Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
QueenAnne

What was the point of r+l=j

Recommended Posts

On 5/23/2019 at 6:54 PM, King Jon Snow Stark said:

He could have been a Stark/Targ bastard and still be fire and ice. Aegon Sand would still be a hero. 

 

Okay but basically you're just saying that you can propose an alternate narrative. In and of itself, that doesn't really say anything about the narrative that actually exists so I'm not sure what your reply is meant to be. Give me a narrative and I can suggest numerous ways to alter it but I'm not sure of the point.

But in your alternate narrative, Bran no longer has information, Sansa no longer has information useful in the game and plays no further role in the fate of the Starks. Varys no longer has useful information and thus isn't executed, and Tyrion's loyalties aren't tested since Dany is the true heir. Ned Stark's personal ethical dilemma concerning honor is not as strenuously challenged. Dany is never betrayed by Jon since telling Sansa is of no concern to Dany since Jon is not a threat to her. Everything changes dramatically because Jon's lineage is of critical importance to the flow of events playing out.

 

Share this post


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

 

Okay but basically you're just saying that you can propose an alternate narrative. In and of itself, that doesn't really say anything about the narrative that actually exists so I'm not sure what your reply is meant to be. Give me a narrative and I can suggest numerous ways to alter it but I'm not sure of the point.

But in your alternate narrative, Bran no longer has information, Sansa no longer has information useful in the game and plays no further role in the fate of the Starks. Varys no longer has useful information and thus isn't executed, and Tyrion's loyalties aren't tested since Dany is the true heir. Ned Stark's personal ethical dilemma concerning honor is not as strenuously challenged. Dany is never betrayed by Jon since telling Sansa is of no concern to Dany since Jon is not a threat to her. Everything changes dramatically because Jon's lineage is of critical importance to the flow of events playing out.

 

Up until Sam came that was the news Bran had for Jon. He wanted to tell Jon has mother was Lyanna Stark and Jon was supposed to be a Sand not a Snow. Sam gave Bran the info about the marriage. 

Jon became a king as a bastard he would still be a threat to Dany as a bastard Targ.

When I first heard about R+L = J I thought Jon was going to Lyanna’s bastard with Rhaegar and Ned needed to hide him because Robert would kill any Targ even a bastard one. 

But if the pay off was supposed to be Jon as king then yes there is no point of R+L= J in the story. 

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might have something to do with “a dragon has three heads” in the books, but it meant nothing to the tv show just like the three eyed crow meant nothing until they pulled out a dubious rule: whoever has three eyes and is a crow wins the game of thrones!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 6:44 PM, Apoplexy said:

I believe the show runners thought it was enough to justify a rift between Jon and Dany. Hence the Jon telling Sansa and Arya and Sansa telling Tyrion nonsense. When Dany realizes that Tyrion knows, she figures out Jon went back on his word.

How'd Jon go back on his word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

How'd Jon go back on his word?

I don't know why people keep saying he went back on his word. Jon never promised to keep it a secret. She begged but he doesn't say yes. Maybe I should rewatch the season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 6:51 AM, Davidlopan said:

There was no point. Rhaegar and Lyanna gave their lives and started a war for nothing. Some have said he was instrumental in defeating the WW's but it was actually due to his actions that the Wall was brought down. If he'd never been born, the Wall would probably still be standing and the WW's would be safely beyond it 

The wall would have fallen in a different way. Even in the books they know the wall won't hold.

On 5/23/2019 at 8:37 AM, ValarMorghulis1990 said:

The writing this season has been nothing short of terrible - BUT - R+L=J is key because it's the catalyst behind Jon's lineage which is the catalyst behind Dany's attack on Queen's Landing. That clear isn't it?

Not only that, it shows that Danny is full tyrant. She is conquering knowing that Jon has the right, not her. And that in turn reminds us that the only basis for Targ rule in the first place was the threat of mass murder by dragon.

The books will certainly go deeper into the backstory of Robert's rebellion than the show has. And I am certain it is more complex than R+L=J. The three heads prophecy is obviously significant. There is obviously more to Areys 'madness'. It is implied Lyanna dies from childbirth but I suspect it is not that.

Jon doesn't get a throne in the end because he has no valid claim to either. He is not a Stark and has no claim to be King in the North because Sansa (and Bran) have precedence over him. He is the Targarean heir but he doesn't have a dragon and their only claim on the throne was based on the threat of mass destruction.

Drogon destroys the Iron Throne because he is not putting Jon on it. 

The resulting settlement is essentially the same as the one when the US was created after the revolution. The six kingdoms establish a federation to avoid falling into further warfare between them. The North becomes Canada. This is actually very close to what happened in Britain in the middle ages after the Vikings were ejected. The Dukes were powers in their own right, some maintained that status till the black death disrupted everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

I don't know why people keep saying he went back on his word. Jon never promised to keep it a secret. She begged but he doesn't say yes. Maybe I should rewatch the season. 

Yup, Jon never said ''ok''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

How'd Jon go back on his word?

Jon may not have agreed to keep the secret, but he didn't say he wouldn't either. Maybe saying Jon went back on his word is incorrect, but he didn't tell Dany that his cousins know. Now that's not a really big transgression, but considering they were in a relationship, Dany has a point of she felt blindsided.

I'm not saying it justifies her actions, just that she has a right to be miffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Jon may not have agreed to keep the secret, but he didn't say he wouldn't either. Maybe saying Jon went back on his word is incorrect, but he didn't tell Dany that his cousins know. Now that's not a really big transgression, but considering they were in a relationship, Dany has a point of she felt blindsided.

I'm not saying it justifies her actions, just that she has a right to be miffed.

Jon made it clear he was going to tell Sansa and Arya his secret to Dany. So Dany feeling blindsided or betrayed by it just doesn't work imo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

I don't know why people keep saying he went back on his word. Jon never promised to keep it a secret. She begged but he doesn't say yes. Maybe I should rewatch the season. 

I know, I keep seeing people say Jon went back on his word or betrayed Dany. Both of those are just wrong. Jon made it clear he was telling Sansa and Arya his secret and never once told Dany that he wouldn't tell them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't it just be part of a story? Does everything have to have a point or moral to get accross? Jon was Rhaegar and Lyanna's child. This made Ned who he was when we saw him and finally caused some paranoia in Daenerys in the end, could be just as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

I know, I keep seeing people say Jon went back on his word or betrayed Dany. Both of those are just wrong. Jon made it clear he was telling Sansa and Arya his secret and never once told Dany that he wouldn't tell them. 

I think Dany fans are just trying to salvage something. I keep reading posts about Jon and Dany and people are just straight up ignoring or changing scenes to make Jon the bad guy. It makes no sense.

Share this post


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

I think Dany fans are just trying to salvage something. I keep reading posts about Jon and Dany and people are just straight up ignoring or changing scenes to make Jon the bad guy. It makes no sense.

I watched it again. He does not promise to not tell Sansa and Arya. 

In the scene with the Starks he does swear them to secrecy. And Sansa broke her word.  

 

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

I watched it again. He does not promise to not tell Sansa and Arya. 

In the scene with the Starks he does swear them to secrecy. And Sansa broke her word.  

 

Yeah, Sansa also asks for his forgiveness in the last episode for doing that. So she wasn't trying to hide the fact she broke her word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KingMudd said:

Yeah, Sansa also asks for his forgiveness in the last episode for doing that. So she wasn't trying to hide the fact she broke her word.

Yup. He should eventually forgive her. I had no problems with Jon or Sansa. Jon is going to Jon and Sansa is going to Sansa. In the future Jon should listen to his sisters. If they ever meet up again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the expectation for more out of the R + L =J, but I also don't understand this idea that it was somehow irrelevant to the story.  It wasn't just about Dany being Mad Queen- it was important for Jon, Sansa, Tyrion, Varys, and Bran's stories as well.  This information was central to all their characters throughout this season.  

But I can agree also with the aspect of expecting a little bit more out of this- I think it kind of hurt Jon's overall story to have Arya kill the NK and to not have Jon sit the Throne at all.  As far as coming up with an alternative narrative to tell this story, I do struggle a bit with the final episode.  Having that huge moment where Jon kills Dany, it's a bit of a letdown to have it skip weeks ahead with Grey Worm simply capturing Jon (also a bit of a narrative leap to have Grey Worm massacring people in the streets for Dany and then just being calm and cool and imprisoning Jon rather than killing him afterwards).  Part of me wonders if it would have been better if Jon through his Targ heritage could control Drogon after killing Dany, use Drogon and his heritage to disband the Dothraki and Unsullied and send Grey Worm off to Naath, then voluntarily relinquish the Throne.

But that also robs Dany and Drogon a bit of their agency and their final moments so it's tough- I get that the writers had trouble with this aspect of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

But if the pay off was supposed to be Jon as king then yes there is no point of R+L= J in the story. 

The "if" in your "if-then" statement is false, thus your conclusion (while reasonable in the context of your false premise) is irrelevant. The purpose of Jon's lineage is in its effects on the events as they unfold, which are relative to the story. Expectations of narrative are not an actual narrative. They don't actually exist in any meaningful way.

3 hours ago, hallam said:

Drogon destroys the Iron Throne because he is not putting Jon on it. 

2 hours ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Jon made it clear he was going to tell Sansa and Arya his secret to Dany. So Dany feeling blindsided or betrayed by it just doesn't work imo. 

Drogon destroyed the Iron Throne because it had to be destroyed due to the ruin it was causing in the world (especially in that it was causally responsible for the death of his "mother"). The Iron Throne is fairly the same as the One Ring in narrative purpose.

Jon did betray Dany from a certain point of view. In the end, Jon chose his family over his queen's wishes: that is something that can reasonably be considered a betrayal. If you pledge your loyalty to a person, and that person says "Don't do X" and you do X (for whatever reasons) - that is a betrayal of your pledge of loyalty.

Edited by John Meta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

I think it kind of hurt Jon's overall story to have Arya kill the NK and to not have Jon sit the Throne at all.

I'd propose nothing hurt Jon's story, because Jon's story is what it is. The only thing that could be "hurt" were people's expectations of what they wanted Jon's story to be. I'd propose that is subjectively fine, but to criticize the writers for telling a story that isn't what some people wanted it to be is unfair to the people involved in the story. 

Jon's story is the same as Dany's - to banish the darkness, to end the "Long Night" - and they did that together. The prophecy is meant to be understood figuratively and the true darkness and the true Long Night was the despotic and hereditary system of government seated in the Iron Throne.

Arya's story was to overcome death and protect life. Her entire story line is preparation for this moment. It resolves perfectly, while several other arcs perfectly resolve in support of a perfect resolve for a central Stark character. 

The writers (everyone involved) have done top tier work. It is immensely complex, amazing woven, out of the box, and before its time. 

Share this post


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

I understand the expectation for more out of the R + L =J, but I also don't understand this idea that it was somehow irrelevant to the story.  It wasn't just about Dany being Mad Queen- it was important for Jon, Sansa, Tyrion, Varys, and Bran's stories as well.  This information was central to all their characters throughout this season.  

But I can agree also with the aspect of expecting a little bit more out of this- I think it kind of hurt Jon's overall story to have Arya kill the NK and to not have Jon sit the Throne at all.  As far as coming up with an alternative narrative to tell this story, I do struggle a bit with the final episode.  Having that huge moment where Jon kills Dany, it's a bit of a letdown to have it skip weeks ahead with Grey Worm simply capturing Jon (also a bit of a narrative leap to have Grey Worm massacring people in the streets for Dany and then just being calm and cool and imprisoning Jon rather than killing him afterwards).  Part of me wonders if it would have been better if Jon through his Targ heritage could control Drogon after killing Dany, use Drogon and his heritage to disband the Dothraki and Unsullied and send Grey Worm off to Naath, then voluntarily relinquish the Throne.

But that also robs Dany and Drogon a bit of their agency and their final moments so it's tough- I get that the writers had trouble with this aspect of things.

How was Jon's parentage important to anyone else's story?  He would have been a natural choice to be king even if he was still a bastard since the major houses are now extinct or devoid of heirs, so all the tension w/Dany could just as easily have been because people preferred him over her for other reasons: war hero, male, Westeros native....

Having the Targaryen heritage be of literally zero importance in the battle against the WW means we really never needed it all, the show didn't even bother to set up the fact that only Targs can ride a dragon, and of course, Jon riding a dragon had no purpose either and could have easily been omitted.  

Jon hasn't done anything successful in the show in years. He didn't really win the Battle of the Bastards, he didn't really unite the North again, he didn't win at Hardhome, he had no role at all in the battle against the NK, he's been ancillary to all of these events with others succeeding where he has failed.

Share this post


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

I'd propose nothing hurt Jon's story, because Jon's story is what it is. The only thing that could be "hurt" were people's expectations of what they wanted Jon's story to be. I'd propose that is subjectively fine, but to criticize the writers for telling a story that isn't what some people wanted it to be is unfair to the people involved in the story. 

Jon's story is the same as Dany's - to banish the darkness, to end the "Long Night" - and they did that together. The prophecy is meant to be understood figuratively and the true darkness and the true Long Night was the despotic and hereditary system of government seated in the Iron Throne.

Arya's story was to overcome death and protect life. Her entire story line is preparation for this moment. It resolves perfectly, while several other arcs perfectly resolve in support of a perfect resolve for a central Stark character. 

The writers (everyone involved) have done top tier work. It is immensely complex, amazing woven, out of the box, and before its time. 

But then Jon and Dany failed - the system remains at the end of the show, there is no fundamental difference in power structure before or after excluding Bran(who we don't know anything about). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...