Jump to content

Qhorin Halfhand was Ser Arthur Dayne - Revisited.


three-eyed monkey

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

About Ashara - IF you believe she faked her death - wouldn't it be a tad much? Two siblings faking their deaths and living under assumed identities? 

Totally, I see where you are coming from. In real life a tad too much for sure but in a book, not so sure. Arya and Sansa are siblings living under assumed identities. Lot's of people are living under assumed identities and lots of people are faking their deaths or being presumed dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the parallels between Ser Arthur and Qhorin, just like I like the parallels between Rhaegar and Mance.  But just because we can point to certain parallels between the two characters, I 'm not sure that this would mean that these characters are actually the same person.  I have noticed that GRRM likes to set up a lot of parallels between storylines that are happening in different locales.

Now my biggest issue with this theory and Mance = Rhaegar, is that all of these characters seem to have back stories that would preclude them from existing in two locations at once.  

Jon is of the belief (perhaps assumption) that Qhorin has lived almost his entire life with the Night's Watch.  Qhorin himself seems to confirm that as a young man (younger than Arthur would have been at the time of the tower of joy) he was busy exploring places north of the Wall:

Quote

Qhorin had already dismounted.  Jon did the same.  "You knew this place was here."

"When I was no older than you, I heard a brother tell how he followed a shadowcat through these falls."

 I suppose you can nit pick this quote to death, but it seems fairly clear that Qhorin was of the Night's Watch when he was an age with Jon at the time of ACOK, which is when he learned of the secret passage behind the waterfall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

It's not very nice of you to compare me to Preston. He doesn't deserve to be trashed like that when he's not here to defend himself.

Maybe the comparison was not appropriate, indeed, Jacobs at least knows that most of his stuff is far-fetched at best. I did not trash him or you at all, all I did was giving an assessment of the value of theories. Nothing personal here. But I do not want to derail your thread, so no offence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm curious as to why you think Qhorin requested Jon for the mission?

Quote

 

"Choose your men."

Qhorin Halfhand turned his head.  His eyes met Jon's, and held them for a moment.  "Very well, I choose Jon Snow."


 

ACOK, Jon V.

As to the theory itself, I see no reason to believe that it is true.  So Ned allows Arthur to live, and he serves out his days in the Night's Watch - accomplishing ... nothing.  Or, at least, nothing that matters for the story.  Plus, he damn near gets Jon killed.  Pretty thin gruel for a story like ASOIAF.

 And unlike other characters who are suspected of being someone else, he is no longer alive, so it is going to be difficult for him to play any role in the story's future or serve as a source of information about the backstory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I like the parallels between Ser Arthur and Qhorin, just like I like the parallels between Rhaegar and Mance.  But just because we can point to certain parallels between the two characters, I 'm not sure that this would mean that these characters are actually the same person.  I have noticed that GRRM likes to set up a lot of parallels between storylines that are happening in different locales.

Now my biggest issue with this theory and Mance = Rhaegar, is that all of these characters seem to have back stories that would preclude them from existing in two locations at once.  

Jon is of the belief (perhaps assumption) that Qhorin has lived almost his entire life with the Night's Watch.  Qhorin himself seems to confirm that as a young man (younger than Arthur would have been at the time of the tower of joy) he was busy exploring places north of the Wall:

 I suppose you can nit pick this quote to death, but it seems fairly clear that Qhorin was of the Night's Watch when he was an age with Jon at the time of ACOK, which is when he learned of the secret passage behind the waterfall.

That quote imho plummets the theory that Arthur = Qhorin into a sinkhole.

@three-eyed monkey thank you for the OP and the gathered quotes. For the first time, someone wrote an OP on this theory that made me be my own devil's advocate against "pfff, another dead man alive again? What for?".

We all have fatigue of hidden identities, and I remind myself that sentiment is no evidence. After all, plenty of characters did survive, while said or claimed to be dead, and many do assume another name in a completely different area or order than where you'd expect them. I'm sure that way before aDwD, lots of people said, "but what purpose would there be in Aegon still being alive! We don't need him." But since aDwD, there we are, and after the finale of the abomination, even those who moaned about Aegon being part of the plot again (fake or not), have come to see that it is beneficial to the story that there is an Aegon.

But if alluring quotes are meant to persuade us, then one cannot ignore @Frey family reunion's quote that he provided either. And I don't think Qhorin was lying in that quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

That quote imho plummets the theory that Arthur = Qhorin into a sinkhole.

...

But if alluring quotes are meant to persuade us, then one cannot ignore @Frey family reunion's quote that he provided either. And I don't think Qhorin was lying in that quote.

Yep. It sets Qhorin at the Wall at an age where Arthur definitely couldn't be there, and it is consistent with Qhorin's character and behaviour. RIP Qhorin = Arthur.

17 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

For me, it comes back to the withheld information. The tales say Ned killed Arthur. Ned hints it might have been Howland. The dilemma is presented on the page early, while we are left to wait for the reveal. If we explore both sides of the dilemma, neither seems like a pay off that deserves such a wait, which indicates to me that we might have been presented with a false dilemma.

I would point out we haven't met Howland yet, so your payoff may still come.

17 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

If Arthur is trapped in a net and at Ned's mercy, then he's no good to Viserys or Rhaella or Jon. His choice at that stage is comply with Ned's demands or die.

No doubt people will claim he chose death, but it would not be the death of a kingsguard, dying to protect his king or heir, it would just be the execution of a trapped and defeated man.

If he complies with Ned's demands, he would do so at the cost of breaking his vows. I don't see how choosing death over foreswearing himself as a KG is not the death of a KG.

17 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm curious as to why you think Qhorin requested Jon for the mission?

Ghost. Qhorin asks if it's true that Jon has a direwolf, and the bond between Jon and Ghost does prove a boon for the mission.

 

16 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Yet you propose a rather purposeless reveal about Arthur's death and a rather purposeless Arthur who could just be Whent or Hightower instead.

See above - Howland is yet to make his entrée, and speculations run wild how he might have managed to kill the bestest knight evar.

Plus, if Arthur's death was somehow less-than-honourable, it will be something for Jon as well as those close to Ned to chew on.

Now, what is the purpose of Arthur as Qhorin again? He does not spread the PTWP agenda, does not mentor Jon, does not reveal a thing about ToJ... His only significance is that for which Qhorin doesn't need to be anyone else - to show Jon what it means "whatever it takes", and push him into "kill the boy", which he is going to lead on his way to leadership. To write a character to illustrate an arc with no regard to the character's personal agenda is poor writing. A character needs to act on his/her own motivation, not on what the plot or author demands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

 I suppose you can nit pick this quote to death, but it seems fairly clear that Qhorin was of the Night's Watch when he was an age with Jon at the time of ACOK, which is when he learned of the secret passage behind the waterfall.

Yes, he heard a black brother tell a story about following a shadowcat through the waterfall, but it doesn't mean he was a brother himself at the time. Wandering crows go to King's Landing and tourneys recruiting so he could have heard the story from someone like Yoren. He did not say the black brother showed him the falls, just that he heard a brother tell about the falls. Probably not Yoren himself, because he had been a wandering crow for 33 years, and by my reckoning Qhorin is mid-fifties so he would have been "no older than" Jon around 35-40 years ago.

10 hours ago, Nevets said:

ACOK, Jon V.

Your missing my point. I accept he chose Jon, the quote is in the OP. When I asked why do you think he chose Jon I was asking about Qhorin's motive.

10 hours ago, Nevets said:

As to the theory itself, I see no reason to believe that it is true.  So Ned allows Arthur to live, and he serves out his days in the Night's Watch - accomplishing ... nothing.  Or, at least, nothing that matters for the story.

Accomplishing nothing... or at least nothing that matters for the story. I think this is a good summary of many of the objections. The thing is your statement is not correct. Arthur is Qhorin does exactly the same for the plot as Arthur and Qhorin, whatever function you think Arthur Dayne and Qhorin fulfil to the plot, then those plot functions remain unchanged. What you really mean is that the theory does little extra for the plot, and that may be true, but the plot is not the story.

Story is the relationship between plot, character, and theme. Plot is only an element of story. Reader's often talk about plot-holes but there are theme-holes too, though they are rarely discussed by anyone other than editors, writers and complete nerds. Theme needs to be served every bit as much as plot. Plot is just what happens. Theme is the message of the story, the very reason the story is being told in the first place. The climax of any good story is as reliant on theme as it is on plot, because that's where the thematic truth of the story is delivered.

A good example that is often used to explain the relationship between theme to character is this. Your story is a mirror. You drop it on the floor and it shatters into pieces. The largest shard is your main character, the smallest fragments are your minor characters, but they all reflect some aspect of the bigger thematic picture. Main characters and important characters often reflect major themes and minor characters often reflect minor themes, though that is merely a rule of thumb.

Arthur is not a main character but I consider him an important character. He was present at the ToJ, and that scene is central to the series. We know the scene will be revisited and there will be reveals when the story comes to it's climax. This will be the end in terms of the theme, which is why many people say the climax is the real end to the story, even though the plot and characters will continue through the resolution to the end.

Conflict plays a part in all this as well. It is the conflict between the lie and the truth of a book that often reveals theme. There are many conflicts in the series, but for me the main one is the conflict between the game of thrones and the song of ice and fire. The game of thrones is the main lie to be slain, be that by Dany or someone else. White cloaks protect the king and as such are aligned with the lie, while black cloaks protect the realm and as such are aligned with the truth.

So to say Arthur is Qhorin does nothing for the story is not correct. It does nothing special for the plot, maybe, but Arthur is Qhorin creates a character that beautifully reflects what is, in my opinion, the main theme of the story and was present at the ToJ, where the thematic principle of the story will be delivered when we revisit the scene.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

So to say Arthur is Qhorin does nothing for the story is not correct. It does nothing special for the plot, maybe, but Arthur is Qhorin creates a character that beautifully reflects what is, in my opinion, the main theme of the story and was present at the ToJ, where the thematic principle of the story will be delivered when we revisit the scene.

Can you show us where GRRM writes a character for the sake of a theme while ignoring the plot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Can you show us where GRRM writes a character for the sake of a theme while ignoring the plot?

He's not ignoring the plot. Arthur has a plot function, correct? So does Qhorin. GRRM would not have written them otherwise. But what you are ignoring is that GRRM serves the theme as much as the plot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2020 at 12:42 AM, sweetsunray said:

That explanation never cut it for me. Works for Gerold, but not Whent nor Arthur imo who were part of Rhaegar's circle.

Why not?? In war, they'd have to be pretty conflicted, Rhaegar's orders would serve to both reassure then and give them a drive once everything was lost.

 

On 1/21/2020 at 12:42 AM, sweetsunray said:

The moment he picks up Jon and tells his men to pack, make ready and leave, the 3 KG would stop him immediately and ask about his intentions. At that point Ned would say, "I'm taking my nephew home." At this point a disagreement ensues, because the 3KG won't allow that, and it evolves into a fight.

But why not?? In the North Jon could've grow in contact with other lords and add  them to their unlikely rebellion, why exile should be the only way  for them?? I can see them disagreeing if they see Ned is not going to fight for Jon but if not??

 

 

On 1/21/2020 at 12:42 AM, sweetsunray said:

I made no such claim about Lyanna. I'm pretty sure that dying Lyanna asked Ned to help raise him, teach him, protect him. But that doesn't mean that Lyanna was asking it without it being clear how she assumed he would do it. Take Robert's extracted promises of Ned about his son. Robert never says "Joffrey". He makes general interpretative requests about Ned being there for his son, but it's quite clear from the context that Robert means Joffrey and that he expects Ned to be Joffrey's regent. Ned promises, but in his head thinks of Gendry. The way Ned intends to fulfill that promise is very different from the way Robert meant it.

Just as certain I am that Lyanna never asked Ned "make him a king", I'm also quite sure that Lyanna never asked Ned, "pretend he's your bastard son".

But why would Lyanna want her son to fight and die abobe a lost throne?? If you say that Lyanna did not say that, what reason could've Ned to believe otherwise?? If Lyanna said protect him, she would want himto do it as best as he can, and that's as best as he can, i he did not pretend he was his bastard son, how could he?? pretend he's Brandon's??

 

 

On 1/21/2020 at 12:42 AM, sweetsunray said:

See reply two quotes higher. But I agree that wouldn't have been a nice conversation where they sat at a table and had a friendly chat over a beer, laying all their ideas on the table. But one can glean much of remarks made. The 3 KG protest against Ned taking off with the baby. Without the 3KG telling their plans to Ned explicitly, at least he would have remarked, "He's not your concern anymore. You're KGs and your king is Viserys." At least from the dream we know that didn't compel them. He'd say at some point, "Well Robert is a forgiving type. He forgave Selmy and now Selmy is his kingsguard," and they answer "Our knees do not bend that easily." From these type of answers, Ned begins to understand what their intentions are with Jon and why they refuse to leave the baby's side.

We do know however that good KG are not Kingmaker and that they were only there for Rhaegar's orders, for his dream we know that didn't go to Viserys because they were protecting the tower, just as Fell did not leave Storm's End either.

 

 

 

On 1/21/2020 at 12:42 AM, sweetsunray said:

Doesn't matter whether they would have succeeded or not in reality. All it takes is for them to believe they can. When believed he can have his father organize a big tourney to arrange for Rhaegar to warm the lords to doing something about Aerys. Whent's plan with that didn't succeed. But that doesn't take away that he had plans. 

Fair enough.

 

 

On 1/21/2020 at 12:42 AM, sweetsunray said:

If Arthur survived, let Ned live and did not opposite Ned further about taking Jon with him and agreed that Arthur should be dead to the world to avoid people seeking him out for questions, and the lie is told that Arthur died at the ToJ, then it's plain stupid to go to the Wall with another identity, but once at the Wall return back to his own name.

But there is no reason for Arthur to be dead to the world, the Wall  is quite literally being dead to the world, no one is going to ask him questions there,

 

 

On 1/21/2020 at 12:42 AM, sweetsunray said:

If Qhorin was Arthur he could have told all, some parts, just a bunch of comments here or there. I don't know. But if Qhorin is Arthur then he knows who Jon is, and then there's always the possibility that Arthur in a moment of weakness or under influence slipped and revealed enough to Mance, if George wants it. I reread the chapter where we meet Mance to check it out and here's my observation:

  • Dornishman's wife and Jon thinking how odd it is to hear it there, and Mance asking how Jon likes it.
  • Mance being informed that Jon killed Qhorin, Mance ordering everyone out but Dalla to ask Jon about it, confirming that Qhorin was a friend of his from his POV too... and sure they're enemies now, but that didn't kill his frienship feelings for Qhorin, because he asks whether he should hate Jon for killing his friend.
  • Immediately after this, Mance informs Jon that he's seen Jon twice before: when Jon was a kid and Mance still a young man of the NW escorting the LC to WF. He remembers still how Jon and Robb intended to prank people with a snow heap and that he promised to keep their secret. And then he reveals he was at WF to see Robert, "king to king", but just as well paid attention to Jon sitting in the back of the hall, far away from his "siblings".

Without that particular song, I'd agree people might be reading too much into it. But George put in the Dornishman's wife as a strong hint, stressing through Jon it's an out of place song. And those three topics one after the other in the one and the same chapter, before we learn why Mance turned his cloak makes me understand way better why people start to wonder about Qhorin and what this Dornish connection may be.

I think that you're reading too much into it, the song is odd beyond the wall but Mance was once behind it and had plenty of opportunities to have hear it and Mance went to see the Starks and Robert, so it's not odd for him to look at the bastard of Winterfell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the current/recent Daynes, whose eyes are described, all are described as being purple or violet, or close to that. Edric Dayne’s are “big blue eyes, so dark that they looked almost purple”, Gerold’s are purple or dark purple, and Ashara’s were violet. While Arthur’s eyes aren’t described, the evidence we have points to them being similar to the other Daynes... dark blue/purple/violet. Qhorin’s eyes are grey. Not conclusive, by itself, but certainly another piece of evidence against this theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

He's not ignoring the plot. Arthur has a plot function, correct? So does Qhorin.

Arthur and Qhorin as separate characters do have their plot functions. Arthur/Qhorin does not because there is a complete disconnection between his life as Arthur and as Qhorin. It's as if he never existed as Arthur, Arthur's life experience - and failures - do not feature anywhere in Qhorin's life, do not become activated even during his encounter with a PoV character related to Arthur's past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

He's not ignoring the plot. Arthur has a plot function, correct? So does Qhorin. GRRM would not have written them otherwise. But what you are ignoring is that GRRM serves the theme as much as the plot.

Arthur and Qhorin have separate plot functions and he wrote them as having both served their purpose.

I could go as far as to say that Arthur is a lot more significant to Jaime's plot right now than he is to Jon's since Jaime is leaning into the things he learned from Arthur to advance his arc.

Again, something you seem to really want to ignore is that there are people who would recognize Arthur at the Wall. Ulmer of the Kingswood being one of them. Alliser Thorne. Jaremy Rykker. Jeor Mormont possibly since he seemed to know both Pycelle and Barristan, so he could know Arthur by sight. 

Benjen Stark would also recognize him. 

He would not need a different identity to hide. If he chose to take the black and swore vows, he is no longer Robert Baratheon's business and he would have had to grudgingly accept to leave the man alone. 

And it's not even that there wasn't a time when I thought Arthur was in hiding until the time was ripe for him to come out and head up to the Wall, arriving in the midst of chaos following Jon's stabbing. I leaned heavily into what happened with Prince Aemon the Dragonknight being captured on the Prince's Pass for that, his fellow Kingsguard killed by the Dornish, his king killed, the crown of Aegon the Conqueror lost there as a parallel. Meera used her net to snare Summer, so I thought there was a chance Howland would have done the same to Arthur, used his net to capture him and wanted him alive because of what's coming down the line with the Long Night. 

It just wasn't adding up all that well after I had some time to think about it. 

I don't think the pieces fit for Qhorin being Arthur. If there ever was a moment to reveal that, it would have been during Jon Snow's mock trial that was held by Alliser Thorne and Janos Slynt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I like the parallels between Ser Arthur and Qhorin, just like I like the parallels between Rhaegar and Mance.  But just because we can point to certain parallels between the two characters, I 'm not sure that this would mean that these characters are actually the same person.  I have noticed that GRRM likes to set up a lot of parallels between storylines that are happening in different locales.

Now my biggest issue with this theory and Mance = Rhaegar, is that all of these characters seem to have back stories that would preclude them from existing in two locations at once.  

Jon is of the belief (perhaps assumption) that Qhorin has lived almost his entire life with the Night's Watch.  Qhorin himself seems to confirm that as a young man (younger than Arthur would have been at the time of the tower of joy) he was busy exploring places north of the Wall:

 I suppose you can nit pick this quote to death, but it seems fairly clear that Qhorin was of the Night's Watch when he was an age with Jon at the time of ACOK, which is when he learned of the secret passage behind the waterfall.

People claiming Rhaegar = Mance never read the books properly.

We had descriptions of those 2 characters and their hair color is different , different body  descriptions and completely different color of eyes.

I mean it doesnt even take much effort to bust this theory.

 

Same with Arthur = Qhorin it doesnt even make any sense to exist and there isnt any real evidence to support it  .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Why not?? In war, they'd have to be pretty conflicted, Rhaegar's orders would serve to both reassure then and give them a drive once everything was lost.

We do know however that good KG are not Kingmaker and that they were only there for Rhaegar's orders, for his dream we know that didn't go to Viserys because they were protecting the tower, just as Fell did not leave Storm's End either.

Fair enough.

But there is no reason for Arthur to be dead to the world, the Wall  is quite literally being dead to the world, no one is going to ask him questions there,

I think that you're reading too much into it, the song is odd beyond the wall but Mance was once behind it and had plenty of opportunities to have hear it and Mance went to see the Starks and Robert, so it's not odd for him to look at the bastard of Winterfell.

Moot point for me to further discuss what is now for me a hypothetical case: see my later post on page 4 about a certain quote totally means RIP to Arthur = Qhorin.

But the "I think you're reading too much into it" and "why does xyz need an arc" aren't the best of arguments imo to dismiss a theory. @Frey family reunion came with a far better argument: a quote that reveals Qhorin was already at the Wall way before RR, let alone the ToJ.

I will answer these, as they go beyond Arthur anyway.

Quote

But why not?? In the North Jon could've grow in contact with other lords and add  them to their unlikely rebellion, why exile should be the only way  for them?? I can see them disagreeing if they see Ned is not going to fight for Jon but if not??

I never said "exile is the only way for them". But I doubt the 3 KG even considered taking baby Jon North. None of them are northerners themselves and they have no ties, not until Leyton HIghtower has Lynesse wed Jorah. But exile was surely in the top 2 of "what next" before Ned ever shows up.

  1. Starfall is remote, but it falls under the rule of the Martells. Daynes are vassals, and while Arthur vowed to protect a king with his life, his family didn't. And his family are vassals to the Martells.
  2. 3 KG remaining in Westeros, but not joining either Robert or Viserys would look suspicious, and yet that was what they were doing, but it was only known to Ned and HR that they had no intention of serving Viserys. People start wondering about a KG not doing his job while there's a king on the IT. And since Jon was a baby, secrecy is his protection cloak.

Perhaps Oldtown and Leyton Hightower might be a solution, since that man manages to steer clear of much of the political goings on for a very long time, without raising an eyebrow in the Reach. Officially he may be a vassal of the Tyrells, but I yet have to see Tyrell dare to call Lord HIghtower to his side. My guess the reason Mace doesn't, is because Lord Hightower can levy a frighteningly big force. 

All in all though, it would raise less questions what the 3KG were up to, if they leave for Essos. Eventually that's what Darry did too with Viserys and Danny. Since Aegon's conquest, men of houses who did not agree with the man on the throne, either exile themselves or rebel. If 3 KG do not wish to serve a Baratheon king, then leaving Westeros would be the least suspicioius. JonCon did it too. 

Quote

But why would Lyanna want her son to fight and die abobe a lost throne?? If you say that Lyanna did not say that, what reason could've Ned to believe otherwise?? If Lyanna said protect him, she would want himto do it as best as he can, and that's as best as he can, i he did not pretend he was his bastard son, how could he?? pretend he's Brandon's??

  1. You say "fight and die over a lost throne" as if it's certain that Jon would die. Or more precise that Lyanna would assume Jon would end up killed over it if he fights for it. Seems to me chances are just as high that he gets killed if he doesn't fight for it either.
  2. You're projecting your own values and rationality onto Lyanna, a girl of 16, who potentially eloped with the crown prince to be his mistress or polygamous 2nd wife, and if so was the spark in the flame that got her father and brother killed. Clearly, she's not at the most rational age yet. It's not for nothign that Ned makes a comment about a girl of the same age to Robert when Robert complaints that he had expected Barra's mother to have more sense than call her child after her lover, the king: "And you expect her to have sense?"
  3. We don't know Lyanna well enough to make assertions of what she would want her son to fight for or not. Arya may take after her aunt in aGoT, but Lyanna did not experience the war up close and personal as Arya did, even if she lost both family and lover/husband. She stayed who knows for how long in a tower that was named Tower of Joy for a reason by Rhaegar. Lyanna may just as well have been going through a phase like Sansa did in aGoT.  aGoT Sansa would want her son to fight for a throne.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Arthur and Qhorin as separate characters do have their plot functions. Arthur/Qhorin does not because there is a complete disconnection between his life as Arthur and as Qhorin. It's as if he never existed as Arthur, Arthur's life experience - and failures - do not feature anywhere in Qhorin's life, do not become activated even during his encounter with a PoV character related to Arthur's past. 

 

5 hours ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

Arthur and Qhorin have separate plot functions and he wrote them as having both served their purpose.

I have adjusted the OP as my thoughts about this have solidified thanks to the debate.

 

However, story is made up of plot, character and theme, all of which should come together at the climax of the story. The plot is what happens in the story but the theme is the message of the story, the very reason the story is being told in the first place. Plot, character, and theme are all constructed by the author. There are a lot of themes in the series, both major and minor. The characters in the story reflect these themes, with the more notable characters usually reflecting the more notable themes. The conflicts of the story help refine the themes into a thematic principle, which is the unifying idea that forms the central message of the story. So rather than serving the plot as such, Qhorin Halfhand as Arthur Dayne is designed to serve the thematic principle of the series.

The theory states that Ser Arthur Dayne survived the Tower of Joy and took the black under the name Qhorin. There's two parts to the argument, separated by about sixteen years in-world. Part one – the White Cloak, examines Ser Arthur Dayne and his death at the Tower of Joy. Part two – the Black Cloak, profiles Qhorin Halfhand. These two cloaks symbolize what is arguably the main thematic conflict of the series, the lie against the truth, the Game of Thrones against the Song of Ice and Fire.

 

As he is presented, Arthur Dayne has a flat character arc. He is the same Arthur Dayne all the time, honorable and chivalrous and deadly. We don't know much about him but we know GRRM wants us to take note. The sword, Dawn, and the title, the Sword of the Morning, give him an almost mythical status, with the constellation of the same name prompting us to think in stellar terms. He is a recurring image, one we are reminded of from a variety of characters in every book. Despite all this, Arthur does very little to influence the plot. We could actually remove him from the story and not alter the plot significantly.

So what's his purpose?

The answer is Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, is a motif. As a character he has no arc, his impact on the plot is minimal, yet he does serve the story. He serves the theme. As a kingsguard sworn to protect the king he is a symbol of the game of thrones. In literature, a motif is recurring idea or symbol that is used to develop and explain the theme, which is the central message of the story.

The message being developed is this, the game of thrones is divisive and detrimental to society, it is the lie that must be slain so that the truth can prevail in the central conflict. The song of ice and fire is the truth, which says that mankind must unite to survive. In short, it's time to leave the lie behind and face the truth. This theme will be reflected in the main plot, as plot and theme are inextricably linked, but it will also be reinforced by literary devices such as symbols and motifs.

The Night's Watch is symbolic of the song of ice and fire. Their black cloaks are symbols of the truth. Arthur's journey from white cloak to black is a journey from the lie to the truth, and thus the main function of his character is to support the main theme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The Night's Watch are symbols of the song of ice and fire. Their black cloaks are symbols of the truth. Arthur's journey from white cloak to black is a journey from the lie to the truth, and thus the main function of his character is to support the main theme.

I sort of agree w/ a lot of what you said here. But this part, because I’m curious, does it mean you are still convinced Dayne is Qhorin? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I sort of agree w/ a lot of what you said here. But this part, because I’m curious, does it mean you are still convinced Dayne is Qhorin? 

I'm more convinced now than I was when I started the thread. The symbolism and the thematic stuff was there but the plot was not being served beyond what Arthur and Qhorin added themselves as Ygrain pointed out. That's when it occured that the literary device we are talking about is a motif, which serves to reinforce the theme. I realize this is a literary argument, but then again it is a literary work from a master.

I also know support for this is unlikely to be high, but as you know I'm used to that. Far more so than Preston Jacobs, believe me. What's killing me on this one is that it's going to be resolved in a dream of spring. At least I only have to wait until winds to cash in on the pink letter.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more point to add.

Ser Arthur Dayne was the paradigm of knighthood, the finest knight Ned ever saw. The true knight theme has been heavily explored, by Jaime, Brienne, Barristan, Sandor and a host of others. The question posed is, what is a true knight? Many would say Dunk, and who's to argue with that. But in terms of the novels, the answer to that question will be revealed through conflict and will be presented at the climax of the story, around the time we will be revisiting the Tower of Joy. Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, will be the answer, because he abandoned the lie for the truth.

A similar theme being explored through Jon, Dany, Stannis and more, is the question of a true king. The true king will be the one who abandons the lie of the game of thrones and goes to the truth of the song of ice and fire, uniting the realm in it's darkest hour. So we can see where the themes will unite to create the thematic principle, or central message of the series. It's the same place the plotlines will converge, and where Jon's inner conflict will be resolved, because plot and character and theme all depend on each other.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...