Jump to content

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Thread, Part X


Angalin

Recommended Posts

And a lot of people agree with you that Jon should keep his oath as long as there is a wall to keep Others out of the Realm, and Others to protect the Realm from.

But if those conditions cease to exist, then that frees Jon of his oath.

GH

There will always be a north to protect, and there'll always be things beyond the wall that are dangerous. Even if the Others are wiped out there'll always be freemen and the like.

And even if there is no wall, the black brotherhood will still be around and Jon will still be in charge of them. If he goes from where he is now (which is about as far as a bastard can ever realistically rise) to the iron throne... I can't see how it could work. Everything about him is tied into the north.

In my ideal scenario - assuming this is true - he finds out he's a Targ and dismisses it as an irrelevant bit of information and gets on with his duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing in the Night's Watch vows saying that you can abandon them when the Wall falls or the Others are defeated.

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. (...)"

There is no honorable way out of the Night's Watch once you said your vows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no honorable way out of the Night's Watch once you said your vows.

:laugh: You say that like honor is some sort of objective concept. Who gets to say what's "honorable" and what's not? You've heard the old saying "history is written by the winners"? Well, much the same can be said about that most slippery of concepts: honor. Like everything else it all depends on one's perspective.

I believe we'll see Jon have to choose between breaking the letter of his vows in order to honor their intent. Actually, we already have (e.g. Qhorin, Ygritte, etc.) and I believe it will continue only on a much bigger scale ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the New York Times article.

Recognizing that the novels couldn’t be condensed into films, Mr. Benioff and Mr. Weiss sought to adapt them as a television series for HBO, but had to pass several trials along the way. The first was winning over Mr. Martin in a lunchtime meeting that was mostly collegial, but where Mr. Weiss and Mr. Benioff were quizzed about the parents of Jon Snow, a “Game of Thrones” character of mysterious lineage. (“We had a whole conversation about it,” Mr. Benioff said, “and George was pleased that we got the answer right.”) (Emphasis added)

This pretty much dispells all of the "crazy" theories (which didn't need much dispelling anyway). GRRM scoped out D&D to see if they had figured out Jon's parentage, and they had. I doubt they came up with something like, "Jon is Brandon's son with Cersei." The real answer has enough evidence that George could have an optimistic expectation that a couple of Hollywood types would have stumbled upon the correct answer.

In my mind, that immediately narrows it down to one of:

Ned + Wylla = Jon

Ned + Ashara Dayne = Jon

Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon

...and it's specifically not Ned + Mystery Woman = X.

It seems like the purpose of GRRM questioning D&D on the Jon issue was that he wanted to make sure that they were paying attention and reading into the work. One of the major problems that a lot of authors have with adaptations of their work is that they're surface adaptations---they have all the trappings of the books on which they're based, but they sort of miss out on the soul of it. It seems like the purpose of the interview was that GRRM was trying to gauge D&D's level of involvement in the work.

So why ask about Jon's heritage? Assume that N + W = J or N + A = J. If one of those were the correct answer that D&D proposed, it doesn't really reveal anything about their understanding of the books. Both of those characters are specifically mentioned as candidates for being Jon's mother. Imagine if GRRM asked, "So who do you think Jon's mother is?" and D&D responded, "Well, Ned said it was Wylla, so that's what we're going with." It would show that they had at least read the book, but he already knew that. You could come to that answer with the most superficial of readings. If GRRM were trying to gauge D&D's thought process about the series, the correct answer would have to be something more subtle, that displayed a more nuanced understanding of the work. So they'd at least need to touch upon less obvious answers.

As far as the less obvious answers go, the only one with a running theme of support is really R+L=J. Most of the really wacky answers don't have as much evidence---their proponents tend to defend this by saying stuff like, "Martin's misdirecting us with R+L=J!" Maybe, but then the answer would be really out of left field, and the likelihood that a couple of Hollywood guys would stick with a really out-there idea while trying to get the rights to adapt Martin's show are...incredibly slim. And if Martin had gone to that much trouble to misdirect the reader---piling layers and layers of red herrings on top of each other until it became a meaningless soup---then his reaction should have been less "pleased" that his completely unexpected twist would be revealed, and more "shocked." It would be less of a way to gauge D&D and more of a way to see if they pulled something random out of a hat.

So clearly, they talked about R+L=J. And what goes along with that is sort of discussing Ned's character on an emotional level---really, how can a man who is so loyal to his oaths he would not break them to save his own life, who never displays any particular kind of lust in Littlefinger's brothels---how can he cheat on his wife? Who does he love in the world more than his family? Et cetera. If R+L=J, then D&D's correct answer would show that they were making considerations about the characters on a deeper level than, "Oh, he gets his head chopped off."

You could say that they might have considered R+L=J, rejected the notion, and proclaimed that it was Ashara Dayne all along. I doubt that. I don't think that's something GRRM would expect anyone to do. And again, the only reason he would ask is that he would hope that the producers got it right.

I was already pretty convinced of R+L=J, but I think this pretty much seals the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple pages late, but I just read it...I think some of you are taking WAY too much from what the actors in the TV show may have said or what George RR Martin said while talking up the show.

Here's the key thing with Jon's parentage in the books...his father isn't supposed to be a mystery. Sure, it is for us because the avid readers caught the hints that lean toward R+L (which I agree with), but at no point in the books does anyone ever once question Ned being the father. If Rhaegar is his father and Lyanna his mother, it's supposed to be a surprise for those who weren't necessarily analyzing the text. I missed it the first time, as did all the people I've talked to about it outside the message boards. So what exactly do you expect him to say when he's interviewed about the character of Jon Snow? It's a fact to everyone in the ASoIaF world (except for Ned himself, probably Howland Reed, maybe one or two others) that Jon is Ned Stark's bastard. Definitive fact to them, and nobody ever questions it. If GRRM, while being interviewed, says "Well...both of Jon's parents are a mystery....wink wink...", goodbye the entire point of it, goodbye to the entire surprise aspect, and that's as good as confirmation. Of course he's going to say "Jon is Ned's bastard". As far as anyone who watches the show is concerned, that's what everyone thinks is the case, and if you catch the hints (assuming the show drops a couple too, I have no idea), good for you!

Likewise, he's not going to say Dany and Viserys are anything other than the last Targaryens. And I'm surprised anyone here would hear him say that and think he's somehow denying Jon as a possible Targaryen with that statement...because we all already know that it's not true! We know George is "lying" when he says Dany and Viserys are the last Targaryens alive, because Maester Aemon is a Targaryen. But we aren't supposed to know that when the series starts, and that one isn't even really hinted at until the end of the first book. If he says "Well...they THINK they're the last Targaryens...wink wink...", you're revealing something major that isn't meant to be revealed in that way.

And Kit Harrington might not even know...and even if he does, for all intents and purposes, he's Ned Starks kid. Same way someone who is given up for adoption at birth typically would call their adopted parents their father. It's not even a lie even if they know who his true father is.

I just think there's no real reason to concern yourselves with anything that is said at this stage in hyping the HBO show. There's no way they'd even reveal the EXISTENCE of a mystery that huge when the show hasn't even aired the first episode yet. There's a great chance it will be many seasons before they even blatantly hint at what happened, although it's possible in a visual format we'll get a better idea than in the book. There's no way they'd reveal it in a promo like that, even if it means "lying". And staying silent is as good as revealing that there's something going on that's not what we're being led to believe. It's easy to stay silent for the books since George can refuse to answer any number of questions, whether there's something up or not, you get a "read and find out" (to steal from the late Robert Jordan), but when you're trying to hype up a TV series and explain who one of the main characters of that series is, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the New York Times article.

Recognizing that the novels couldn’t be condensed into films, Mr. Benioff and Mr. Weiss sought to adapt them as a television series for HBO, but had to pass several trials along the way. The first was winning over Mr. Martin in a lunchtime meeting that was mostly collegial, but where Mr. Weiss and Mr. Benioff were quizzed about the parents of Jon Snow, a “Game of Thrones” character of mysterious lineage. (“We had a whole conversation about it,” Mr. Benioff said, “and George was pleased that we got the answer right.”) (Emphasis added)

This pretty much dispells all of the "crazy" theories (which didn't need much dispelling anyway). GRRM scoped out D&D to see if they had figured out Jon's parentage, and they had. I doubt they came up with something like, "Jon is Brandon's son with Cersei." The real answer has enough evidence that George could have an optimistic expectation that a couple of Hollywood types would have stumbled upon the correct answer.

In my mind, that immediately narrows it down to one of:

Ned + Wylla = Jon

Ned + Ashara Dayne = Jon

Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon

...and it's specifically not Ned + Mystery Woman = X.

It seems like the purpose of GRRM questioning D&D on the Jon issue was that he wanted to make sure that they were paying attention and reading into the work. One of the major problems that a lot of authors have with adaptations of their work is that they're surface adaptations---they have all the trappings of the books on which they're based, but they sort of miss out on the soul of it. It seems like the purpose of the interview was that GRRM was trying to gauge D&D's level of involvement in the work.

So why ask about Jon's heritage? Assume that N + W = J or N + A = J. If one of those were the correct answer that D&D proposed, it doesn't really reveal anything about their understanding of the books. Both of those characters are specifically mentioned as candidates for being Jon's mother. Imagine if GRRM asked, "So who do you think Jon's mother is?" and D&D responded, "Well, Ned said it was Wylla, so that's what we're going with." It would show that they had at least read the book, but he already knew that. You could come to that answer with the most superficial of readings. If GRRM were trying to gauge D&D's thought process about the series, the correct answer would have to be something more subtle, that displayed a more nuanced understanding of the work. So they'd at least need to touch upon less obvious answers.

As far as the less obvious answers go, the only one with a running theme of support is really R+L=J. Most of the really wacky answers don't have as much evidence---their proponents tend to defend this by saying stuff like, "Martin's misdirecting us with R+L=J!" Maybe, but then the answer would be really out of left field, and the likelihood that a couple of Hollywood guys would stick with a really out-there idea while trying to get the rights to adapt Martin's show are...incredibly slim. And if Martin had gone to that much trouble to misdirect the reader---piling layers and layers of red herrings on top of each other until it became a meaningless soup---then his reaction should have been less "pleased" that his completely unexpected twist would be revealed, and more "shocked." It would be less of a way to gauge D&D and more of a way to see if they pulled something random out of a hat.

So clearly, they talked about R+L=J. And what goes along with that is sort of discussing Ned's character on an emotional level---really, how can a man who is so loyal to his oaths he would not break them to save his own life, who never displays any particular kind of lust in Littlefinger's brothels---how can he cheat on his wife? Who does he love in the world more than his family? Et cetera. If R+L=J, then D&D's correct answer would show that they were making considerations about the characters on a deeper level than, "Oh, he gets his head chopped off."

You could say that they might have considered R+L=J, rejected the notion, and proclaimed that it was Ashara Dayne all along. I doubt that. I don't think that's something GRRM would expect anyone to do. And again, the only reason he would ask is that he would hope that the producers got it right.

I was already pretty convinced of R+L=J, but I think this pretty much seals the deal.

This is a very good point I think. If Wylla was Jon's mother, why would he be pleased they got it right? Robert blatantly says it (although, as we all know, it's worded in a way that makes it possible it's not...but for the casual reader, Robert appears to say as such). And as far as I'm aware there's never been any real evidence for Ashara Dayne save for rumors (rumors via the characters in the books) and conjecture, so at this stage, I don't think it's possible to definitively come to the conclusion that Ashara is the mother via the information we've been given in the books. You can guess it, but it wouldn't have a factual basis at this point. Lyanna's the only one that really makes sense as why he would be pleased they figured it out, as it would mean they read deeper into it. I didn't even pick up that there was a question as to Jon's father until the second read through, myself, and didn't pick up all the clues til I came here.

I also agree with you on the misdirecting stuff. R+L has really reached an interesting place in that it's only "obvious" (which is what makes people think there's a misdirect) when you realize there's even a mystery. And it's not blatantly obvious, especially on an initial read, that there's any mystery beyond "Is Jon's mother Wylla or Ashara?". Four books later, still nobody in the entire series has even once begun to question Ned being Jon's father. I'd actually feel a little disappointed if it wasn't R+L, because it would mean there were "red herrings" that seemingly existed solely to trick the readers and make no sense whatsoever in the story. Point is, some people may think "Oh it's so obvious it must be a misdirect", but to, I'd guess, the majority of readers, it's not obvious at all that there's even a reason to look for the clues that are there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Kit Harrington might not even know...and even if he does, for all intents and purposes, he's Ned Starks kid. Same way someone who is given up for adoption at birth typically would call their adopted parents their father. It's not even a lie even if they know who his true father is.

Kit Harrington has said in an interview that he doesn't know, but he's familiar with the theory and hopes it's the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing in the Night's Watch vows saying that you can abandon them when the Wall falls or the Others are defeated.

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. (...)"

There is no honorable way out of the Night's Watch once you said your vows.

There is a way, you´ll see it in ADWD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a way, you´ll see it in ADWD

Nonsense. Any kind of neat trick to "get out of" the vow, no matter how clever, would violate its spirit. The Night's Watch aren't Aes Sedai, a cop-out is exactly that. You are the watcher on the walls for as long as you live (or are undead, or whatever). Jon will either break his vow, or he will keep it. Any kind of silly ploy would just be rationalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a lot of people agree with you that Jon should keep his oath as long as there is a wall to keep Others out of the Realm, and Others to protect the Realm from.

But if those conditions cease to exist, then that frees Jon of his oath.

GH

here's the night's watch oath:

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

so there's only one way out of it and it's neither "wall being torn down" nor "destruction of others"

we've already seen jon choosing duty over love, and in his ADWD chapter he refused winterfell when stannis offered it.

i'd be disappointed if he was only playing hard to get ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:laugh: You say that like honor is some sort of objective concept. Who gets to say what's "honorable" and what's not? You've heard the old saying "history is written by the winners"? Well, much the same can be said about that most slippery of concepts: honor. Like everything else it all depends on one's perspective.

I believe we'll see Jon have to choose between breaking the letter of his vows in order to honor their intent. Actually, we already have (e.g. Qhorin, Ygritte, etc.) and I believe it will continue only on a much bigger scale ;)

History written by the winners, eh? Last I looked, the Lannisters were in charge of the South. I don't see anybody claiming they're the bastions of honor.

I'm afraid you've missed the obvious: honor IS an objective concept. The entire point and PURPOSE of honor is that it is external to the person, it's a code of ethics and behaviour the person must adhere to that is set down by something or someone else.

It doesn't depend on perspective. Jaime Lannister rationalises his dishonorable actions perfectly, to the point that most of the readership love him now. At what point does he try to claim that his actions were honorable? They weren't. They can't be. Because honor is external, not internal, and it doesn't change based on someone's individual whimsy.

Edit: Assuming Jon does break his oath, I look forward to a little consistency out of Arya Stark when she finds out he's done so and murders him as an oathbreaker :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's the night's watch oath:

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

so there's only one way out of it and it's neither "wall being torn down" nor "destruction of others"

we've already seen jon choosing duty over love, and in his ADWD chapter he refused winterfell when stannis offered it.

i'd be disappointed if he was only playing hard to get ;)

Actually, it was in ASoS that Jon refused Winterfell. Before he was made Lord Commander.

It's an interesting topic, the NW oath. Technically speaking, it does not say anything about "The penalty of desertion is death." It does say that "my watch" shall not end until I die, and that "I shall live and die at my post," but I think those are very different concepts.

To make an example: If someone deserted, it would be just as consistent with the oath if they were simply whipped and brought back to the Wall and told "Don't do it again." Beheading them is not in the oath.

One could possibly read it as "if someone breaks his watch, then his life should also end," but I think that is bending the words an awful lot.

On topic, much of the oath talks about watch duty. If that watch duty should become unnecessary, then one could say that the oath was made obsolete. Perhaps similar to a Kingsguard member, after the last King and heir to the throne dies.

However, with something as elusive as the Others and the Nameless enemy, it would be very hard indeed to guarantee that they would never return, and so it would be very hard to disband the Night's Watch, even if they achieve an overwhelming and final victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, with something as elusive as the Others and the Nameless enemy, it would be very hard indeed to guarantee that they would never return, and so it would be very hard to disband the Night's Watch, even if they achieve an overwhelming and final victory.

I think that since Bran has seen the "Heart of Winter", he would know whether a victory was final or not. If he is alive at that time.

GH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that since Bran has seen the "Heart of Winter", he would know whether a victory was final or not. If he is alive at that time.

True, but would people believe him enough to disband the Night's Watch?

I think it can be possible to "prove" within the bounds of Westeros logic. A king or queen could simply order it done, and it would happen. The Maesters at the Citadel could declare winter defeated by certain evidence, such as The Long Summer thing (isn't there such a myth, or is it long winter?)

In the end, I think we'll just have to wait and see what GRRM comes up with. My heart says it's possible, my brain says it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it was in ASoS that Jon refused Winterfell. Before he was made Lord Commander.

It's an interesting topic, the NW oath. Technically speaking, it does not say anything about "The penalty of desertion is death." It does say that "my watch" shall not end until I die, and that "I shall live and die at my post," but I think those are very different concepts.

To make an example: If someone deserted, it would be just as consistent with the oath if they were simply whipped and brought back to the Wall and told "Don't do it again." Beheading them is not in the oath.

One could possibly read it as "if someone breaks his watch, then his life should also end," but I think that is bending the words an awful lot.

On topic, much of the oath talks about watch duty. If that watch duty should become unnecessary, then one could say that the oath was made obsolete. Perhaps similar to a Kingsguard member, after the last King and heir to the throne dies.

However, with something as elusive as the Others and the Nameless enemy, it would be very hard indeed to guarantee that they would never return, and so it would be very hard to disband the Night's Watch, even if they achieve an overwhelming and final victory.

While this is true, the penalty being death really just comes from practice.

If they simply dragged someone back to the Wall, and whipped him or something, there would be nothing preventing more desertions, as people would think, "So if I try to head back to where I came from, I'll just get a whipping? Neat!" Furthermore, the fact that in practice, most watchmen are traitors (or accused traitors), murderers, and other people who merit the death penalty means that if they want to leave the Watch so badly, then they can take the other option that was offered them, which is to say, a headchop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but would people believe him enough to disband the Night's Watch?

I think it can be possible to "prove" within the bounds of Westeros logic. A king or queen could simply order it done, and it would happen. The Maesters at the Citadel could declare winter defeated by certain evidence, such as The Long Summer thing (isn't there such a myth, or is it long winter?)

In the end, I think we'll just have to wait and see what GRRM comes up with. My heart says it's possible, my brain says it's not.

Indeed

I also think it's important to note that, before A Game of Thrones, everyone believed the Others were dead (or gone, or no longer a danger) and yet the Night's Watch remains (to defend against Wildlings and other dangers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed

I also think it's important to note that, before A Game of Thrones, everyone believed the Others were dead (or gone, or no longer a danger) and yet the Night's Watch remains (to defend against Wildlings and other dangers).

Welcome to the board, Anduck. I am honored to be the recipient of your first post.

It is true, I did not think of that. I believe we hear many times that the others and such monsters are long gone, and yet the Night's Watch is still there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is true, the penalty being death really just comes from practice.

If they simply dragged someone back to the Wall, and whipped him or something, there would be nothing preventing more desertions, as people would think, "So if I try to head back to where I came from, I'll just get a whipping? Neat!" Furthermore, the fact that in practice, most watchmen are traitors (or accused traitors), murderers, and other people who merit the death penalty means that if they want to leave the Watch so badly, then they can take the other option that was offered them, which is to say, a headchop.

I believe that it is the other way around, by tradition.. That the Night's Watch is equal to a life sentence, and so in some cases can be traded for the death penalty.

Law in Westeros can be harsh, I agree. It may be there as a deterrant, but what I was referring to is that the oath does not explicitly say that desertion carries a death penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

History written by the winners, eh? Last I looked, the Lannisters were in charge of the South. I don't see anybody claiming they're the bastions of honor.

I'm afraid you've missed the obvious: honor IS an objective concept. The entire point and PURPOSE of honor is that it is external to the person, it's a code of ethics and behaviour the person must adhere to that is set down by something or someone else.

It doesn't depend on perspective. Jaime Lannister rationalises his dishonorable actions perfectly, to the point that most of the readership love him now. At what point does he try to claim that his actions were honorable? They weren't. They can't be. Because honor is external, not internal, and it doesn't change based on someone's individual whimsy.

Edit: Assuming Jon does break his oath, I look forward to a little consistency out of Arya Stark when she finds out he's done so and murders him as an oathbreaker :D

:laugh: Honor "external to the person", eh? Honor "objective", eh? Tell me, if R+L=J, did Ned do the "honorable" thing by claiming Jon or did he do the "dishonorable" thing by lying to the world? Tell me, did Jaime do the "honorable" thing by protecting thousands of KL residents from Aerys's mad plan or did he do the "dishonorable" thing by murdering a man he had sworn to protect? Did Jon do the "honorable" thing when pretending to be a traitor to the NW or did he do the "dishonorable" thing by infiltrating Mance's inner circle? Those're just three examples of many. You just keep on keepin' on with that whole "honor" is "objective" thing :thumbsup:

I believe you just messed up your argument a bit, too, when you talk about how "honor" is set by someone else (I submit that one's own perspective also plays into defining something as "honorable"). How can you say that "honor" is "set by others" while simultaneously saying it doesn't depend on one's perspective? Another question: would a resident of KL think Jaime did the "honorable" or "dishonorable" thing in protecting them from a heinous death?

But I guess you and I really ARE in agreement that it depends on one's persective if what's seen as "honorable" is "set by someone else", as you said above ;)

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...