for discussion here. Bye.

[Melifeather]

4 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Fanfiction.

And a bad one, because if they had been there, Elia and her children would have been still alive and Gregor would have been relieved of his headaches for good, along with his head.

And being cut off by a drawbridge still doesn't qualify as "far away". 

 

Zero grounds for discussion here. Bye.

How can it be fan fiction when I’m using the author’s own words?

Its only your opinion that being cut off by the drawbridge isn’t “far away”, but it’s my opinion that being inside Maegor's Holdfast was too far away to protect their king. To quote another poster, these conclusions do not inevitably proceed from the observations presented--they are only alternative interpretations.

IMO the reason why Ned was filled with such angst, was because it’s probably his fault that Gregor and Armory reached Elia and the children.  While he and his men were fighting the three Kingsguard, Gregor and Amory were able to slip behind the fighting to get inside the royal apartments.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

IMO the reason why Ned was filled with such angst, was because it’s probably his fault that Gregor and Armory reached Elia and the children.  While he and his men were fighting the three Kingsguard, Gregor and Amory were able to slip behind the fighting to get inside the royal apartments.

If you're arguing that the fight between Ned and the 3 KG happened outside the royal apartments, then how do you explain how Ned built cairns for those who died in the fight - cairns built from the demolished tower of joy far away in Dorne?

[Nowy Tends]

5 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

If you're arguing that the fight between Ned and the 3 KG happened outside the royal apartments, then how do you explain how Ned built cairns for those who died in the fight - cairns built from the demolished tower of joy far away in Dorne?

Yes, and what about Howland Reeds?

[Melifeather]

2 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

If you're arguing that the fight between Ned and the 3 KG happened outside the royal apartments, then how do you explain how Ned built cairns for those who died in the fight - cairns built from the demolished tower of joy far away in Dorne?

Ned did bury his men, but 'where' is debatable. Even I can think of more than one place. Even if there were an actual tower in the Prince's Pass, I highly doubt that Ned, even with Howland's help, could have pulled an intact tower down to the ground. Whatever stones were used, the tower that they came from must have already been in a decayed and crumbling state. IMO the tower that was used to build cairns was not the same tower where he fought the three Kingsguard.

[Melifeather]

28 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

Yes, and what about Holland Reeds?

We don't know what Howland supposedly did that prevented Arthur Dayne from killing Ned, but because Howland seems to have special gifts, I wonder if he didn't try skinchanging into Arthur causing him to become confused, much like Hodor was confused and afraid when Bran slipped into his skin. Because one detail seems clear - that Dawn is a special, and perhaps magical, sword. Jaime said Arthur couldn't be defeated when he held his sword - even if he was holding his cock in one hand to take a piss and holding Dawn in the other. IMO this means that something extraordinary occurred to cause Arthur to be beatable. 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

48 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Ned did bury his men, but 'where' is debatable. Even I can think of more than one place. Even if there were an actual tower in the Prince's Pass, I highly doubt that Ned, even with Howland's help, could have pulled an intact tower down to the ground. Whatever stones were used, the tower that they came from must have already been in a decayed and crumbling state. IMO the tower that was used to build cairns was not the same tower where he fought the three Kingsguard.

Here's the quote from the book.

Quote

It would have to be his grandfather, for Jory's father was buried far to the south. Martyn Cassel had perished with the rest. Ned had pulled the tower down afterward, and used its bloody stones to build eight cairns upon the ridge. It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory.

First of all, Ned is thinking this after he is awakened. So he's not dreaming and his thoughts occur in the middle of a conversation with his captain of guard. Ned is speaking lucidly and plainly, i.e. not drugged.

"... Jory's father was buried far to the south." There's that word, "far", again. I doubt "far" describes 10 minutes outside of King's Landing or even nearby Maegor's Holdfast. So you're saying that Ned and Howland Reed dragged 8 corpses far to the south (by themselves?) until they could find a tower to pull down to build cairns. Really?

The "where" is not debatable in the least. "Ned had pulled the tower down ... Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy ... " It's the same place. It even had "bloody stones", as they would be if a battle had been fought there.

 

[SFDanny]

7 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

This is for you both. The three Kingsguard were guarding Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon, not the king. The drawbridge was pulled up and the Kingsguard were behind it. There would be no way to help protect Aerys without letting the drawbridge down. 

The argument that Jaime doesn’t ask for them to guard the king simply has no merit, because they already were commanded to do something: guard Elia and the children, whereas Darry was available.

I am using examples from the text. The author has already demonstrated how certain events could have played out. I’m just pointing them out. Neither of you like the examples so you attack me personally instead of the text.

Feather Crystal, I have not attacked you personally or in any other way. I certainly get frustrated when people build theories out of thin air and in direct opposition to well established facts and pretend both of those things are true. But it is clear you love Martin's works and enjoy talking about them. For that alone I think of you as a member of common community and someone I enjoy reading. We approach theory building in completely different ways, so it is not unexpected I get frustrated with some of your ideas. This one certainly is a case in point.

As a central point of this theory, you place Hightower, Whent, and Dayne in King's Landing during the sack. Something that is contradicted by many, many other sources in the series and by the author and by other sources. As such, I believe, it falls apart as a realistic theory. I've raised my objections, and you have rejected them without reference to any contradictory evidence. Only that it doesn't fit the theory you have constructed. In that we agree. But I don't see how we can reach any areas of agreement on this one. So, I respectfully have said I won't further engage with you on this topic. I'm going to leave it at that.

[Melifeather]

I’ll come back later to comment. I wanted to quick share with you this article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-will-george-rr-martin-final-game-of-thrones-books-end-60-minutes-2019-04-13/

The author is giving us a warning that the books will have some very different details and ending from the show...he’s predicting we’ll be arguing about these differences. We’ve been warned!

[Melifeather]

5 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Here's the quote from the book.

First of all, Ned is thinking this after he is awakened. So he's not dreaming and his thoughts occur in the middle of a conversation with his captain of guard. Ned is speaking lucidly and plainly, i.e. not drugged.

"... Jory's father was buried far to the south." There's that word, "far", again. I doubt "far" describes 10 minutes outside of King's Landing or even nearby Maegor's Holdfast. So you're saying that Ned and Howland Reed dragged 8 corpses far to the south (by themselves?) until they could find a tower to pull down to build cairns. Really?

The "where" is not debatable in the least. "Ned had pulled the tower down ... Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy ... " It's the same place. It even had "bloody stones", as they would be if a battle had been fought there.

 

In my opinion, the place where Ned’s men died and the tower ruins he pulled down to build cairns was a separate place than where he fought the three Kingsguard. Personally, I think Ned’s men died at the ruins of another remote castle tower after the Battle of the Bells, but before the battle at the Trident.

There’s a large segment of the Rebellion that has not been explained, which is, where was Jon Arryn and his army prior to the Trident? Yes, his heir Denys was killed at Stoney Sept, but the two main text references to that battle only mention Ned and Hoster’s armies descending on Stoney Sept. The Brotherhood Without Banners and Jon Connington both only mention Ned and Hoster coming to help Robert. Neither mention Jon Arryn. Where was he and what was he doing? I think it had something to do with why all the rebel forces retreated north to the Trident after Stoney Sept. My guess is that it involved a conflict near the ruins of Whitewalls. But that’s just my best guess, because GRRM hasn’t told us what Jon Arryn was doing yet.

As for Jory, the context of ‘far to the south’ is relative to where his grandfather is buried, not where Ned was. Martin Cassel could pretty much be buried anywhere as long as its further south than Winterfell.

[Ygrain]

8 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

So you're saying that Ned and Howland Reed dragged 8 corpses far to the south (by themselves?) until they could find a tower to pull down to build cairns.

[Melifeather]

13 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Feather Crystal, I have not attacked you personally or in any other way. I certainly get frustrated when people build theories out of thin air and in direct opposition to well established facts and pretend both of those things are true. But it is clear you love Martin's works and enjoy talking about them. For that alone I think of you as a member of common community and someone I enjoy reading. We approach theory building in completely different ways, so it is not unexpected I get frustrated with some of your ideas. This one certainly is a case in point.

I don't wish to shut down discussion, and I appreciate your reaching out to me. I just find ridicule and sweeping dismissals especially frustrating. You and a few others here are probably used to shutting down contrary opinions using these tactics, but if you only tolerate agreeable voices, you're only setting yourselves up with a fragile truth that won't stand the test of time.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I don't wish to shut down discussion, and I appreciate your reaching out to me. I just find ridicule and sweeping dismissals especially frustrating. You and a few others here are probably used to shutting down contrary opinions using these tactics, but if you only tolerate agreeable voices, you're only setting yourselves up with a fragile truth that won't stand the test of time.

I can understand why ridicule and dismissal would be frustrating. Unfortunately, that too often is the response when theories are not subject to the same rigorous standards as the posters of these boards are accustomed to, and the standards are called into question without evidence to reject them.

Your theory asks us to take as part of its core assumptions that, contrary to an accumulation of evidence from the books, Ned fights the three Kingsguard in King's Landing during the sack. As a "what if ..." exercise perhaps this idea has value. When subjected to evidence we have in the books it leaves many of us shaking our heads and asking how one can seriously make these assumptions as the foundation of a new theory.

Feather Crystal, you accuse me and others of setting ourselves up with "fragile truths that won't stand the test of time", but my response is that what could be more fragile than a theory that can't stand the questions provided by basic evidence provided in the books? Do you think your theory is the only one to be put to these evidentiary tests? Do you think those who ask these questions are being unfair in asking them? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I think any new theory should be expected by its maker to be subject to the same rigorous questioning and standards.

Perhaps, I, and maybe others, respond in a seemingly harsh tone, and I have apologized for that, I believe, but I do not apologize for demanding the same evidentiary standards from you that I expect from what I write or anyone else does.

There is a great deal of room for a lot of speculation within the bounds of the evidence. The problem comes when evidence is dismissed without contrary evidence to show why it is dismissed. To then build theories that ignore the established evidence and ask the reader to accept it without questioning why we should do so, seems to be the perfect way to set ourselves up for accepting real fragile truths.

In short, please show why we should now reject the quotations from the text, the author, and other sources, that place Ned and company's battle with Hightower, Whent, and Dayne at the Tower of Joy. Not just a theory based on "what if" we don't accept this seeming fact, but why should we throw the evidence out. I believe that is the threshold you haven't met.

[Melifeather]

1 minute ago, SFDanny said:

Feather Crystal, you accuse me and others of setting ourselves up with "fragile truths that won't stand the test of time", but my response is that what could be more fragile than a theory that can't stand the questions provided by basic evidence provided in the books? Do you think your theory is the only one to be put to these evidentiary tests? Do you think those who ask these questions are being unfair in asking them? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I think any new theory should be expected by its maker to be subject to the same rigorous questioning and standards.

I have repeatedly used the text to support my theory. That long post about Robert's death was straight out of the book. I can only assume that you haven't accepted that the parallels found everywhere in the books are a deliberate construct utilized by the author? Once these parallel patterns are recognized, they can be scrutinized to get a sense for what happened in the past and for what may happen in the future. Robert's death scene is only one example. We're frequently exposed to these repeat situations in the forms of parallels, metaphors, and through symbolism, but they are often overlooked or outright dismissed by a large majority of people that prefer a more straightforward interpretation. 

A lot of the fever dream interpretation is built upon a shaky foundation, specifically details that are only found in the App and cannot be located elsewhere. You may be satisfied with accepting those details as canon, but I am not. I'm also wary of Maester Yandel's writings in the World Book. I don't think he's deliberately trying to manipulate history, but he has presented a narrative that would have pleased it's intended audience, King Robert. It doesn't necessarily confirm that all things written inside it are 'true', because we cannot state with absolute certainty what the truth is before we've read the next two books.

I understand that you are really vested in your interpretation of the books, specifically Ned's fever dream and Jon Snow's parentage. So much so that you believe all the evidence is rock solid and that your theories are all but confirmed. I'm just as confident that the majority will be proven wrong, and I think GRRM just tried to warn us with his interview last night. I think it's very telling that he chose the same night as the return of the show to speak, but that he still chose his words with care so as to not give too much away. He believes the message boards will break out in fighting over the ending in the books. What alternate ending could GRRM possibly write that would cause more fighting on the message boards other than Jon Snow's parentage and the tower of joy?

[Ygrain]

30 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

I have repeatedly used the text to support my theory. That long post about Robert's death was straight out of the book.

The text you quoted doesn't state that ToJ was actually Maegor's. Claiming it does is an immense stretch. All it does is that it builds a parallel between the ToJ situation and the access to Robert that is guarded by three white knights. It is the three white knights that prompt Ned's memory and remind him of the ToJ fight, it doesn't mean that he is approaching the very same place.

Your reading of the paragraph is faulty because it directly contradicts multiple other parts of the text as well as the inner logic of the story and the use of language, and you don't see it because you are so entrapped in the metatextual that you forget to take into consideration the explicit. That's what makes any discussion of your points futile.

And if you think some posts crossed the lines of civility, report them to the mods. I would only point out that attacking your arguments is not the same as attacking yourself.

[Melifeather]

20 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

The text you quoted doesn't state that ToJ was actually Maegor's. Claiming it does is an immense stretch. All it does is that it builds a parallel between the ToJ situation and the access to Robert that is guarded by three white knights. It is the three white knights that prompt Ned's memory and remind him of the ToJ fight, it doesn't mean that he is approaching the very same place.

Your reading of the paragraph is faulty because it directly contradicts multiple other parts of the text as well as the inner logic of the story and the use of language, and you don't see it because you are so entrapped in the metatextual that you forget to take into consideration the explicit. That's what makes any discussion of your points futile.

And if you think some posts crossed the lines of civility, report them to the mods. I would only point out that attacking your arguments is not the same as attacking yourself.

I have found that when scrutinizing the titled chapters that GRRM often gives enough information to identify, not just one place or person, but multiples. The tower of joy is one such instance. When I wrote the theory that Maegor's Holdfast was the true tower of joy, I hadn't realized that the imagery was meant to describe more than one place: one tower for where Ned fought the Kingsguard, and at least one other where he lost his men. While Maegor's Holdfast certainly qualifies sarcastically as a 'tower of joy", so could Whitewalls, which was supposedly destroyed by Bloodraven after Egg was discovered being held in Whitewall's sept by Lord Butterwell, and after the conspiracy to support a Blackfyre contender was revealed. I don't know why I'm bothering to explain all this, because you've made it clear that you will only accept explicit text as evidence.

I haven't seen anything that merits reporting to the mods, and I hope it remains that way.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

I have repeatedly used the text to support my theory. That long post about Robert's death was straight out of the book. I can only assume that you haven't accepted that the parallels found everywhere in the books are a deliberate construct utilized by the author?

You have two separate things going on here. (1) You did indeed directly quote text from the book. (2) You asserted that quoted text as proof that the author is deliberately using parallel events.

(1) does not equal (2). The parallel events idea is your own interpretation of the story; it's not set in stone, it's not incontrovertible. There's nothing wrong about reading the text as consisting of parallel events - in fact, it's quite an interesting way to go about it - but what I have a problem with is your insistence that any reader seeing it differently simply hasn't "accepted" it. This is bullshit, to put it mildly. You have an interpretation; it's fine to have an interpretation and I hope you go on explaining and defending it, but it is not holy writ. It's one way - among many! - that readers might find useful (or not) to illuminate the story.

 

28 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

I don't know why I'm bothering to explain all this, because you've made it clear that you will only accept explicit text as evidence.

I can't speak for the others here, but at least for me this is simply not true in any way, shape or form.

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

There's nothing wrong about reading the text as consisting of parallel events - in fact, it's quite an interesting way to go about it - but what I have a problem with is your insistence that any reader seeing it differently simply hasn't "accepted" it. This is bullshit, to put it mildly. You have an interpretation; it's fine to have an interpretation and I hope you go on explaining and defending it, but it is not holy writ. It's one way - among many! - that readers might find useful (or not) to illuminate the story.

I don't feel like I have been insisting that everyone accept everything that I propose, but I do tend to get irritated when what I've shared is dismissed as having no merit. To me that only indicates that either it was never read in the first place, or dismissed simply because it is contrary. 

You are right that symbolism can be interpreted in various ways, but I don't claim that my interpretations are proven, so if that is how I'm coming across, then I'll try to do better next time.

My main purpose is to encourage others to take a second look at these parallels and compare them to what we think we know, because I am not convinced that we've been given the whole truth about the tower of joy and Jon Snow's parentage. All we have is a dream, and a fevered dream at that. Dreams aren't always literal, and just because it's an 'old dream' doesn't mean it's explicit proven history.

Could you prove your theories regarding the tower of joy without relying on the App and the World book? The App is supposed to be a concordance of facts drawn from the text, but it has details not found in the books. The World Book is supposed to be an in-world history book written by Maester Yandel as a gift for King Robert, and projects a view of history the way Robert agrees with. It neither confirms nor discredits any theories based on the text of the books. It would be akin to as if Sarah Sanders wrote a history book for Donald Trump's presidency. Would you expect everything in it to be the truth?

My theories are always evolving as new discoveries are made. I'm trying to decipher the the titled chapters in numerical order and am not quite finished with Cat of the Canals, but I jumped ahead to take a quick look at the Mercy chapter from Winds and found a lot of things in that chapter that helped clarify some things in the Cat of the Canals chapter. I won't mention anything from the Mercy chapter, because it's too spoilerish, but if you've already read that chapter, I urge you to read it again, because I think the play that 'Mercy' is acting in is a parallel of Lyanna's last hours.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

3 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

All we have is a dream, and a fevered dream at that. Dreams aren't always literal, and just because it's an 'old dream' doesn't mean it's explicit proven history.

I'm going to nitpick over this one thing, because the reason I almost always argue back when someone says "and a fevered dream at that" is because it somehow implies that it's the drugs talking when describing the dream. The drugs are irrelevant. It's the same dream he's had before and that's the takeaway that we have to pay attention to. Ned is haunted by something represented by the dream and he has been for a long time because it's an old dream. Pointing out Ned's being drugged during this occurrence of the dream just muddies stuff up.

And of course the dream isn't entirely literal. Just the fact that it's a dream is enough to indicate that. Although, it is explicit proven history to a certain extent: the encounter, the battle and the deaths did actually happen. But that's not what the dream is about; it's not there as explication of history. It's there as explication of Ned.

The tower long fallen, the 3 knights in white cloaks and the bed of blood: these are the symbolic representations of the burdens carried by Ned and blighting his life to the end of his days. All the death, all the lies, all the suffering; Ned caused none of it to happen, he wasn't responsible for any of it, yet he had to bear the burdens of those events and their aftermath always. He had to allow his reputation to be besmirched before his peers. He had to blemish his marriage and make his wife suffer to maintain a deceit. Most of all, he had to inflict enormous suffering upon Jon Snow, an absolute innocent. Sure, he saved Jon's life but at what cost to both of them to do so?

So the dream is Ned trying yet again to come to grips with all this. Why did this happen? Why did it happen the way it did and not some other way? What did it mean then and what does it continue to mean to Ned all these years later? You know, themes. It was explained much better by @SFDanny above (it's in post #88).

I would argue that, in particular, the conversation between Ned and the 3 KG is wildly inaccurate. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true. It's just that its truth isn't about "what really happened on that day in that place".