R + L = J v.167

[Daeron the Daring]

17 hours ago, alienarea said:

My biggest issue with R+L=J is that Rhaegar kidnapping/eloping with Lyanna was the root cause for the rebellion. Later, Robert constantly laments that Rhaegar raped Lyanna a thousand times. Still, when Ned returns from the war with Lyanna's bones and a baby, neither Robert nor any of the people of Westeros have the idea that the baby might be Lyanna's son?

Jon Snow knows nothing. He's not alone.

We don't know how big of a public knowledge Jon's existence was at that point. It could very well be that Ned didn't talk about his bastard everywhere he stopped on his journey back. We aren't told that he ever visited, for example Robert, on his way back to Winterfell. Could've explained it with carrying the bones of her sister, whom he wants to put to her rest as soon as possible. Either way, the folks at Winterfell got to know about it the moment he arrived, (I assume a handful of people knew about the child specifically at Starfall as well) but other people of the realm (who bothered to care) may have got to know this later on, for example during Greyjoy's Rebellion. At that point, who really cared? And even looking at medieval customs, Eddard Stark would've had every right to raise a child of his own blood (in case he decided to publicly aknowledge Jon as his nephew), despite what Robert desires. However, I guess that never even came to his mind, given how he possibly swore Lyanna to keep him safe, which he achieved the way we are told. 

[EggBlue]

I'm 75% sure that R+L=>J (albeit, I'm adding seduction/deception and abduction/rape into the calculation)

Yet, in my opinion, as impressively popular as it is, it sucks. I know at least the L and J part of the equation is confirmed but I hope R part doesn't turn out to be true if the books ever come out.

- my biggest problem with this romantic tale isn't that Lyanna explicitly cared about "keeping to one bed" and that logically since she didn't know Rhaegar , she couldn't be sure he'd keep to 1-2 beds at most.

- I don't complain that it also doesn't fit an able, single minded , dutiful guy and that seduction , abduction and lovestruck each contradict with said qualities respectively.

- I can relate Rhaegar's utmost ignorance of his own actions leading to war in his last conversation with Jaimie to him suffering from bipolar disorder and depression and call it a day.

- and I don't really care that most of the evidence in favor of this theory ( including KotLT , ToJ baby , annulment/marriage , etc. ) are not confirmed themselves and every question relating to them is usually answered with accepted hindsight of RLJ

-  I try not to pay attention to the fact that a lot of the fans are too inhumanly unfair to Elia Martell as a character by making up excuses for LR's bizarre love story by saying she couldn't have more babies , she was barren , she was weak , she was surrounded by maesters all the time ...

- I can accept the fact that basically this whole theory with KotLT part is a "you're not like other girls, are you? ..." moment and then a makeover to a lady resulting in pretty flowers crown and later "fuck the country and our families ... let's elope!" 

- I'm not bringing up George's wife's claim about it being too obvious for George since honestly ,for all I care, it might be as simple as a marketing thing aiming at RLJ haters like me for keeping up reading the books! 

- I can even overlook the fact that Jon has zero dragon imagery in his chapters. his paternity side could be as relevant as Robb's maternal blood ,symbolically . now , doesn't matter that dragon blood is one of the most powerful magical bloods in the series.

- heck , I honestly couldn't care less about the fact that Jon's arc doesn't seem to be heading towards a secret prince reveal ... we'd still have prophecy for him.

 

no no no.... my biggest problem with this theory is that if it's true then R & L who abandoned their morality, duty and families and played house for a whole year while the country bled , have created a hero who would save the day... which means a driven-to-Lyanna-by-prophecy Rhaegar had deliberately sacrificed thousands of lives for the greater good. which means at the end of the day , the war and everything that happened during rebellion was necessary for the greater good!  BUT , the books have already given us the scene about what a boy's life means with Stannis and Davos!  that paradox there is my biggest issue with this particular theory... now, if Jon turns out to be not the hero but the main villain and the main problem , it would destroy the character completely ;yet, I could live with that! 

 

PS. volume 167? page 40? that's impressive..

 

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

17 hours ago, EggBlue said:

my biggest problem with this theory is that if it's true then R & L who abandoned their morality, duty and families and played house for a whole year while the country bled , have created a hero who would save the day... which means a driven-to-Lyanna-by-prophecy Rhaegar had deliberately sacrificed thousands of lives for the greater good. which means at the end of the day , the war and everything that happened during rebellion was necessary for the greater good!

We don't know that Jon is necessarily going to be a savior, and I don't think the only alternative is that he becomes a villain (let's also keep in mind that if he gets resurrected, shifts in his personality wouldn't necessarily be character destruction IMO).

That aside, I think one problem with this argument that I see pop up a lot, is that even if Jon were to play a decisive role in defeating the White Walkers in this story, it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about what would have happened in an alternate timeline where the Rebellion never happened and he was never born, or one where he grew up as the son of King Rhaegar. The realm has been torn apart by wars and division over the last 20 years that has left it ill-prepared for an invasion by the Others. Even if we assume that Jon's a savior in this timeline, it doesn't exactly seem implausible to me that in the timeline where all this never happened that they wouldn't need Jon to exist and be a savior in order to be better positioned against the threat. And for the scenario where Jon is raised as a prince, I don't think it follows that he would have turned out the same and had the same impact in that situation. Jon is who he is and is in the position he is in precisely because he was raised at Winterfell as Ned Stark's purported bastard son, rather than growing up in King's Landing as a prince.

Btw, even if you ignore the show, Martin's comments about the impact of the Internet in the context of the revelation about Jon's parentage paints a pretty clear picture that his parents are in fact R + L. No other theory fits his words here.

Quote

“The internet affects all this to a degree it was never affected before,” Martin said. “Like Jon Snow’s parentage. There were early hints about [who Snow’s parents were] in the books, but only one reader in 100 put it together. And before the internet that was fine — for 99 readers out of 100 when Jon Snow’s parentage gets revealed it would be, ‘Oh, that’s a great twist!’ But in the age of the internet, even if only one person in 100 figures it out then that one person posts it online and the other 99 people read it and go, ‘Oh, that makes sense.’ Suddenly the twist you’re building towards is out there.”

 

[Daeron the Daring]

On 2/15/2022 at 5:27 AM, EggBlue said:

no no no.... my biggest problem with this theory is that if it's true then R & L who abandoned their morality, duty and families and played house for a whole year while the country bled , have created a hero who would save the day... which means a driven-to-Lyanna-by-prophecy Rhaegar had deliberately sacrificed thousands of lives for the greater good. which means at the end of the day , the war and everything that happened during rebellion was necessary for the greater good!  BUT , the books have already given us the scene about what a boy's life means with Stannis and Davos!  that paradox there is my biggest issue with this particular theory... now, if Jon turns out to be not the hero but the main villain and the main problem , it would destroy the character completely ;yet, I could live with that! 

I personally understand your position in this, altough I disagree with it.

I don't think good outcomes have to originate from good intentions (assuming it wasn't). There wouldn't be good without bad. We couldn't place anything on a line if we didn't have something to compare it to.

This is simply the butterfly effect. A shock of a butterfly's wings can and do eventually lead to a tornato at some point, somewhere. We ain't blaming the buttefly for the tornado. Small decisons always lead to big events, that't what I mean. 

But to elaborate furthermore, the greatest athrocities of human age often started with good intentions. And everything had and has a positive side, believe me. Look at religion, christianity, specifically. Buncha good intentions, yet so many atrocities were commited because of it. For example, the Crusades. Yet, they still had a positive impact on things. One of the two major reasons the Pope started the First Crusade was to stop wars between european monarchs, since christian rulers wern't allowed to fight other christian rulers that went for the crusade. It created the longest periods of general peace in Europe. Nonetheless, it is something the Church should be ashamed of, and actually is.

The history of Lyanna and Rhaegar doesn't and shouldn't take away a single bit from Jon's personal achievements, if he'll have any. I would honestly write a real-life example here (I did but decided not to include it), but decided not to, it's pretty easy to think of one, tho.

[EggBlue]

On 2/16/2022 at 9:52 PM, Daeron the Daring said:

I personally understand your position in this, altough I disagree with it.

I don't think good outcomes have to originate from good intentions (assuming it wasn't). There wouldn't be good without bad. We couldn't place anything on a line if we didn't have something to compare it to.

This is simply the butterfly effect. A shock of a butterfly's wings can and do eventually lead to a tornato at some point, somewhere. We ain't blaming the buttefly for the tornado. Small decisons always lead to big events, that't what I mean. 

But to elaborate furthermore, the greatest athrocities of human age often started with good intentions. And everything had and has a positive side, believe me. Look at religion, christianity, specifically. Buncha good intentions, yet so many atrocities were commited because of it. For example, the Crusades. Yet, they still had a positive impact on things. One of the two major reasons the Pope started the First Crusade was to stop wars between european monarchs, since christian rulers wern't allowed to fight other christian rulers that went for the crusade. It created the longest periods of general peace in Europe. Nonetheless, it is something the Church should be ashamed of, and actually is.

The history of Lyanna and Rhaegar doesn't and shouldn't take away a single bit from Jon's personal achievements, if he'll have any. I would honestly write a real-life example here (I did but decided not to include it), but decided not to, it's pretty easy to think of one, tho.

I don't know , George might be able to pull it off without writing two selfish or extremely stupid and irresponsible people whose mistakes unknowingly caused a brutal war. I just don't know how he could make it

it doesn't take away Jon's achievements . but the paradox between this and Stannis's plotline with Edrick Storm  is a huge negative point for the story and its author for me personally... still , depends on how it'll be written..

Edited February 19, 2022 by EggBlue

[Corvo the Crow]

.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Corvo the Crow

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

On 2/11/2022 at 7:34 AM, alienarea said:

My biggest issue with R+L=J is that Rhaegar kidnapping/eloping with Lyanna was the root cause for the rebellion. Later, Robert constantly laments that Rhaegar raped Lyanna a thousand times. Still, when Ned returns from the war with Lyanna's bones and a baby, neither Robert nor any of the people of Westeros have the idea that the baby might be Lyanna's son?

Jon Snow knows nothing. He's not alone.

Even though I have my own issues with R+L=J , perhaps this might help . If you look at the abduction of Lyanna some of the people have almost a romantic view about it , the duel between Rhaegar and Robert is also seen that way .  But add in  a baby, then Rhaegar becomes just another man who kidnapped and raped some woman he wanted .

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

On 12/8/2021 at 6:56 PM, Julia H. said:

No, I'm not bending anything, and there is nothing presumptive about this. We know that Robert and Rhaegar are two very different types of men, with very different attitudes and personalities. It is totally possible that a girl does not want one of them and likes the other one. There is no reason why Lyanna should not see the difference between the two even if she does not give a complete lecture about it on page - actually, it is rather probable that she did see the difference.

A "cheater is a cheater" is a terribly simplified view. How many of us are there who have never ended an otherwise serious commitment due to a change of feelings or circumstances? That's very different from someone who is essentially an immature pleasure-seeker, unable or unwilling to think of consequences or responsibility and is continually looking for one-night adventures - married or nor married.

As for your other questions:

Well, this is about a completely different line of possibilities. Earlier, you had brought up the idea that Lyanna falling for Rhaegar did not make sense because she did not like Robert. I completely disagree with this because a girl not liking one kind of person does not necessarily prevent her from liking another kind of person. Now, if you want to pursue the idea that Lyanna and Rhaegar were not in love, feel free to do it, just find better arguments than "Rhaegar was just like Robert", which is simply not true.

 

 

 

In a way Robert and Rhaegar is alike . Where as Robert was just a rumor , Rhaegar is there with his very pregnant wife . She may still want him ,but I doubt that she would willingly run off to be with him .

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

On 1/9/2022 at 10:52 AM, TheBlackSwan said:

Yeah I wouldn't use the show to confirmed that theory.
But there is this declaration:

“The internet affects all this to a degree it was never affected before,” Martin tells EW when asked about fan reaction to the final season. “Like Jon Snow’s parentage. There were early hints about [who Snow’s parents were] in the books, but only one reader in 100 put it together. And before the internet that was fine — for 99 readers out of 100 when Jon Snow’s parentage gets revealed it would be, ‘Oh, that’s a great twist!’ But in the age of the internet, even if only one person in 100 figures it out then that one person posts it online and the other 99 people read it and go, ‘Oh, that makes sense.’ Suddenly the twist you’re building towards is out there.”
https://ew.com/tv/2019/07/15/george-rr-martin-game-thrones-fan-reactions/

There aren't a lot of popular theory about Jon Snow's parentage that were popular before the show and we can see he already talk about that 17 years ago:

« Someone asked about R+L=J and if he would change the story because everyone seems to be on to that. I thought it was interesting that he didn't restate the part about Rheager/Lyanna when he repeated the question so everyone to hear. He restated it as, would you change something because people online have theories (ie to make them be wrong). And he asked how many people talked on internet boards and only a few people raised their hands, so he pointed out that theories that are rampant on the internet aren't known by everyone.
He also says he doesn't read the online posting boards so he doesn't see the theories unless someone emails it to him. »
https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Month/2005/11

To me, Martin's declaration with EW in 2019 confirmed R+L=J.

Slight correction it was 1 out of 100 did not believe R+L=J .

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

On 12/8/2021 at 8:47 PM, AlaskanSandman said:

 

Yeah, kinda bending. You as the reader have been told these things about Rhaegar from Dany and her Targaryen loyalist. Lyanna, would have no reason to know these things about Rhaegar to be able to compare him to Robert Baratheon. Ashara was Elia's maiden, not Lyanna's. No reason to think they were hanging out and talking about Rhaegar. Brandon, Ned, and Benjen definitely were not talking up Rheagar. If Sansa had heard any truth to her crush on Loras, she'd have known she had no chance. No one told her he was gay. Sansa also knew nothing about anybody in Kings Landing. Till after spending some considerable time there. 

I don't think a "Cheater is a cheater" is a simplified view. If Rhaegar wants a divorce, he can try to get one. We are not ever told once that Rhaegar was unhappy with Elia, had anyyyyy grounds for a divorce. She provided him an heir, and a healthy daughter. Cheating on his wife, is exactly that. Cheating. 

Plus, Rhaegar upset his father, and Tywin Lannister, among other lords, for choosing to marry Elia. Which gained him no political advantages. Just to turn around and dishonor her, and her house, after she provided an heir. All to steal a northern woman. Not even make an alliance with the north, nope. He just upsets them, and everyone. Except Dorne, who still strangely fight for him. 

Did they not hear the rumor that Rhaegar had dishonored them and Elia and ran off with a Stark girl causing the war. Seems an odd move.

You're also assuming a lot of "Love" stuff in a world built on feudal alliances where women are pawns to gain power.  Which is exactly why Dorne would not side with Rhaegar after such a slight on their house. Or has Walder Frey more concern for his honor than Dorne?

I don't think Dorne fought for Rhaegar . When Rhaegar fell at the Trident , the Dornish troops did not retreat to King's Landing as far as we know .They returned to Dorne even though Elia was at the Red Keep .

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

On 11/11/2021 at 12:49 PM, skullscarf said:

I can't imagine why they would allow her to leave? 

 

It is very uncomfortable how Lyanna lacks agency in the narrative. I might point out though that her forced betrothal to Robert is her lacking agency *in her world*, not in the story.

I just don't think it would fix the problems with Lyanna's agency if she was brutally stabbed to death instead? It doesn't get around the fact that the plot demands that she has a baby and dies, or the fact that she is a character with absolutely no interiority. 

Orders are orders .

[Julia H.]

1 hour ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

In a way Robert and Rhaegar is alike . Where as Robert was just a rumor , Rhaegar is there with his very pregnant wife . She may still want him ,but I doubt that she would willingly run off to be with him .

They are "alike" at a superficial glance perhaps. Lyanna may well have seen the difference that was significant to her.  (And no, Robert wasn't just "rumour".)

On 2/15/2022 at 4:27 AM, EggBlue said:

I'm 75% sure that R+L=>J (albeit, I'm adding seduction/deception and abduction/rape into the calculation)

Yet, in my opinion, as impressively popular as it is, it sucks. I know at least the L and J part of the equation is confirmed but I hope R part doesn't turn out to be true if the books ever come out.

- my biggest problem with this romantic tale isn't that Lyanna explicitly cared about "keeping to one bed" and that logically since she didn't know Rhaegar , she couldn't be sure he'd keep to 1-2 beds at most.

- I don't complain that it also doesn't fit an able, single minded , dutiful guy and that seduction , abduction and lovestruck each contradict with said qualities respectively.

- I can relate Rhaegar's utmost ignorance of his own actions leading to war in his last conversation with Jaimie to him suffering from bipolar disorder and depression and call it a day.

- and I don't really care that most of the evidence in favor of this theory ( including KotLT , ToJ baby , annulment/marriage , etc. ) are not confirmed themselves and every question relating to them is usually answered with accepted hindsight of RLJ

-  I try not to pay attention to the fact that a lot of the fans are too inhumanly unfair to Elia Martell as a character by making up excuses for LR's bizarre love story by saying she couldn't have more babies , she was barren , she was weak , she was surrounded by maesters all the time ...

- I can accept the fact that basically this whole theory with KotLT part is a "you're not like other girls, are you? ..." moment and then a makeover to a lady resulting in pretty flowers crown and later "fuck the country and our families ... let's elope!" 

- I'm not bringing up George's wife's claim about it being too obvious for George since honestly ,for all I care, it might be as simple as a marketing thing aiming at RLJ haters like me for keeping up reading the books! 

- I can even overlook the fact that Jon has zero dragon imagery in his chapters. his paternity side could be as relevant as Robb's maternal blood ,symbolically . now , doesn't matter that dragon blood is one of the most powerful magical bloods in the series.

- heck , I honestly couldn't care less about the fact that Jon's arc doesn't seem to be heading towards a secret prince reveal ... we'd still have prophecy for him.

 

no no no.... my biggest problem with this theory is that if it's true then R & L who abandoned their morality, duty and families and played house for a whole year while the country bled , have created a hero who would save the day... which means a driven-to-Lyanna-by-prophecy Rhaegar had deliberately sacrificed thousands of lives for the greater good. which means at the end of the day , the war and everything that happened during rebellion was necessary for the greater good!  BUT , the books have already given us the scene about what a boy's life means with Stannis and Davos!  that paradox there is my biggest issue with this particular theory... now, if Jon turns out to be not the hero but the main villain and the main problem , it would destroy the character completely ;yet, I could live with that! 

 

PS. volume 167? page 40? that's impressive..

 

There are certainly huge gaps in the story that we know. There is no evidence that Lyanna and Rhaegar didn't care about the war around them, there is no reason to believe that any of what happened had been their intention, that things did not go terribly wrong somewhere. Nor is there evidence that it all started as a romantic elopement story. (I have some ideas on that, and perhaps one day I'll have the time to do some research on those ideas and maybe write them into a post.) Their story is definitely not a happy one, the general outcome makes that much clear, and it couldn't be a "proper" love story given all the complications we know of. I don't think it means that it must have been something totally dark though, like the deliberate sacrifice of thousands of people for "the greater good". (If a prophecy is really to come true, I would expect it do so in a roundabout way, not as a character intends to fulfill it anyway.) Both Rhaegar and Lyanna deserve the benefit of the doubt until we find out what really happened. This is not a finished story, and the author may still have some secrets he has managed to keep.

[Julia H.]

On 2/11/2022 at 1:34 PM, alienarea said:

My biggest issue with R+L=J is that Rhaegar kidnapping/eloping with Lyanna was the root cause for the rebellion. Later, Robert constantly laments that Rhaegar raped Lyanna a thousand times. Still, when Ned returns from the war with Lyanna's bones and a baby, neither Robert nor any of the people of Westeros have the idea that the baby might be Lyanna's son?

Jon Snow knows nothing. He's not alone.

To be honest, this is an issue even if R+L=J is not true. I mean we know what people in-world believe about Rhaegar and Lyanna, and as long as they believe that, they should wonder, regardless of the hidden truth. 

It is possible that Ned arranged the journey home in such a way that Lyanna's bones and the baby would not be transported together or seen arriving anywhere at the same time, just so people would dissociate Jon from Lyanna.

[The Bard of Banefort]

I fully believe that R+L=J, but I strongly dislike R and L.

I’ve also always been a strong believer in the Ashford Tourney Theory (aside from Littlefinger’s ambitions and the bounty on Sansa’s head, there’s also just the fact that there are only two Hardyngs mentioned in the entirety of ASOIAF, Humphrey and Harry, which feels oddly deliberate), but I am sure as hell not looking forward to it. I suspect that unlike the last time, Sansa won’t fall for the dashing blond king and will find her own way out of King’s Landing, but I’m not looking forward to more pimping by Littlefinger or chapters of Arianne thinking about how Sansa’s a scheming bitch trying to steal her man/crown  Hopefully I’m wrong and the story goes in a completely different direction, but long story short: I don’t like R+L=J, and I’m not excited to see it possibly repeated.

[Corvo the Crow]

.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Corvo the Crow

[Daeron the Daring]

On 2/19/2022 at 5:49 PM, EggBlue said:

I don't know , George might be able to pull it off without writing two selfish or extremely stupid and irresponsible people whose mistakes unknowingly caused a brutal war. I just don't know how he could make it

My point was that for all I care, Rhaegar and Lyanna could be the worst people of the series, it doesn't take away anything from what Jon achieves and will not in any way mean that bad is good. It only drags the simple conclusion you can observe in real life as wel, usually. Would you tell a great german guy who, let's assume deserves a Nobel prize that he is a nobody and should live and die a nobody only because his granfather was a nazi? Makes absolutely no sense. Or do you think Maegor, son of Aerion (probably the worst Targaryen) was rightfully stripped of kingship basically, just because his father was an evil insane maniac? And despite the fact that he was a great or a horrible person, in no way he deserved the crown because that would draw a bad conclusion? Honestly, this sounds stupid to me. 

[EggBlue]

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

My point was that for all I care, Rhaegar and Lyanna could be the worst people of the series, it doesn't take away anything from what Jon achieves and will not in any way mean that bad is good. It only drags the simple conclusion you can observe in real life as wel, usually. Would you tell a great german guy who, let's assume deserves a Nobel prize that he is a nobody and should live and die a nobody only because his granfather was a nazi? Makes absolutely no sense. Or do you think Maegor, son of Aerion (probably the worst Targaryen) was rightfully stripped of kingship basically, just because his father was an evil insane maniac? And despite the fact that he was a great or a horrible person, in no way he deserved the crown because that would draw a bad conclusion? Honestly, this sounds stupid to me. 

 

On 2/19/2022 at 7:19 PM, EggBlue said:

I don't know , George might be able to pull it off without writing two selfish or extremely stupid and irresponsible people whose mistakes unknowingly caused a brutal war. I just don't know how he could make it

it doesn't take away Jon's achievements . but the paradox between this and Stannis's plotline with Edrick Storm  is a huge negative point for the story and its author for me personally... still , depends on how it'll be written..

the Nazi example is actually irrelevant since I've already said here (the bolded), I agree that it doesn't take away Jon Snow's achievements or heroic deeds whatever they'll be. Rhaegar and Lyanna could be beasts in form of humans for all I care. did I say we should punish Jon Snow for his parents' faults?! I'm saying that I find what it implies when the story is finished dissatisfying. let me try to explain it in another way...

if Jon turns out to be the ultimate hero or something like that , it'll confuse the purpose of the story.. at least in my opinion. because, after it's finished , it gives the impression that whatever happened as consequences of R&L ( whatever their intentions may have been ) , was necessary to the larger picture ;and thus , downplays the consequences of their actions . which makes the dilemma of sacrifice* for greater good unresolved in the story; as contrary to what seems to be already being established in the books ( for example, Stannis who wanted kingship for good intentions and killed his brother and was about to kill his nephew for it seems to be doomed) . with their child as the guy who saves the day , it's like the rebellion and R&L's personal losses were worth it and the end result for those actions were eventually good. 

* by sacrifice I don't only mean to tie up someone to a stick for burning. I also mean sacrifice of duty/honor/etc. and unintentional sacrifice ,like causing a war as a result pf ignorance and carelessness. 

I hope I've been able to communicate my thoughts better this time... now, if you still think it's stupid , I don't know what else to tell you!  I know my view won't change just yet, not unless new books shed some more light on this issue.

Edited February 20, 2022 by EggBlue
add

[Daeron the Daring]

13 hours ago, EggBlue said:

 

the Nazi example is actually irrelevant since I've already said here (the bolded), I agree that it doesn't take away Jon Snow's achievements or heroic deeds whatever they'll be. Rhaegar and Lyanna could be beasts in form of humans for all I care. did I say we should punish Jon Snow for his parents' faults?! I'm saying that I find what it implies when the story is finished dissatisfying. let me try to explain it in another way...

if Jon turns out to be the ultimate hero or something like that , it'll confuse the purpose of the story.. at least in my opinion. because, after it's finished , it gives the impression that whatever happened as consequences of R&L ( whatever their intentions may have been ) , was necessary to the larger picture ;and thus , downplays the consequences of their actions . which makes the dilemma of sacrifice* for greater good unresolved in the story; as contrary to what seems to be already being established in the books ( for example, Stannis who wanted kingship for good intentions and killed his brother and was about to kill his nephew for it seems to be doomed) . with their child as the guy who saves the day , it's like the rebellion and R&L's personal losses were worth it and the end result for those actions were eventually good. 

* by sacrifice I don't only mean to tie up someone to a stick for burning. I also mean sacrifice of duty/honor/etc. and unintentional sacrifice ,like causing a war as a result pf ignorance and carelessness. 

I hope I've been able to communicate my thoughts better this time... now, if you still think it's stupid , I don't know what else to tell you!  I know my view won't change just yet, not unless new books shed some more light on this issue.

Okay, looking back, I definitely wasn't clear enough by what I meant, and you may feel the same about yourself as well. But let me elaborate as well. My point with the german guy whose grandparents were nazis wasn't as clear as I intended it. The question is: Shouldn't the guy be allowed to achieve anything good or great because it would draw a bad conclusion, since his grandparents were nazis? Which would, in return, mean that good can originate from something bad? The problem is, that's how real life works. I can personally relate to that as well, my grandfather was a communist political figure in the 70's and 80's, in Romania. You may not know much about communism, or the agricultural system it brought into people's life later on, collectivism, you don't really need to. He had a position that gave him many benefits in the communist era, with of course a lot of responsibilities. When it comes to present popular opinion about him, the majority is pretty chill about it, since he was indulgent, yet I faced judgement for it before I was like 10, even thou my father, on the other hand, had nothing to do with anything of this sort, he's always been kind of the opposite, with being religious and everything. The point I'm making here is that noone should be taken down for the sins of their ancestors. 

For all we know, the son of Aerion could've been the greatest Targaryen king, but he was taken down because his father's sins. That's not how things should work, and neither ASOIAF, nor real life is an idyll universe where everything is good and cannot be traced to something *bad*. 

So for all I care, Jon's parents could've been nazis, communists or cannibals, it wouldn't confuse the purpose of the story. We don't even know if George intends to include a great message into his work, especially not one based on a single individual. Maybe the message is that despite the bad background, something good should be appreciated nonetheless.

If you think a good story must have a great general message or moral/edification, I'd reccomend you to watch The Departed, it's one of the best movies I've seen so far, maybe the best one. DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg, a bunch of other great actors. Just watch it.

 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Daeron the Daring

[EggBlue]

22 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Okay, looking back, I definitely wasn't clear enough by what I meant, and you may feel the same about yourself as well. But let me elaborate as well. My point with the german guy whose grandparents were nazis wasn't as clear as I intended it. The question is: Shouldn't the guy be allowed to achieve anything good or great because it would draw a bad conclusion, since his grandparents were nazis? Which would, in return, mean that good can originate from something bad? The problem is, that's how real life works. I can personally relate to that as well, my grandfather was a communist political figure in the 70's and 80's, in Romania. You may not know much about communism, or the agricultural system it brought into people's life later on, collectivism, you don't really need to. He had a position that gave him many benefits in the communist era, with of course a lot of responsibilities. When it comes to present popular opinion about him, the majority is pretty chill about it, since he was indulgent, yet I faced judgement for it before I was like 10, even thou my father, on the other hand, had nothing to do with anything of this sort, he's always been kind of the opposite, with being religious and everything. The point I'm making here is that noone should be taken down for the sins of their ancestors. 

For all we know, the son of Aerion could've been the greatest Targaryen king, but he was taken down because his father's sins. That's not how things should work, and neither ASOIAF, nor real life is an idyll universe where everything is good and cannot be traced to something *bad*. 

So for all I care, Jon's parents could've been nazis, communists or cannibals, it wouldn't confuse the purpose of the story. We don't even know if George intends to include a great message into his work, especially not one based on a single individual. Maybe the message is that despite the bad background, something good should be appreciated nonetheless.

If you think a good story must have a great general message or moral/edification, I'd reccomend you to watch The Departed, it's one of the best movies I've seen so far, maybe the best one. DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg, a bunch of other great actors. Just watch it.

 

first of all , I'm really sorry for how people unjustly treated you. that sucks..

no , sins of ancestors shouldn't be defining people . that's not what I'm saying . I think we should make a distinction between what people can achieve or would do on their own and what's a promised result of prophecies (the later ,obviously,  simply doesn't exist in our world) . Daenerys and Tyrion are already there in the book showing that children shouldn't be responsible for their fathers' deeds and that they can turn up exactly the opposite of them.  

Jon on the other hand is something different ;since his supposed father was effectively working towards the end result that seems to becoming Jon's destiny . it would have been different if Rhaegar was merely a lovestruck, reckless prince running away from everything (like in the show) . but Martin has gone his ways to inform us that the dead prince knew what was coming , was preparing for it and his story with Lyanna -as implied- was a part of it. I'm not looking for some grand moral message . but from what I've read there are a couple of things Martin seems to be saying ; call it message , rule , whatever... RLJ does cheapen the effect of  one of these things that's already clearly established in his books ; something that he's telling us with  Stannis's story and verbalizes through Marwin : trying to act on prophecies not only bites you in the ass , it also doesn't remotely result in what you intended . because although Rhaegar and his loved ones all died as contrary to what he wanted , he had achieved his main goal nonetheless.   

 

[Daeron the Daring]

4 hours ago, EggBlue said:

first of all , I'm really sorry for how people unjustly treated you. that sucks..

 

No, don't, I talked about it because it's not a big deal (at all). If it was, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

 

4 hours ago, EggBlue said:

Jon on the other hand is something different ;since his supposed father was effectively working towards the end result that seems to becoming Jon's destiny . it would have been different if Rhaegar was merely a lovestruck, reckless prince running away from everything (like in the show) . but Martin has gone his ways to inform us that the dead prince knew what was coming , was preparing for it and his story with Lyanna -as implied- was a part of it. I'm not looking for some grand moral message . but from what I've read there are a couple of things Martin seems to be saying ; call it message , rule , whatever... RLJ does cheapen the effect of  one of these things that's already clearly established in his books ; something that he's telling us with  Stannis's story and verbalizes through Marwin : trying to act on prophecies not only bites you in the ass , it also doesn't remotely result in what you intended . because although Rhaegar and his loved ones all died as contrary to what he wanted , he had achieved his main goal nonetheless.   

I completely understand you, really, and I think we still misundersatnd each other. In no way chasing prophecies is a good thing, that is shown by Stannis at the front page, and ultimately, by Rhaegar. If anything, it's a horrible thing. If prophecies can be true (let's just assume they can be true in ASOIAF, so there are things that are meant to happen), then those legit ones become fulfilled anyway, no matter what. But I doubt anyone can not fall for a prophecy. When, let's say, a prophecy is close, and the people invested and related know this to some extent, they always get corrupted by it, no matter who it may be. 

To get this over with, I am really thinking of the best possible example now, which is Star Wars. You know, the prophecy of the Chosen One, which actually is true. Now, wether Luke or Anakin was the Chosen one, the main issue still stands. Anakin was corrupted, the main reason of his downfall is most probably the first one, his childhood (if you don't count in some ass comic stories which overconfuse everything), which led to him not being able to lock out emotions as a Jedi would. That later on, put him into a relationship with Padme, who eventually became pregnant. Now, for a Jedi, this is all bad from the very beginning. Maybe not for me or you, the viewer, but it was certainly bad from a point of view. In any way, he went on a fucking rampage and sent a whole galaxy into torture and terror. In the end, he or his son is the one who brings the damn balance to the Force.

And even if you consider what the comics want to say about it (which pretty much explains how Sidius/the Emperor/Palpatine got so powerful that he managed to control the Midichlorians, and made them impregnate Anakin's mother), the example is still standing strong, since Palpatine created him so that he'll be his apprentice and heir. So all things considered, Anakin was created by the most evil guy you can imagine, then corrupted him  thanks to his f'd up childhood background even more. However, Anakin, with his son who can be considered some prophetical dude with evil background on the square, saved the Universe and brought balance to the Force.  So, eventually, the evil creation of the most evil guy saves the universe with his son.

And it's the same, in the sense that Anakin managed to do what the prophecy required, however, he is the cause to many things I don't have to elaborate on. Or if it's Luke, then the same shit goes on. His birth and role was all a requirement for the prophecy to work out ultimately. But that's how prophecies work, young padawan.

It ultimately doesn't mean bad actions are justified for the greater good because of prophecy. You may argue beside or against bad deeds for the greater good in real life, but not in fantasy. The difference is the existence of valid prophecies. In this case, this is meant to happen. If Jon Snow is the promised hero, he would've ended up being a thing regardless of Rhaegar's actions. It is Rhaegar who tought he has to take matters into his own hand, because he couldn't believe the prophecy would be fulfilled without him manipulating things (assuming that's the reason why some things happened). This just shows how easily we corrupt, and if prophecies were a real thing, I don't think a single person could evade falling into its trap.

And yes, if you microanalyze everything about this Chosen One stuff, then it's different form TPTWP, but it doesn't matter.