Jump to content

R + L = J v.167


Ygrain
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

.... but Jon's father in every way was Ned and will be Ned. Contributing 23 chromosomes (the rest is surely Stark blood as is evident in Jon's appearance) is not gonna make Rhaegar the papa.

On that we can agree :-)

6 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Like how Rey chose to be a Skywalker when she was a Palpatine by blood.

... and here you have lost me. Not only did MaRey Sue have zero Skywalker blood, she didn't really have a meaningful relationship with any of them, either, due to the piss-poor writing of the sequels.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Khal Rhaego Targaryen said:

The more I read the arguments to support r+l=j the more crackpot this theory gets 

IMO, I don't believe any reasonable person would say this. There aren't any substantive objections to R+L=J. They're basically all "meta" in nature:

  • It's too obvious!
  • It's too tropey!
  • It doesn't explain what happened to Ashara!

Excluding confirmation outside the books, R+L=J is the simplest, most straightforward theory of Jon's parentage. Unlike the truly crackpot theories, R+L=J does not require

  • a secret marriage that has no textual support (N+A=J, B+A=J)
  • a baby swap that has no purpose except to ferry a character from Westeros to Essos (Greenhand N+A=J)
  • brother-sister incest that has no textual support (N+L=J, B+L=J)
  • a minor background character having multiple identities, as in Ashara Dayne is Wylla, the Fisherman's Daughter, and Septa Lemore
  • bad random parents soap opera writing (Arthur+L=J)

etc. the list sadly goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2020 at 11:30 AM, Frey family reunion said:

Not if he specifically wanted to lead the reader to a wrong conclusion.  

George has been leading the reader to wrong conclusions since the start of the series, but those wrong conclusions are clearly pointed at making  the reader think Jon is the son of Wylla, Jon is the son of Ashara Dayne, or Jon is the son of the Fisherman's Daughter. Each of these possibilities has been laid out for the reader, but no place are we given a story of Jon being the son of Lyanna Stark. Martin has left clues for attentive readers that point to Lyanna as Jon's mother, but it is not given to us as one of the contending and contradictory tales that we have about Wylla, Ashara, and the nameless Fisherman's Daughter. It's hard to see the accumulation of clues pointing at Lyanna as just another "wrong conclusion." I do believe Martin has very skillfully laid false trails, red herrings, or whatever you want to call them, but I don't believe Lyanna giving birth to Jon at the Tower of Joy is one of those.

The Twilight Zone twist IS Lyanna as Jon's mother. Perhaps that is hard to believe given the years of discussions in this thread, but think of this question from the point of view of the reader who starts the series now without any idea about Jon's identity. Martin means this series to have been read that way.

 Hopefully this will finally be laid out for us in The Winds of Winter.

Edited by SFDanny
left out a word - sorry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ygrain said:
Quote

Like how Rey chose to be a Skywalker when she was a Palpatine by blood.

... and here you have lost me. Not only did MaRey Sue have zero Skywalker blood, she didn't really have a meaningful relationship with any of them, either, due to the piss-poor writing of the sequels

Rey ( Daisy ridley) had zero Skywalker blood, but no meaningful relationship with Skywalkers??? 

With Luke and Leia?? 

Palpatine got his ass kicked and at last Rey answers to the name of Rey Skywalker. It's a damn Skywalker saga for chrissakes!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Rey ( Daisy ridley) had zero Skywalker blood, but no meaningful relationship with Skywalkers??? 

With Luke and Leia?? 

Yeah. Or do you feel that she really bonded with Luke like Luke did with Obi-Wan or Yoda? Or that there was some bonding moment with Leia that actually granted the hug (which Chewie didn't get?) Or that Leia training Rey would have been included if not for the fan criticism? The way it was written, Rey claiming the Skywalker name was not deserved in the least.

52 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Palpatine got his ass kicked and at last Rey answers to the name of Rey Skywalker. It's a damn Skywalker saga for chrissakes!! 

Yes, it is a Skywalker saga - parts I-VI. The rest is a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Yes, it is a Skywalker saga - parts I-VI. The rest is a mess.

Given the mess of the last three Star Wars, and the terrible fate of Martin's novels in the hands of the HBO show runners, there is ample evidence of the dangers of handing over unfinished works into the hands of others. Is the money ever worth it? But then no one has ever offered me truckloads of money for the rights to my non-existent novels. Given the chance I'd likely make the same mistake of both of the Georges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Given the mess of the last three Star Wars, and the terrible fate of Martin's novels in the hands of the HBO show runners, there is ample evidence of the dangers of handing over unfinished works into the hands of others. Is the money ever worth it? But then no one has ever offered me truckloads of money for the rights to my non-existent novels. Given the chance I'd likely make the same mistake of both of the Georges.

:lmao:Must be the name - all Georges, beware of the white slavers!

- But great minds really think alike, the parallel between the sequels and the show certainly didn't escape my attention. Can't decide which one I hate more ... :crying: Three loves I had, Tolkien, Star Wars, and AGOT, and three treasons I have known, thrice for gold and gold and gold again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2020 at 12:49 PM, Frey family reunion said:

No I’m pretty clearly right on this one.  A repetition of a phrase in two different scenarios makes for a good theory.  It does not create a confirmation.

I think I'm somewhere in the middle here.

To me the phrase "bloody bed" definitely can mean "birthing bed" in Westeros.  And it is used that way.

But is that the only possible meaning? That's not clear at all. If we leave out the Lyanna references, there are only the other two you mention above.  That's not much of a pattern.

Similarly, in the first four books "ice dragon" nearly always means the constellation.

But then in book five that situation changes. The exact same phrase suddenly takes on a new meaning:

Quote

the wind was gusting, cold as the breath of the ice dragon in the tales Old Nan had told when Jon was a boy

Quote

The snowfall was light today, a thin scattering of flakes dancing in the air, but the wind was blowing from the east along the Wall, cold as the breath of the ice dragon in the tales Old Nan used to tell.

All of a sudden we find out about ancient myths we never heard of before. Whoops.

We've seen Martin do this before. Early precedent gets overturned. Things fans thought could only mean X, turn out to mean something else.

After five books, there was no sign that Aerys' heir after the Trident was anybody but Aegon. We would have said all the clues pointed to Aegon.  We could have cited numerous passages making this case.

Then the World book came along. It plainly said Aerys named Viserys his heir, not Aegon. Whoops. (This also killed the argument that the kingsguard fought Ned because Jon was the true Targ king.)

So we know Martin can and does introduce new ideas or meanings, late in the game, that were never hinted at before.  "Bed of blood" could easily be one more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, HugorHell said:

Then the World book came along. It plainly said Aerys named Viserys his heir, not Aegon. Whoops. (This also killed the argument that the kingsguard fought Ned because Jon was the true Targ king.)

It didn't, but it did muddy the waters. I will consider the argument killed if its confirmed that the KG 1) knew about Aerys' decree, and 2) considered it valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2020 at 3:20 PM, Ygrain said:

Well. Let's presume that you are reading a text in a foreign language and you come across a word XXX that you are not familiar with and do not have the context to deduce the meaning. Then you come across the word XXY, for which you are provided a meaning and the similarity allows you to make a deduction about XXX. And then you come across XXX, this time in a context where the meaning is clear, and, yeah, it is indeed related to XXY and your deduction of XXX was correct. In other words, the meaning is confirmed.

This is exactly how deducing the meaning of unknown words works, it is the same as we did with bed of blood, and if you were not biased, you would acknowledge it.

Yes, and hopefully for the last time.  This is a good deduction.  It is a good inference.  It is not a confirmation.  The question that has to be asked, is if GRRM is playing this fair.  Is he trying to subtly lead us to the right conclusion or the wrong conclusion.

I agree that both what Mirri said and what Aeron said are specifically to get us to think of a bloody bed or a bed of blood to equate with childbirth.  Now whether Ned would have understood that fact, I don't know.  It's very possible that Ned was just describing the condition of Lyanna's bed at the time of her death.

But here is the main problem with the idea of Ned coming across Lyanna shortly after she gave birth to Jon.  If we are going to take GRRM's statement of Ned being born 8 to 9 months before Dany seriously, then we can safetly rule out Ned's deathbed meeting with Lyanna as occurring around Jon's birth.  At least if we assume that this conversation took place at the time of the battle of the tower of joy or sometime afterwards.  

We are told that at the time of the rebbellion Aerys only visited Rhaella's bed chamber when he burned someone.  After Jaime stood guard over Rhaella's (or at least presumably Rhaella) rape he didn't see her again until the morning she left for Dragonstone.

So assuming this is Dany's conception, the conception had to take place prior to the Battle of the Trident because Jon Darry was standing next to Jaime.

George has pretty much used a fortnight (two weeks) as the standard of time it took to travel to the area around the fork.  That's how long it took Ned to get to King's Landing from the battle, and that's how long it took Cat and Rodrik to travel to the Inn at the crossroads.

So at the bare minimum a month had to elapse between the time that Chelsted was burned and that Dany was allegedly conceived and the time it took for Ned to get to King's Landing.

So then we can surmise that Jon's birth should have taken place at the minimum two weeks prior to the Battle of the Trident up to the time that Ned arrived at King's Landing.

But the tower of joy doesn't happen immediately after that time period.  Ned leaves King's Landing to continue fighting the wars in the South.  Then Ned makes his way to Storm's End, presumably with Ned's army.  King's Landing to Storm's End is approximately the same distance that King's Landing is to the Trident.  So a two week journey at the minimum.  

And then however, long it took for Ned to learn of the location of the tower of joy and to travel there.  If you look at the map, as a crow flies, it is at least twice the distance between Storm's End and the tower of joy as it was between King's Landing and the Fork.  And there are no major roads between Storm's End and the tower of joy and there is a mountain range to traverse.  Even if they decided to sail to Wyls or some other locatio in Dorne to get there, the naval travel would be quite extensive because you are having to sail around some significant penninsulas.  Even then you have to find a place to port, and still travel a long distance through mountains to get to the tower of joy.

We can also use another time period to realize that the length of time between the Sack and the battle at the tower of joy had to be significant.

Ned said that the war had raged close to a year when the Sack occurred.

It was also said by at least two POV's that the Seige of Storm's End lasted close to a year.

But the Seige of Storm's End did not begin until after Arryn called his banners, after the battle at Gulltown occurred, after Robert travelled from Gulltown to Storm's End.  After Robert called his banners, after Robert engaged in the battle at Summerhall.  After Robert and his army travelled to Ashford, after the Battle at Ashford, and after the length of time it took the Martell's to travel to Storm's End to begin the Siege.  We also have to factor the length of time it took for the Redwyne fleet to travel around Dorne to get to Storm's End.

This is roughly the same length of time that it should have taken after for Ned to have ended the Siege after the Sack of King's Landing.  So not an inconsiderable length of time.  And then Ned and company would have still had to have travelled to the tower of joy.

So unless the Kingsguards let Lyanna lie in her afterbirth for a minimum of two months after Jon's birth, Ned could not have come upon Lyanna immediately after giving birth to Jon.

Now if we choose to ignore GRRM's comments about the time period between Dany's birth and Jon's birth I'm fine with that.  But we also have to ignore it when it comes to exluding other theories about Jon's birth.  Personally I've never been too comfortable about relying too heavily on Martin's fan interactions because until he commits it to writing it should not be considered, in my opinion.

In addition we also have to assume that the reader has a good handle as to when Dany was born.  Personally, I think we may have no idea as to when Dany was born.  But I understand that's a debate for another time.

 

Edited by Frey family reunion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2020 at 11:31 PM, SFDanny said:

George has been leading the reader to wrong conclusions since the start of the series, but those wrong conclusions are clearly pointed at making  the reader think Jon is the son of Wylla, Jon is the son of Ashara Dayne, or Jon is the son of the Fisherman's Daughter.

There are two types of readers.  Readers that superficially read a story probably won't pick up Jon being the son of Lyanna.  More careful readers, and especially readers of fantasy who have been programmed to accept the concept of the "hidden prince" will pick up on these various clues and will certainly come to the conclusion that Lyanna and Rhaegar are Jon's parents.  George is certainly well aware of this.  George even wrote about this in the tale of the Sealord's Cat.  

George has gone on record that he wanted to write a tale that would surprise readers like his mom.  Someone who could always figure out the plot twists in a story.  George has also indicated that he has specifically not laid all of his cards on the table.  In other words we haven't been given all the pertinent information.

I think R + L = J is certainly a safe theory based on the info we've been given so far.  I also think that George hasn't told us everything we need to know, to come to the conclusion that this is the only possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think R + L = J is certainly a safe theory based on the info we've been given so far.  I also think that George hasn't told us everything we need to know, to come to the conclusion that this is the only possibility.

We agree here. Which is why I never just dismiss any of the theories based on Ashara, Wylla, or the Fisherman's daughter being Jon's mom. I think each is highly unlikely for many reasons but each has the benefit of clues that point directly to them. Even the timeline issues we often argue about don't completely make it impossible for any of these theories from turning out to be the truth. We don't know enough of Ned's whereabouts during the critical time period after his wedding to Catelyn. Nor do we know almost anything about where Ashara, Wylla, or the Fisherman's Daughter are at the same time. For instance, we could well find out that Ashara visited Ned during the rebellion. Part of a peace mission? Pure speculation, but i expect Martin to keep each theory alive until he is ready to reveal the truth. I just find it highly unlikely the truth will be anything but Lyanna as Jon's mom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Yes, and hopefully for the last time.  This is a good deduction.  It is a good inference.  It is not a confirmation

Please. You cannot redefine words just because the conclusion doesn't suit you.

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I agree that both what Mirri said and what Aeron said are specifically to get us to think of a bloody bed or a bed of blood to equate with childbirth.  Now whether Ned would have understood that fact, I don't know.  It's very possible that Ned was just describing the condition of Lyanna's bed at the time of her death.

What you fail to realise is that "bed of blood" is not a common English description of a bed that is bloodied, it is a specifically coined term. That's why its first occurence is baffling for the reader and we don't know what the hell happened to Lyanna.

Besides, if it was merely Ned's description, he would have used it about Robert. He doesn't.

As for the maths of Jon's birth, I've seen multiple timelines, some of which allow for Ned arriving at the right time just fine. Besides, you are aware of the fact that the post-partum bleeding continues for weeks, right? 

It seems to me that you are letting your issues with the timelines affect your judgement of the linguistic aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

There are two types of readers.  Readers that superficially read a story probably won't pick up Jon being the son of Lyanna.  More careful readers, and especially readers of fantasy who have been programmed to accept the concept of the "hidden prince" will pick up on these various clues and will certainly come to the conclusion that Lyanna and Rhaegar are Jon's parents.  George is certainly well aware of this.  George even wrote about this in the tale of the Sealord's Cat.  

I don't think its "certain" that more careful readers will (independently) come to the R+L=J conclusion. If you don't ever check any fan community (online or offline), then independently reaching the conclusion is not trivial. You first need to recognize that Jon's Stark looks don't come from Ned. That's quite a challenge if you're thinking just by yourself. The books bombard you over and over with the idea that Jon has to be Ned's son because goshdarnit, Jon is Ned's spitting image; and no character in the books ever suspects or mentions otherwise.

 

I just fundamentally disagree with any idea or insinuation that R+L=J is some sort of red herring for "more careful but not the most careful" readers. It gets us into really meta territory with thinking like

  1. The superficial reader won't pick up on the R+L=J clues and will reach the wrong conclusion (N+A=J, N+W=J, N+FD=J).
  2. The more careful reader will pick up on the R+L=J clues but will still reach the wrong conclusion (R+L=J).
  3. The most careful reader will pick up that R+L=J is a red herring and that actually, the "superficial" answer is the right one. Expectations subverted!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, lehutin said:

I just fundamentally disagree with any idea or insinuation that R+L=J is some sort of red herring for "more careful but not the most careful" readers.

:cheers::agree:

 

Those insinuations tend to be based on a sense of elitism ("I know better"), rather than on the actual reading of the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

:cheers::agree:

 

Those insinuations tend to be based on a sense of elitism ("I know better"), rather than on the actual reading of the text.

Yup, the "elitist" who started reading long after RLJ had been solved, who found out about RLJ on the internet, not on their own, so refuses to accept it, and is obsessed with figuring out the "real" truth, which amounts to a bunch of terrible, baseless theories

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

:cheers::agree:

 

Those insinuations tend to be based on a sense of elitism ("I know better"), rather than on the actual reading of the text.

Oh, yes.  Guilty as charged there.

ETA: I'll try not to be flippant on this.  I think this mystery is too easily solved.  Considering just how subtle George can be, I don't think this is a terribly subtle mystery.  Reasonable minds can certainly differ on this.  

I am reminded that this was Paris' reaction as well to the idea that Rhaegar was Jon's dad.  That it was too obvious, that George doesn't do obvious.  I lean towards agreeing with George's wife on this point.

Now granted, I'm not convinced of this.  My reading of his other stories didn't really make me come to the conclusion that George would not create some variation on the tired hidden Prince motif.  It's certainly possible.  And like I said, taking everything we know now, it's hard to bet on another theory other than R + L.  

Edited by Frey family reunion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2020 at 10:10 AM, lehutin said:

Your response is basically the same as what I mentioned and addressed:

Cersei placed no restriction on the status of Ned's children. She didn't ask him

  • "you love your children with Catelyn, do you not?"
  • "you love your trueborn children, do you not?"
  • "you love your highborn children, do you not?"

She just asked him

Based on that question wording, If Jon is one of Ned's children, his name should be on that list: "Robb and Jon and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon." Even if you want to argue that despite the question wording, Ned mentally separates his children by legitimacy, Jon's name should still be on that list: "Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon; or Jon."

 

But neither of those happened on the page. Ned does not think of Jon as one of his children, trueborn or bastard, when he thinks to himself,

 R+L=J easily explains this: Jon isn't one of Ned's children. R+L=J denial can't explain this without rewording Cersei's question; assuming that Jon's name is implied on the page; dodging it by saying that Ned still thinks of Jon from Cat's perspective; or worst of all, bizarrely claiming that Ned is the George Washington-Abraham Lincoln of Westeros and never lies.

Then what does murdering of  Bran has to do with Cercei's children ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ygrain said:

It didn't, but it did muddy the waters. I will consider the argument killed if its confirmed that the KG 1) knew about Aerys' decree, and 2) considered it valid.

I am curious. Could you clarify the bolden please. Is it a case of the KG questioning the messenger or the source? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...