Jump to content

Heresy 231 Alienarea Strikes Again


Black Crow

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, LynnS said:

I have no reason to feel guilty, Ser Kevan told himself. Tywin would understand that, surely. It was his daughter who brought shame down on our name, not I. What I did I did for the good of House Lannister.

So what did he do ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Black Crow said:

So what did he do ?

In this case, he is removing Cersei from power and letting her go to trial.  Something that Tywin would not have allowed, no matter how stained the family name.  Something that Kevan won't allow.  But something that is useful to Varys.  Woe to Kevan.

Since this is the epilogue and presumably GRRM is telling something about past events, I think Kevan's statement about the path not taken and Aerys refusing Cersei indicates Tywin's involvement in subsequent events leading to Queen Cersei.  Including the deaths of Rhaegar, Elia and her Children.  Who gave the order for Clegane to kill Elia and her children, if not Tywin? 

Ned reserves a lot hatred for the Lannisters especially where children are concerned:

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Eddard I

Robert's mouth gave a bitter twist. "Not well, in truth," he admitted. "I think losing Jon has driven the woman mad, Ned. She has taken the boy back to the Eyrie. Against my wishes. I had hoped to foster him with Tywin Lannister at Casterly Rock. Jon had no brothers, no other sons. Was I supposed to leave him to be raised by women?"

Ned would sooner entrust a child to a pit viper than to Lord Tywin, but he left his doubts unspoken. Some old wounds never truly heal, and bleed again at the slightest word. "The wife has lost the husband," he said carefully. "Perhaps the mother feared to lose the son. The boy is very young."

I doubt that the old wounds that bleeds at the slightest word have anything to do with Jon Arryn and more to do with the circumstances around Lyanna and Jon.  To that, Ned would rather entrust a child to a pit viper (Martells?) rather than a butcher of children.  Something that is expressed in Ned's dream:

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Eddard XV

Robert had been jesting with Jon and old Lord Hunter as the prince circled the field after unhorsing Ser Barristan in the final tilt to claim the champion's crown. Ned remembered the moment when all the smiles died, when Prince Rhaegar Targaryen urged his horse past his own wife, the Dornish princess Elia Martell, to lay the queen of beauty's laurel in Lyanna's lap. He could see it still: a crown of winter roses, blue as frost.

Ned Stark reached out his hand to grasp the flowery crown, but beneath the pale blue petals the thorns lay hidden. He felt them clawing at his skin, sharp and cruel, saw the slow trickle of blood run down his fingers, and woke, trembling, in the dark.

Tyrion compares Tywin's army to an iron rose:

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Tyrion VIII

In the dawn light, the army of Lord Tywin Lannister unfolded like an iron rose, thorns gleaming.

So I wonder if the hidden thorns in Ned's dream is a reference to Tywin Lannister.  If only Rhaegar had married Cersei, so many lives could have been saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

In this case, he is removing Cersei from power and letting her go to trial.  Something that Tywin would not have allowed, no matter how stained the family name.  Something that Kevan won't allow.  But something that is useful to Varys.  Woe to Kevan.

That's something I'm not sure about. On the surface that's possible but I can't help but feel there's something deeper -older. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

That's something I'm not sure about. On the surface that's possible but I can't help but feel there's something deeper -older. 

Yes something older. Another manifestation of aspects of his fever dream.  I'm keeping in mind that GRRM has said that he is deliberate in writing with multiple interpretations or layered meaning.  Bran is also tied to something old and yet someone has to push him out a window.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LynnS said:

Yes something older. Another manifestation of aspects of his fever dream.  I'm keeping in mind that GRRM has said that he is deliberate in writing with multiple interpretations or layered meaning.  Bran is also tied to something old and yet someone has to push him out a window.  

I'm in the mood for cracking some pots:

Lyanna was the Knight of the Laughing Tree (a weirwood reference?) and in reverse repeating history, she is the corpse queen and kidnapped Rhaegar. As weird as this might seem, it is the only logical explanation for Rhaegar not being around between the tourney of Harrenhal and the battle of the Trident. Lyanna took him to the Isle of Faces and bound him with strange sorceries learned from Howland Reed and created the White Walkers (king's guard reference!) out of the green men.

When she became pregnant by Rhaegar she lost her power over him (a trope, I know :P ) and he went to fight on the Trident, ordering Arthur Dayne to kill her in case he were to die. That is why Ned was able to slay Arthur, because when they fought Howland was helping Lyanna to give birth, and the first sign of life by Jon caused Arthur to pause fighting a split second too long.

As The Cramps (obscure punk band) sung: "All Women Are Bad". And one of their records is "Songs the Lord taught us". So they must know :) :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, alienarea said:

I'm in the mood for cracking some pots:

Lyanna was the Knight of the Laughing Tree (a weirwood reference?) and in reverse repeating history, she is the corpse queen and kidnapped Rhaegar. As weird as this might seem, it is the only logical explanation for Rhaegar not being around between the tourney of Harrenhal and the battle of the Trident. Lyanna took him to the Isle of Faces and bound him with strange sorceries learned from Howland Reed and created the White Walkers (king's guard reference!) out of the green men.

When she became pregnant by Rhaegar she lost her power over him (a trope, I know :P ) and he went to fight on the Trident, ordering Arthur Dayne to kill her in case he were to die. That is why Ned was able to slay Arthur, because when they fought Howland was helping Lyanna to give birth, and the first sign of life by Jon caused Arthur to pause fighting a split second too long.

As The Cramps (obscure punk band) sung: "All Women Are Bad". And one of their records is "Songs the Lord taught us". So they must know :) :P 

Well, Lyanna being the kidnapper would explain Ned blaming her and her wolf blood for her death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2020 at 4:46 PM, Melifeather said:

Make fun all you like, but that's exactly the effect the letter had on Jon.

Yes,  Jon actually set about to attack Winterfell.  That doesn't make sense, but it happened in the story, so we just have to accept it; a character made a poor and, to me, irrational decision.

But the premise of the whole pink letter "mystery" is that Jon's leaving the wall  was so predictable that another character predicted that reaction and wrote the letter to achieve it.

I'm just pointing out that the foundational premise for the whole "who wrote the pink letter" thing isn't there. Jon's reaction was not, as far as I can see, predictable or even in retrospect explainable.

Can anyone elaborate on what Jon could accomplish by leading an modest army of wildlings on a many-hundred mile march in winter and then attacking winterfell and tie it into the pink letter? And balance those possible goals with the negative effect of taking a substantial chunk of the force defending the wall away from the wall? And breaching his vows by taking active part in the military and political affairs of the realm? And . . . I could probably think of a half-dozen other reasons why leaving castle black wouldn't be good or make sense. And again, for what goal or purpose?

And I intend this as a genuine question, not so much an argument; you folks on here are much more deeply steeped in the details and theories and such. I'm interested in what I might have missed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, corbon said:

1. She was the KotLT, which may well have been a direct lead to being noticed and crowned by Rhaegar.

2. She probably went with Rhaegar willingly, rebelling against her father's decision giving her to Robert.

You may not agree with those - this is heresy after all :P;) - and even if true they undoubtedly are not the full story, but they do answer the question.

I'd say it's pretty obviously #2. Ned knows, either in reality or intuitively, that Lyanna wasn't kidnapped and raped, but that she and Rhaegar were in love and she went with him willingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Brother Seamus said:

I'd say it's pretty obviously #2. Ned knows, either in reality or intuitively, that Lyanna wasn't kidnapped and raped, but that she and Rhaegar were in love and she went with him willingly.

Heck, even Robert knows this. He may not admit it, even to himself, but rapers and victims are not united in death, lovers are:

Quote

 "Rhaegar  Rhaegar won, damn him. I killed him, Ned, I drove the spike right through that black armor into his black heart, and he died at my feet. They made up songs about it. Yet somehow he still won. He has Lyanna now, and I have her." 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Brother Seamus said:

Can anyone elaborate on what Jon could accomplish by leading an modest army of wildlings on a many-hundred mile march in winter and then attacking winterfell and tie it into the pink letter? And balance those possible goals with the negative effect of taking a substantial chunk of the force defending the wall away from the wall? And breaching his vows by taking active part in the military and political affairs of the realm? And . . . I could probably think of a half-dozen other reasons why leaving castle black wouldn't be good or make sense. And again, for what goal or purpose?

And I intend this as a genuine question, not so much an argument; you folks on here are much more deeply steeped in the details and theories and such. I'm interested in what I might have missed.

I think the idea is that the NW needs the support of the North.
They can't hold the wall with what they have against what is coming. They theoretically held the wall against the wildings, but wildings were still able to cross the wall pretty freely. Just not with their families and dependents.

What about an enemy that has no families or dependents, nor even need for self-preservation?

The support of the whole North, or a very large part of it, is needed, or everything fails.

The Pink Letter is a declared war on the NW from the south (direction). The NW can't come close to fulfilling its mission to protect humanity as long as the writer of the Pink Letter controls most of the North (polity).

Therefore, the only hope, slim as it may be, for the NW to fulfill its mission is for the writer of the pink letter to be deposed. Its necessary.

I don't necessarily agree with all of that (nor disagree exactly), but thats my best understanding of Jon's thinking. That I recall. I haven't read that part much lately, just snippets here an there when checking other things..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, corbon said:

I think the idea is that the NW needs the support of the North.
They can't hold the wall with what they have against what is coming. They theoretically held the wall against the wildings, but wildings were still able to cross the wall pretty freely. Just not with their families and dependents.

What about an enemy that has no families or dependents, nor even need for self-preservation?

The support of the whole North, or a very large part of it, is needed, or everything fails.

The Pink Letter is a declared war on the NW from the south (direction). The NW can't come close to fulfilling its mission to protect humanity as long as the writer of the Pink Letter controls most of the North (polity).

Therefore, the only hope, slim as it may be, for the NW to fulfill its mission is for the writer of the pink letter to be deposed. Its necessary.

I don't necessarily agree with all of that (nor disagree exactly), but thats my best understanding of Jon's thinking. That I recall. I haven't read that part much lately, just snippets here an there when checking other things..

Hmmmm. Well that's as good as anything I've heard yet. Kind of abstract, upper-level , geo-strategic thinking though. I recently re-read, so, by definition, this part is among the most recent sections I read (it's now been a few weeks), but I don't remember any hint in this direction. In fact I don't recall any hint as to the why of Jon's deciding to lead a crusade to winterfell. IIRC it's played as an emotional, anger-and-rage-based reaction.

I guess the disconnect that's bugging me is, if the threat against Arya, and a desire to save Arya, is the underlying motivation, why go to winterfell when he knows she's not there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Brother Seamus said:

Hmmmm. Well that's as good as anything I've heard yet. Kind of abstract, upper-level , geo-strategic thinking though. I recently re-read, so, by definition, this part is among the most recent sections I read (it's now been a few weeks), but I don't remember any hint in this direction. In fact I don't recall any hint as to the why of Jon's deciding to lead a crusade to winterfell. IIRC it's played as an emotional, anger-and-rage-based reaction

I don't read the passage where the decision is clearly made as angry.

Quote
"I won't say you're wrong. What do you mean to do, crow?"
Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night's Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. Kill the boy and let the man be born. He thought of Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon's breathless laughter. Of Sansa, brushing out Lady's coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird's nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … I want my bride back …
"I think we had best change the plan," Jon Snow said.

He's already thought about this, already has an idea, he just hasn't committed to it yet.
He understands the consequences - "what you propose is nothing less than treason" - I think thats him talking to himself about the plan we don't even understand yet but he's clearly already thought about it.
He then thinks about the good things if his family, his siblings. "You know nothing Jon Snow" - these are nice, memories, but not relevant to the situation at hand. 
Then it moves to Arya, but further, it moves from Arys to how Arya interacts with the current situation - Ramsey's demand. Ramsey is demanding Arya be returned, yes. But Jon doesn't have her. The point is that Ramsey is absolutist in his demands. And they can't be met. Which means Ramsey's threats become active. Which makes it a geopolitical issue with only one possible resolution.

The whole thing reads to me as a calm man who already has a plan but is wrestling with it because its hard and the consequences are heavy. The decision is made at the end, when the geopolitical reality has to be faced. Ramsey wants his bride and Jon doesn't have her, nor any lace to start getting her.

53 minutes ago, Brother Seamus said:

I guess the disconnect that's bugging me is, if the threat against Arya, and a desire to save Arya, is the underlying motivation, why go to winterfell when he knows she's not there?

Because I don't think the threat to Arya is the basis of the decision, or the underlying motivation. Thats something he thinks about, but only part of the puzzle - and I think he understands that as he wrestles with thoughts of his family, Arya being the last and most relevant of those.

Now if Jon actually had Arya, then there might be more emotional context to the decision. He may have made the same decision but for different reasons, IMO.
But he doesn't. Arya isn't something he can affect in any way. He doesn't have her or have any idea where she might be. She's therefore not a key factor in the decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Black Crow said:

That's something I'm not sure about. On the surface that's possible but I can't help but feel there's something deeper -older. 

I don;t think so, well, not in the sense you are thinking.

I think its the walk of shame. Kevan allowed it, Tywin would never have. I think Kevan is right.

12 hours ago, LynnS said:

Ned reserves a lot hatred for the Lannisters especially where children are concerned:

Seems like he has no hatred at all, just total distrust.

12 hours ago, LynnS said:
Quote

 

Robert's mouth gave a bitter twist. "Not well, in truth," he admitted. "I think losing Jon has driven the woman mad, Ned. She has taken the boy back to the Eyrie. Against my wishes. I had hoped to foster him with Tywin Lannister at Casterly Rock. Jon had no brothers, no other sons. Was I supposed to leave him to be raised by women?"

Ned would sooner entrust a child to a pit viper than to Lord Tywin, but he left his doubts unspoken. Some old wounds never truly heal, and bleed again at the slightest word. "The wife has lost the husband," he said carefully. "Perhaps the mother feared to lose the son. The boy is very young."

 

I doubt that the old wounds that bleeds at the slightest word have anything to do with Jon Arryn and more to do with the circumstances around Lyanna and Jon.  To that, Ned would rather entrust a child to a pit viper (Martells?) rather than a butcher of children. 

Seems to me that those are Robert's wounds Ned wants not to open - he leaves his doubts unspoken.

Seems to me that the wounds that bleed easily reference is his falling out with Robert over the treatment of the Targaryen children (by Tywin). Robert bleeds easily enough whenever the subject of dragonspawn is raised.
In that I agree that it comes down to Tywin being a butcher of children.
I don't think a pit viper is a Martell reference - this is plain Ned speaking - just a general reference to something horribly untrustworthy.

12 hours ago, LynnS said:

Something that is expressed in Ned's dream:

Tyrion compares Tywin's army to an iron rose:

So I wonder if the hidden thorns in Ned's dream is a reference to Tywin Lannister.  If only Rhaegar had married Cersei, so many lives could have been saved.

I like the thorns catch. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the pink letter and Jon Snow's poor decision, which doesn't make any sense except for that GRRM wants it.

With the wildlings having passed the wall, all gates should be sealed. The common understanding (in-story) is that there is magic in the wall and the white walkers cannot cross. 

The conflict within Jon is that he made promises to the wildlings that he should not have made as the Lord Commander of the Night Watch, but could have made as the Lord of Winterfell. 

When he decides to go for Winterfell, he maybe realizes that he always wanted to be Lord of Winterfell, and he's kind of accepting Stannis' offer. Assuming he believes the part of the letter that says Stannis is dead, which is a believable military outcome, Jon is accepting Stannis' offer without having to kneel before him or following his orders, by avenging him.

This is a very selfish move betraying his vows to the Night Watch, and though Bowen Marsh is a stupid, despicable person, IMHO the murder of Jon Snow is justified.

Let's leave him dead :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afterthought: The Lord of Winterfell (Ramsay Bolton) and the leader of the wildlings (Thormund Giantsbane) brought down the Lord Commander of the Night Watch through their actions without actively conspiring. Add Jon Snow's Darth Vader dream and we might have learned what happened to the Night's King back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Brother Seamus said:

Yes,  Jon actually set about to attack Winterfell.  That doesn't make sense, but it happened in the story, so we just have to accept it; a character made a poor and, to me, irrational decision.

But the premise of the whole pink letter "mystery" is that Jon's leaving the wall  was so predictable that another character predicted that reaction and wrote the letter to achieve it.

I'm just pointing out that the foundational premise for the whole "who wrote the pink letter" thing isn't there. Jon's reaction was not, as far as I can see, predictable or even in retrospect explainable.

Can anyone elaborate on what Jon could accomplish by leading an modest army of wildlings on a many-hundred mile march in winter and then attacking winterfell and tie it into the pink letter? And balance those possible goals with the negative effect of taking a substantial chunk of the force defending the wall away from the wall? And breaching his vows by taking active part in the military and political affairs of the realm? And . . . I could probably think of a half-dozen other reasons why leaving castle black wouldn't be good or make sense. And again, for what goal or purpose?

And I intend this as a genuine question, not so much an argument; you folks on here are much more deeply steeped in the details and theories and such. I'm interested in what I might have missed.

 

Well, the letter writer either knew Jon very well or just knows how to get someone's goat by tapping into emotional motivations. Tywin was one such master at figuring out what made a particular person "tick". Catelyn Stark certainly knew what made Walder Frey "tick" - she understood his desire to marry off his many relatives. I think Mance took the time to learn what made Jon Snow "tick" and I think Ramsay also had the knack of understanding human proclivities. Emotion is a strong motivator. Reacting emotionally often throws logic out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Brother Seamus said:

Yes,  Jon actually set about to attack Winterfell.  That doesn't make sense,

To you. 
Obviously, it makes sense to Jon. And to GRRM
Perhaps you aren't looking at it from the right angle?

22 hours ago, Brother Seamus said:

But the premise of the whole pink letter "mystery" is that Jon's leaving the wall  was so predictable that another character predicted that reaction and wrote the letter to achieve it.

I'm just pointing out that the foundational premise for the whole "who wrote the pink letter" thing isn't there. Jon's reaction was not, as far as I can see, predictable or even in retrospect explainable.

Well, I think thats a very poor premise.

I agree it wasn't a predictable decision. It was a hard decision, one he wrestled with (there's tension in him when he's talking about it with Tormund - opening and closing his fist, but no apparent anger). If Jon wasn't sure which way to go, its impossible to me that anyone else who might have written that letter could predict what he might do. None of the possible writers, least of all the most likely, Ramsey, know Jon well.

IMO there is no brilliant calculation or manipulation behind that letter, no attempt to draw out a specific response, other than to sow mental discord, confusion and terror in the recipients. Its just Ramsey being Ramsey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, corbon said:

To you. 
Obviously, it makes sense to Jon. And to GRRM
Perhaps you aren't looking at it from the right angle?

Well, I think thats a very poor premise.

I agree it wasn't a predictable decision. It was a hard decision, one he wrestled with (there's tension in him when he's talking about it with Tormund - opening and closing his fist, but no apparent anger). If Jon wasn't sure which way to go, its impossible to me that anyone else who might have written that letter could predict what he might do. None of the possible writers, least of all the most likely, Ramsey, know Jon well.

IMO there is no brilliant calculation or manipulation behind that letter, no attempt to draw out a specific response, other than to sow mental discord, confusion and terror in the recipients. Its just Ramsey being Ramsey. 

What you seem to be missing is the break in the letter, most apparent in the different wordings of getting his bride back. In my understanding the letter wasn't written in one go, but someone, most likely Ramsay, started it, and then it was finished after Ramsay rode to fight Stannis.

We do not know but debate whether it was finished by Ramsay or someone else and whether it was finished after the battle with Stannis. Among other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, alienarea said:

What you seem to be missing is the break in the letter, most apparent in the different wordings of getting his bride back. In my understanding the letter wasn't written in one go, but someone, most likely Ramsay, started it, and then it was finished after Ramsay rode to fight Stannis.

We do not know but debate whether it was finished by Ramsay or someone else and whether it was finished after the battle with Stannis. Among other things.

:)
Me being me, I just read that as Ramsey being all proper and formal like a real lord in the first part, then unable to resist just being his own self, throw those chaos barbs, sadistic mind games, at the end. 

I checked the letter's contents. IMO its all just Ramsey practically frothing on paper. I put not stock at all in the minor changes in terminology - though yes, I can see it being started and finished in two separate sittings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, corbon said:

:)
Me being me, I just read that as Ramsey being all proper and formal like a real lord in the first part, then unable to resist just being his own self, throw those chaos barbs, sadistic mind games, at the end. 

I checked the letter's contents. IMO its all just Ramsey practically frothing on paper. I put not stock at all in the minor changes in terminology - though yes, I can see it being started and finished in two separate sittings.

How would Ramsay know about the wildling babe (Val) and Mance's son from Dalla? He could only learn that from torturing the spearwives and or Mance.

That is not unlikely, but still he would need to ask for this information. And if one of the spearwives were to give it away unasked, would it be important enough for Ramsay to mention in the letter?

This is the strongest hint for me that the letter was not finished by Ramsay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...