Jump to content

Qhorin Halfhand was Ser Arthur Dayne - Revisited.


three-eyed monkey

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

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.

 

I agree w/ this, but Dayne being Qhorin is not a requirement. As to what is a true knight, I think the point Martin is making is that it doesn’t matter what you said, or where, “words are wind”, after all. The truly important requisite is one’s actions, not empty words. Meryn Trant is a true knight, in the sense that he was anointed, he swore a vow, yadda, yadda, yadda. Same goes for many others. But it’s Dunk, who isn’t even an actual knight, who best embodies chivalry. And there are others, of course. 

I think Arthur Dayne’s part in the story has to do w/ Jon, and the ToJ, Rhaegar, etc, but also a lot to do w/ Jaime’s arc. The boy who dreamt of becoming Arthur Dayne, but turned into the Smiling Knight along the way. And maybe the way for Jaime to fulfill his dream will be by becoming the leader or an outlaw band. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I think Arthur Dayne’s part in the story has to do w/ Jon, and the ToJ, Rhaegar, etc, but also a lot to do w/ Jaime’s arc. The boy who dreamt of becoming Arthur Dayne, but turned into the Smiling Knight along the way. And maybe the way for Jaime to fulfill his dream will be by becoming the leader or an outlaw band.

Swordhand parallel between Qhorin and Jaime, but that's not all.

Jaime once killed his king to save the people. This is considered his most shameful act but in fact it was his finest hour, so far anyway. By choosing to kill his king and save the people, Jaime chose to abandon the lie for the sake of the truth. Again we see that central theme, the very one Arthur and his journey to Qhorin was created to reinforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Swordhand parallel between Qhorin and Jaime, but that's not all.

That is interesting, but to me still insufficient. We shall see, eventually. You sure you’re not up to a double or nothing? :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Swordhand parallel between Qhorin and Jaime, but that's not all.

Jaime once killed his king to save the people. This is considered his most shameful act but in fact it was his finest hour, so far anyway. By choosing to kill his king and save the people, Jaime chose to abandon the lie for the sake of the truth. Again we see that central theme, the very one Arthur and his journey to Qhorin was created to reinforce.

Spot on.

I think a lot of readers assume Character-A is the secret identity of Character-B by making a connection here and there in the 5 books we are given.

What readers don't know is that some characters are connected to other characters by future events that haven't happened yet. But the connection is more of a comparison or a theme. It's more of an Easter Egg. It would make more sense after re-reading all 7 books.

I'm positive that Qhorin Halfhand ~ future Jaime Lannister.

Jon knew Qhorin Halfhand the instant he saw him, though they had never met. {Jon V ACOK}

Jon saw Jaime at Winterfell, but they never met in the books.
(But Jon and Jaime did meet in the TV show, and had a conversation about swords :))

 

Anyways in ACOK, Qhorin, in a hopeless doom, sacrifices himself to save others with the help of Longclaw.

Perhaps Jaime in ADOS will too. Who knows, perhaps someday people will call him the roaring legend Goldenhand ... like Qhorin is the legendary Halfhand.

Anyways thanks again 3EM, for helping me solve the wordplay of "Balerion" last last year. Funny how things arc around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2020 at 12:50 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

“They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed."

Out of context. Why does everyone think this sentence means Howland saved Ned at TOJ?

Here is the actual:

"The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me [ , ] but for Howland Reed." Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

I think this means that if Ser Arthur Dayne was still alive, he would kill Ned for something Howland Reed has done.
Depending on what TOJ version you guys use, what did Howland do that would piss off Arthur Dayne to want to kill Ned?

Spoiler

Howland: Hey Ned! Let me have one!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

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.

Eh... look, I cannot claim to know what is in GRRM's heart when he writes his stories but me and a couple of friends write fanfics and themes are definitely not a major drive. I know for a fact that I didn't want to send any central message and I'm pretty sure neither did my closest friend. If you delved into our works, you would probably find certain motives, like a downward spiral that tough choices can do to a person, or how cultural background affects our perception and leads to misunderstandings, but in no way, shape or form did these affect the plot. The plot is always driven by the characters, their personality and motivation, and the story proceeds through their interaction with others, who themselves must be characters in their own right and not mere plot devices to preach a theme. My own motivation was to flesh out my gaming characters - why they do what they do, how their past affects them, and delve into the stuff that the game couldn't develop.

Sure, I do not intend to place myself anywhere near GRRM. However, through my own experience in writing as well as literary studies, and through my own inclination, I am fairly sure that he pays a lot of attention to characterisation, which is why his characters, both major and minor ones, feel like real people. Arthur as Qhorin, while fitting a theme, sorely lacks in the character department deviates from the way GRRM writes characters, hence I don't believe they are one.

7 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

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.

That is a rather flat reading of Arthur Dayne. Even if it wasn't for the recurring sadness of his character, there is the rift between his vows, the lacking king to whom he is sworn, and his friendship to Rhaegar who is in oposition to his father, suggesting that Arthur must have been walking a very thin line not to betray any. We know from Jaime how conflicted he was about his vows seeing Aerys' atrocities, we see how Barristan comes to reevaluate his own actions. Arthur's arc ending in the ToJ fight is a tragic one. 

 

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Consider the transformative effect on Arthur's flat arc. If he is Qhorin then suddenly he has an arc. Not just any arc but the master arc, progressing from the lie to the truth, which is the central message of the series.

Herein, I believe, lies the trap - putting themes and messages above the story. They can be relayed through a story, but not to the detriment of its inner coherence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

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.

Will now be playing your thematic devil's advocate.

I will also add your OP's remark about the constellations

Quote

Jon knows the northern stars well, but who do these old friends represent? The Ice Dragon is clearly Maester Aemon. The Shadowcat is Jon’s favorite sibling, Arya, who chased cats for Syrio and later went by the name Cat of the Canals. The Moonmaid is Ygritte, whom Jon “stole” when the Thief was in the Moonmaid, which is the propitious time to steal a wife according to free folk culture. That leaves the Sword of the Morning, Ser Arthur Dayne, known to Jon as Qhorin Halfhand.

I'm not sure I agree with the characters you identify with those constellations. For example when you say the Ice Dragon, I also think of Bloodraven. While yet, one can think of Arya as being the shadowcat, Arya's tie to cats also symbolizes a reference to her mother, who becomes a shadow of her former self in LS. Cat may not have been his wellwisher when she was alive, but the RW might have turned her into his "friend".

While Qhorin and Mance both might use the reference "old friend", I'm far more inclined to look for another meaning when it comes to stars. The light that reaches us today from a star started its journey years and years ago, even if that star died shortly after sending its last light on its way. When George references stars he usually implies the past, a long gone past. After all, one of his older stories is called "The dying of the light". In that sense, George uses stars in aSoIaF as the places where the souls of the dead went to.

This also fits George's tendency to mirror or parallel present characters to those of the past. You identify Ygritte with the moonmaid for example, because he "stole" Ygritte, which is mentioned in that paragraph. But that paragraph also mentions immediately after the stars being his "old friends" quote that he "shares them with Ygritte". Someone else was stolen by a thief, who also has moonmaid references: his mother Lyanna. Shadowcat recalls our ranger who disappeared in the frostfangs, never to be seen again, which as an image is a parallel to Rhaegar leaving the ToJ via the Red Mountains, never to be seen again (by the people at ToJ).

Now, we can be certain that Lyanna is not Ygritte. But with the stealing,  they are paralleled. The present is a parallel to the past, and as light journeys on, the future will also include parallels, where the Ice Dragon may be Jon himself, yet another shadowcat will be important, etc. And there will be another Sword of the Morning, or a Sword of the Evening.

For the parallels to work, the people must not be the same ones, but an iteration of prior existing characters, and something always changes.

For example for Sword of the Morning:Insert other media

  • Old Past: Arthur Dayne (white cloak) in the Red Mountains (fire)
  • Recent: Qhorin (black cloak) in the Frostfangs (ice)
  • Future: Jaime

And in this I suspect we will see him Jaime cloaked in green or greenery. Green is the middle way color between any extremes that George uses (in the series and of old). And it places Jaime in a forest region, instead of extreme conditions in mountain areas. And through this we know we shouldn't take the Sword in the Morning as the literal title, for Qhorin does not have that title nor the accompanying sword, nor does Jaime (but he carried a sword of cool light like the SotM in his weir-dream).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Eh... look, I cannot claim to know what is in GRRM's heart when he writes his stories but me and a couple of friends write fanfics and themes are definitely not a major drive. I know for a fact that I didn't want to send any central message and I'm pretty sure neither did my closest friend. If you delved into our works, you would probably find certain motives, like a downward spiral that tough choices can do to a person, or how cultural background affects our perception and leads to misunderstandings, but in no way, shape or form did these affect the plot. The plot is always driven by the characters, their personality and motivation, and the story proceeds through their interaction with others, who themselves must be characters in their own right and not mere plot devices to preach a theme. My own motivation was to flesh out my gaming characters - why they do what they do, how their past affects them, and delve into the stuff that the game couldn't develop.

Sure, I do not intend to place myself anywhere near GRRM. However, through my own experience in writing as well as literary studies, and through my own inclination, I am fairly sure that he pays a lot of attention to characterisation, which is why his characters, both major and minor ones, feel like real people. Arthur as Qhorin, while fitting a theme, sorely lacks in the character department deviates from the way GRRM writes characters, hence I don't believe they are one.

All I've ever read of yours is your contributions on this forum, and it was always clear to me that you have a love of literature so I'm not surprised that you write.

It's easy to concentrate on plot and character because they are concrete pieces of the story, while theme is abstract, but all three are inextricably linked. Theme arises whether the author is aware of it or not, because a theme is what the story is saying, and even if it's not stated explicitly it is implied through the thoughts, actions, and words of your characters. If you change an aspect of plot or character then you inevitably change the theme. If your main character wants to overthrow the tyranny of a cruel king, then the theme emerges. If your main character wants to overthrow a good king because he covets the kings power, then a different theme emerges.

A novel needs to have a point, a message, a theme. The combination of plot and character should create and prove the theme, once executed well. The theme will be evident in the external conflict of the plot as well as the inner conflicts of the characters. Jon's external conflict is the Others against the realm, his inner conflict is the Wall or Winterfell and potentially the Iron Throne then the stakes increase. It always boils down to the game of thrones or the song of ice and fire. It is the point of the story, after all. We might sum it up as divided we fall but united we stand. The story's progression away from the game of thrones and towards the song of ice and fire is even evident in the book titles, which start with a game of thrones and a clash of kings but progress to the wind of winter and a dream of spring, all under the over-arching title of the series. This is the main theme, and such a theme is perfectly reflected in Arthur if he is also Qhorin.

In novels, themes are supported by literary devices. When an author chooses a motif he is selecting a tool that is designed to support theme. This is a definition of motif, (not to be mistaken for motive). It's the first one I found on-line so feel free to check.

In a literary work, a motif can be seen as an image, sound, action, or other figure that has a symbolic significance, and contributes toward the development of a theme. Motif and theme are linked in a literary work, but there is a difference between them. In a literary piece, a motif is a recurrent image, idea, or symbol that develops or explains a theme, while a theme is a central idea or message.

My argument here is that Arthur's function, which evidently has little to do with the plot, is in fact symbolic, He is a symbol of knighthood, the standard if you will, and the knights who guard the king on the Iron Throne. A recurring symbol that is mentioned in every book by multiple characters. He's not important to the plot and we don't get to explore his character, like we do with Jaime, Brienne, Barristan, or Sandor. That's not his function, because primarily he is a literary device that is used to explain the theme. He seems like a symbol of the game of thrones but when the Tower of Joy is revisited, we will get the reveal that he took the black and the his symbolism will align fully with the main theme, moving like the book titles from the game to the song.

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

That is a rather flat reading of Arthur Dayne. Even if it wasn't for the recurring sadness of his character, there is the rift between his vows, the lacking king to whom he is sworn, and his friendship to Rhaegar who is in oposition to his father, suggesting that Arthur must have been walking a very thin line not to betray any. We know from Jaime how conflicted he was about his vows seeing Aerys' atrocities, we see how Barristan comes to reevaluate his own actions. Arthur's arc ending in the ToJ fight is a tragic one. 

All of that is explored through other characters, not through Arthur. We can know what he is thinking through them, not the other way around. We don't explore character with Arthur, he is merely the standard the characters we do explore with are measured against. His arc ending at the Tower of Joy might be tragic but it is also flat because he learned nothing, he has no progression of character. He ended as he began, believing the lie of the game of thrones. Taking the black gives him a positive change arc, as he moves from the lie to the truth of the series.

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Herein, I believe, lies the trap - putting themes and messages above the story. They can be relayed through a story, but not to the detriment of its inner coherence.

The message is the point of the story. The story has to be coherent with the message, that's why plot, character and theme are inextricably linked as I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I'm not sure I agree with the characters you identify with those constellations.

That was just my own speculation on a potential clue, in particular the sword of the morning part.

But as you mention the constellation, this is a prime example of the recurring symbol of Arthur Dayne. When we read the Sword of the Morning, even in the context of Jon looking at the stars, we a reminded of Arthur Dayne. We are reminded of him throughout the series by Bran, Ned, Jon, Arya, Catelyn, Meera, Jaime, Jon Connington, Barristan, Cersei, Darkstar and probably some more. GRRM is telling us to watch this space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel only Arya supports me on this, and by that I mean no one. So I want to add some context to the argument in summary.

GRRM is writing his Opus Magnum, his life's work, the piece of literature on which his skills as a writer and storyteller will be forever judged. A sprawling series of novels that he hopes will be read, discussed, and analyzed for generations to come. The novels are filled with mysteries, and the series has a central mystery. Many people know the solution to that mystery, but despite this GRRM will not change the solution because the clues and foreshadowing are already in place and he cannot compromise the integrity of the work from a literary perspective if he wants the work to be treated as literary fiction. Pandering to shock-value would not be a good way to showcase his literary genius.

The series is full of complex plots, characters, and themes, all of which combine to form a gripping story. The series has a main plot, just as it has a main theme. The main theme is the work's central message. This is the point of the whole story, a point the author hopes will be understood, but theme is abstract and can be misunderstood, and when you have multiple themes there is always the matter of which one is the main theme?!? Author's often support themes by constructing clever motifs that reflect the theme, explain it in simple terms, and underscore the theme's importance from the author's point of view so to avoid the potential misinterpretation of his work. GRRM created a masterful motif to underscore his main theme.

First, we should be clear on what theme is. Take a topic that the author is writing about. War. The topic is explored through characters. Some characters like war, others dislike war. Some believe peace can be reached through war, others believe nothing good can come of war. Some believe war is inevitable, others say avoidable. Some are destroyed by war while others prosper. The exploration of theme leads to the discovery of the thematic principle. This is what the author is saying about the topic, it's the side of the argument that he is coming down on, it's the lesson his characters are learning or failing to learn. So in short, theme is what the author is saying about any particular topic. The main theme is the author's most important message, the very point of the piece in the first place, and usually comments on our real world society.

There is never only one way to summarize a theme. I have summed-up the main theme of the series as; united we stand, divided we fall. The game of thrones is the divisive force in the series. The existential threat posed by the Others is the unifying force. This is the real central conflict of the series. Division versus Unity. The Throne versus the Realm. The Lone Wolf versus the Pack. Division is the lie and Unity is the truth, because according to the author in times of crisis it is the lone wolf who dies while the pack survives. That line, which is repeated several times, is also a motif and I have just demonstrated how we can use it to explain the theme and interpret the author's message. But that's small fish and no one could ever accuse GRRM of not thinking big.

So the idea is that the characters negotiate the plot, exploring the themes, learning lessons and changing along the way. Those who learn the lessons of the thematic principles will change for the better on a positive change arc, while those who fail will endure a negative change arc. The main lesson is that you need to abandon the lie and embrace the truth. In terms of the plot, that means abandoning the divisive game of thrones and uniting to survive the return of the Others. In terms of character progression it means elevating the needs of the realm above your own wants.

These three key elements of the story - plot, character, and theme - converge at the climax. This is the pivotal scene of the series, where the mysteries are revealed. The Tower of Joy has been set up to be the scene of the climax. We know we will revisit the tower, most likely through Howland Reed, and we will get answers to our questions about plot, but we should remember that the climax is also the point where the main characters will accept or reject the thematic principle. It's where they will accept or reject who they truly are, where they choose between the truth or the lie. The climax will be followed by the resolution, where we will see the outcome of the character's decisions and a potential final battle etc, but the climax is the place where the point of the story will be made.

GRRM has created a motif that explains the message in symbolic terms. The symbols he chose are the white cloak and the black cloak. The white cloak is the brother of the kingsguard sworn for life to guard the king who sits on the throne. The black cloak is the brother of the Night's Watch sworn for life to guard the wall that protects the realm. The journey from white cloak to black cloak represents the journey from the lie to the truth, from division to unity, and that is the main message of the series. This same journey is reflected in the book titles which start with a game of thrones and a clash of kings before progressing through conflict to the winds of winter and a dream of spring. It's another motif. All designed to make sure the message contained in the literature is understood.

Arthur Dayne is present in the plot's pivotal scene but he does not affect the plot. He is the same Arthur all through, honorable and deadly, never changing from what we can see, and so his arc is flat. His function of character is to be the perceived standard of knighthood and honor, against which other characters measure themselves. Our attention is drawn by his sword, Dawn, and the title, Sword of the Morning, which has a constellation named after it. Arthur is a character but more than that he is a symbol, and a recurring one at that. He symbolizes the kingsguard, the king, the game of thrones, or the lie that must be rejected, because the game of thrones divides and divided we fall.

Some might say Arthur died for the lie. His flat arc came to a tragic end, we are told that's what happened, and that's what will be revealed despite the fact we already know it. Arthur Dayne failed, just as many characters ultimately fail. I don't agree with that assesment because Ned told Bran that Arthur was the finest knight he ever saw and we still await the reveal to understand what GRRM meant by that. I strongly suspect it means Arthur was not someone who died for the lie but rather someone who was forced to reject the lie, taking the black and completing a symbolic journey that perfectly represents the main theme. 

Qhorin Halfhand is the other half of the equation. Night's Watch, black cloak, sworn to take no part in the game of thrones, the watcher on the wall that protects the realm. Qhorin has a greater plot function than Arthur, saving Jon and opening the door for his relationship with Mance for example, but not one that is indispensable to the story. Having Ygritte save Jon would not be an implausible alternative. Qhorin's bland backstory is prefaced with, "as far as Jon knew." There are clues about Dawn, tears and rubies, and a shy maid on her wedding night. There is a slight character progression in that he becomes aware that the old powers are waking and the trees have eyes again. We could say that the thematic truth is starting to dawn on Qhorin, or he is a symbol of the dawning truth.

Just like the doors to the House of Black and White, these two symbols fit together to spell out the main theme in black and white.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2020 at 4:17 PM, Unacosamedarisa said:

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.  

Qhorin's grey eyes. At first I thought, well, Edric's eyes appear blue and Darkstar's eyes appear black, while in fact they both have different shades of purple that appear blue and black, so maybe Qhorin's eyes appear grey but are really some shade of purple too. Of course, purple eyes would potentially give the game away so it seems to me that the ambiguous eye color of the Daynes is very helpful in this regard, but of course I think there's more to it.

If there is a deeper meaning to Qhorin's grey eyes then it is this. Qhorin has grey eyes and so does Jon. That in itself connects Qhorin to Jon in a textual sense, but there is more to the connection because the eyes are windows to the soul. It is often said that the brain of the story is plot, the characters are the heart, and the theme is the soul of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2020 at 7:02 PM, Putin said:

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  . 

If it doesn't take much effort to bust this theory then bust it.

Arthur = Qhorin does make sense. It exists primarily as a motif that explains and indeed confirms the main theme. The characters were primarily created as part of this standard literary device. That is why they have such limited plot function. A lot of evidence to support the theory has been provided but not a single quote that busts it, as has been claimed several times in this thread. The main objections have been:

Arthur's eye color, despite the fact that we don't know what color eyes he had.

Arthur's brother could not have had children 40 years apart, which is a claim based on nothing and disproved in world by Walder Frey.

Arthur could not have known Lord Rickard, but he would if he was a kingsguard in 264 AC.

Arthur was of an age with Rhaegar, which is just another assumption that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Arthur was told about the waterfall by a brother when he was Jon's age, which could have been a wandering crow who frequently visit King's Landing and tourneys to recruit.

Ned recalled that only two survived the ToJ, but using correct grammar we can determine that he was talking about two of they who were seven.

The reveal about Arthur's death will confirm what we already know, but then why hide it in the first place?

And my personal favorite, theme is not something a writer pays attention to and therefore is not important. Well, if our analysis of the story is going to be that shallow then what's the point?

So where is the point that busts the theory? I am intellectually honest enough to accept it, and you need only scroll back a few pages to see that when @Ygrainmade a point that actually did contradict what I was saying at the time, then I ceded the point.

On 1/22/2020 at 7:11 PM, sweetsunray said:

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.

I agree. In my experience when people say you're reading too much into it, they are usually not reading enough into it. The books are layered. Readers who struggle to follow what is happening on the surface always tell you you're reading too much into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Qhorin's grey eyes. At first I thought, well, Edric's eyes appear blue and Darkstar's eyes appear black, while in fact they both have different shades of purple that appear blue and black, so maybe Qhorin's eyes appear grey but are really some shade of purple too. Of course, purple eyes would potentially give the game away so it seems to me that the ambiguous eye color of the Daynes is very helpful in this regard, but of course I think there's more to it.

If there is a deeper meaning to Qhorin's grey eyes then it is this. Qhorin has grey eyes and so does Jon. That in itself connects Qhorin to Jon in a textual sense, but there is more to the connection because the eyes are windows to the soul. It is often said that the brain of the story is plot, the characters are the heart, and the theme is the soul of the story.

I don't think Qhorin's eyes are grey because Jon's are grey. Qhorin's color over all is "grey": his black has faded to a grey, his hair is grey, and his eyes are grey. Pick a color for Qhorin and you see him in "grey". Along with the "braid" of his hair, Qhorin reminds me of a horse as well. So, Qhorin is a grey horse.

George uses horses to reflect an aspect of the rider, and Qhorin's rider would be Jon. Qhorin is to Jon, what Silver is to Dany, or Smiler to Theon. So, why grey?

In aGoT, during the tourney we find a clue for this - Loras riding a grey mare bedecked with blue forget-me-nots. The scene at the tourney of the Hand between Loras and the Mountain, or rather the horses's behavior is a reminder of the past events with Lyanna. From the HotU vision we know Jon is the blue rose, and thus his horse, like Loras's must be grey.

And yes, the greyness of the mare with Loras is likely a pointer to the grey eyes of Starks. But why did George choose to make their eyes "grey"?  Because on the one hand they're "flawed heroes" and/or have to make decisions and act for the greater good that may appear on the surface as "wrong".

  • Ned "lies" about being Jon's father, in order to ensure Jon's safety. Ned confesses to "treason" and proclaims Joffrey the rightful heir to ensure the safety of his daughters. He takes hits on his known honor to the surface, for a far greater/deeper honor beneath the skin.
  • Arya feels the injustice done to smallfolk and women the most, and ends up on the path of a vigilante who takes justice in her own hands, going as far even as joining a training program for assassins.
  • Bran's a wizard in a tree to whom he might make people sacrifice a man to him, or who might end up skinchanging a living man to communicate or get to places.
  • Lyanna is depicted on the surface as a "victim", but was far less innocent than appears
  • Sansa seems to be heading towards a grey choice situation as well
  • Jon acts and makes decisions that on the surface seems a breaking of vows or the actions of a turncloak, while he's aiming for the big picture: protect the realm and wall (from the northern threats as well as the southern ones)

Qhorin put him on the path of making the type of decisions to do what needs to be done in order to achieve the bigger goal, even if it means killing his hero Qhorin to pretend to be a turncloak and infiltrate the Free Folk, which also makes him have a sexual relationship with Ygritte, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

If it doesn't take much effort to bust this theory then bust it.

 

Ned recalled that only two survived the ToJ, but using correct grammar we can determine that he was talking about two of they who were seven.

The reveal about Arthur's death will confirm what we already know, but then why hide it in the first place?

 

First of all there is nothing to bust theory is nonsense , you are just interpreting quotes the way it will fit your theory.

There is nothing to reveal about Arthur death he simply died . Your point about correct grammar is incorrect too.

I own books and they are on my own language so I dont have exact quote of english version but in Ned Stark chapter it clearly says this :

" Ned je nakon toga srušio kulu i upotrijebio njeno krvavo kamenje za gradnju 8 mogila na grebenu"

Which means :

 

" After this Ned (Edard) took down the tower and used its bloody stones to build 8 grave barrows on ridge "

7 of them plus 3 memebers of kingguard = 10

and Ned build 8 grave  stones meaning Arthur died 2 that survived were Ned and Reed.

Its clear Arthur died and there is nothing to support that he survived not single evidence .

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Putin said:

First of all there is nothing to bust theory is nonsense , you are just interpreting quotes the way it will fit your theory.

There is nothing to reveal about Arthur death he simply died . Your point about correct grammar is incorrect too.

I own books and they are on my own language so I dont have exact quote of english version but in Ned Stark chapter it clearly says this :

" Ned je nakon toga srušio kulu i upotrijebio njeno krvavo kamenje za gradnju 8 mogila na grebenu"

Which means :

 

" After this Ned (Edard) took down the tower and used its bloody stones to build 8 grave barrows on ridge "

7 of them plus 3 memebers of kingguard = 10

and Ned build 8 grave  stones meaning Arthur died 2 that survived were Ned and Reed.

Its clear Arthur died and there is nothing to support that he survived not single evidence .

 

 

 

 

in fairness you took one small part of the theory & tried to debunk it, but didn't. 8 graves don't necessarily mean 8 dead people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

in fairness you took one small part of the theory & tried to debunk it, but didn't. 8 graves don't necessarily mean 8 dead people. 

I didn´t quote the rest because its irrelevant in my own opinion. His grammar excuse is pathetic and is proven wrong by 8 graves quote I provided. Theory is already busted with this part from books (read below) which confirms Qhorin was in night watch around John age and with fact there are 8 graves not 7 and well known fact Arthur died and his sword returned to his family :

 

- 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."

 

Real objective  arguments to support this theory are literally nonexistent. They are using it because you cant disprove (actually you can Arthur is dead its well known)  it and cant directly prove it in same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Putin said:

Your point about correct grammar is incorrect too.

No it's not, but fair enough if English is not your first language, because it's easy to misinterpret even if English was your first language. It is written to be misleading.

The sentence I'm talking about is the one that says - they were seven against three, yet only two lived to ride away. They is the subject of the first clause. The verb is, to be. They were in the act of being seven. They were seven. Against is a preposition that shows the relationship between the seven and the three. They are in opposition, not together, so they remain seven, not ten. They are the northmen, which makes perfect sense as it is from Ned's point of view and he was one of them. Only two northmen survived.

1 hour ago, Putin said:

There is nothing to reveal about Arthur death he simply died .

This is untrue. There is something to reveal about Arthur's death. We don't know who killed him or how he was killed. This information has so far been withheld by GRRM and will be revealed when we revisit the Tower of Joy later in the series. Perhaps it will be confirmation of what we've been told, as you suggest, but I think it is far more likely that it will be a proper reveal as that would better justify withholding the information in the first place. A reveal means something other than what we've been told.

3 minutes ago, Putin said:

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

Qhorin heard a brother tell the story. That does not mean he was in the Night's Watch when he heard it. Wandering crows, like Yoren, travel the realm in search of recruits. If Qhorin said when he was no older than Jon a brother showed him the falls, then I would accept that the line sinks the theory, but it doesn't say that. How easy it would have been for GRRM to write that instead, but he didn't. Of all the ways Qhorin could have known about the falls, all we get is another ambiguous line that is meant to mislead.

We see the same level of ambiguity around Qhorin's past when it says, So far as Jon knew, Qhorin had spent his whole life in the watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

No it's not, but fair enough if English is not your first language, because it's easy to misinterpret even if English was your first language. It is written to be misleading.

The sentence I'm talking about is the one that says - they were seven against three, yet only two lived to ride away. They is the subject of the first clause. The verb is, to be. They were in the act of being seven. They were seven. Against is a preposition that shows the relationship between the seven and the three. They are in opposition, not together, so they remain seven, not ten. They are the northmen, which makes perfect sense as it is from Ned's point of view and he was one of them. Only two northmen survived.

This is untrue. There is something to reveal about Arthur's death. We don't know who killed him or how he was killed. This information has so far been withheld by GRRM and will be revealed when we revisit the Tower of Joy later in the series. Perhaps it will be confirmation of what we've been told, as you suggest, but I think it is far more likely that it will be a proper reveal as that would better justify withholding the information in the first place. A reveal means something other than what we've been told.

Qhorin heard a brother tell the story. That does not mean he was in the Night's Watch when he heard it. Wandering crows, like Yoren, travel the realm in search of recruits. If Qhorin said when he was no older than Jon a brother showed him the falls, then I would accept that the line sinks the theory, but it doesn't say that. How easy it would have been for GRRM to write that instead, but he didn't. Of all the ways Qhorin could have known about the falls, all we get is another ambiguous line that is meant to mislead.

We see the same level of ambiguity around Qhorin's past when it says, So far as Jon knew, Qhorin had spent his whole life in the watch.

I really dont know what write as reply . No enough real materials to prove theory so no real  arguments I need to counter  in my reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...