Jump to content

The R+L=J thread, part XI


Angalin

Recommended Posts

Well at least Danny is a full blood Targ, and Jon did not grow up with her as a sister.

I am not saying him being with Arya is any less odd, but I think there is more of a possibility of romance between him and a hot female who is his own age.....than who he grew up with and thinks of like a sister.

But you didn't say it would be weird because Jon grew up with Arya and thinks of her as a sister. You said it'd be weird because she's his cousin. So by that standard, it ought to be weird for him to get together with Dany as well, because Jon shares more genetic material with Dany than with Arya.

Frankly, I think both options are icky. While it's acceptable for cousins to marry in Westeros, it would be weird for Jon and Arya to get together for precisely the reasons you later mentioned: they've grown up together, and think of each other emotionally as brother and sister. As for Jon and Dany, that would also be icky to me because she's his aunt. They might not know that, but we do.

Right, because Arya isn't a Lannister or Targaryen

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding the tone of your comment. Are you being facetious? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhh...so Jon getting with Arya is icky because they are cousins, but Jon getting with Dany isn't icky even thought she's his aunt? (Not that I want Jon to get with either of them...)

Right, because Arya isn't a Lannister or Targaryen

What does being a Lannister have to do with it?

The Targaryens regularly marry their sisters, and Tywin Lannister married his cousin, not to mention Ceresi's fun with her cousin (and her brother). I don't think we have any evidence that this normal behavior for the other houses, the appendix even intentionally points out that Tywin married his cousin, nothing that we see in any of the other houses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Nine of Spades: WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET THE ABSOLUTELY RIDICIOULUS NOTION THAT BRAN MIGHT BE A TARG???? HIS MOTHER IS A TULLY, HIS FATHER A STARK, HOW DOES ANYTHING REMOTELY TARGARYEN FIT IN THERE?????

I myself already suspected halfway through AGoT that Rhaegar was Jon's father, though the nature of his parentship( rape yes/no) only became clear later in ASoS and aFfC, all those comments about Rhaegar's character by Jaime, Selmy, Cersei and others just downright excluded the possibilty of rape, especially the story about the tourney at Harrenhal f

And to all those of you who think Jon+Arya is a possibility: How exactly does that fit in with all the story that happened so far?, same as Gendry, how did you get that crazy idea?

the whole dayne angle, while it is derived from the common believe of the people in Westeros, how do you join that with Ned's character??

And as i stated earlier: WHY THE HELL WOULD THE KINGSGUARD PROTECT THE TOJ WITH THEIR LIVE'S IF NOBODY OF ROYAL BLOOD WAS INSIDE??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Targaryens regularly marry their sisters,

Yes, and that's icky. Does that not ick you out? It icks me out. It certainly icks out the rest of Westeros. The only reason people accepted it to begin with was because they had dragons.

and Tywin Lannister married his cousin, not to mention Ceresi's fun with her cousin (and her brother). I don't think we have any evidence that this normal behavior for the other houses, the appendix even intentionally points out that Tywin married his cousin, nothing that we see in any of the other houses.

No one in Westeros regards Jaime and Cersei as abominations borne of incest, so I think that's pretty good evidence that cousin-marriage is acceptable, even if it's not often practiced.

Also, I'm not entirely clear on what we're arguing about. Do you think it actually is more icky for Jon to get with Arya than with Dany?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and that's icky. Does that not ick you out? It icks me out. It certainly icks out the rest of Westeros. The only reason people accepted it to begin with was because they had dragons.

no, not really; the Egyptians did it, and no one was disgusted by that; it's just a different culture.

No one in Westeros regards Jaime and Cersei as abominations borne of incest, so I think that's pretty good evidence that cousin-marriage is acceptable, even if it's not often practiced.

Also, I'm not entirely clear on what we're arguing about. Do you think it actually is more icky for Jon to get with Arya than with Dany?

Yes, because he is moving incest from Valyarian culture, where it is acceptable (like it was in Egyptian culture) to Northern culture, where it is not practiced.

Personally, I'm not squicked out by Jaime/Ceresi, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i myself am icked out by incest aswell, but in the cases that Martin confronts us with it, it is reasonably justified, the main reason for the targaryen incest was to keep their Valyrian Blood pure, because they considered their culture, heritage etc. superior in comparison with Andal and First Men customs.

As for Cersei and Jaime, they think, at the beginning of the series, of oneanother as one soul parted in 2, this changes throughout the series, especially since Jaime discoveres how bad a person his sister really is throughout the the course of the plot, and decides that he doesn't want to be the Antichrist he is thought to be by most of the population of Westeros and the readers in the first book's aswell, due to his shoving Bran out the window, which derives from his Love for Cersei, which one could decide upon as his biggest flaw, something he himself seems to realise at the end of aFfC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, not really; the Egyptians did it, and no one was disgusted by that; it's just a different culture.

Yes, I recognize that it's acceptable to some in the story, that doesn't mean that I'm not icked out by it. Boy love is also acceptable in some cultures, that doesn't mean I'm not icked out by it. Why does the fact that others find incest acceptable make you un-icked out by it?

Yes, because he is moving incest from Valyarian culture, where it is acceptable (like it was in Egyptian culture) to Northern culture, where it is not practiced.

This argument doesn't make any sense because 1) Jon and Arya are cousins, and cousin-love is acceptable, whereas aunt-nephew-love probably isn't; and 2) Jon is of the North, he was raised to abhor this sort of practice, so he'd most likely find it icky as well. A culture argument just doesn't work here.

Personally, I'm not squicked out by Jaime/Ceresi, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.

Really? Ok then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, not really; the Egyptians did it, and no one was disgusted by that; it's just a different culture.

Yes, I recognize that it's acceptable to some in the story, that doesn't mean that I'm not icked out by it. Boy love is also acceptable in some cultures, that doesn't mean I'm not icked out by it. Why does the fact that others find incest acceptable make you un-icked out by it?

Because I try to read the story with the cultural mindset of the time, rather than judging it by our own standards.

Yes, because he is moving incest from Valyarian culture, where it is acceptable (like it was in Egyptian culture) to Northern culture, where it is not practiced.

This argument doesn't make any sense because 1) Jon and Arya are cousins, and cousin-love is acceptable, whereas aunt-nephew-love probably isn't; and 2) Jon is of the North, he was raised to abhor this sort of practice, so he'd most likely find it icky as well. A culture argument just doesn't work here.

I never said that Jon would accept it, just that we should accept it because it is part of Targaryen culture

Personally, I'm not squicked out by Jaime/Ceresi, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.

Really? Ok then...

There is very little two consenting adults could do behind closed doors that would squick me out, but that is a completely different philosophical debate, especially considering Westeros and modern culture disapproves of it. However, consider this: most of Westeros (and, until recently, modern culture) would disapprove of Loras and Renyl's relationship, so why does that make it less squicky than Jaime and Ceresi. I never said I approved of the incest, just that I accepted it. Look at the abominations created in Joffrey and the mad Targaryen kings. However, for reasons such as those provided by Nightbrain, J/C makes sense, so I accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I try to read the story with the cultural mindset of the time, rather than judging it by our own standards.

And I'm saying that I don't understand this attitude. I readily accept that other cultures have different views on these sorts of things, but that doesn't change how I feel about it. If boy love were acceptable to Targaryens in the story, would you not be icked out by it?

I never said that Jon would accept it, just that we should accept it because it is part of Targaryen culture

And my point was that Jon is not a part of Targaryen culture, so this argument doesn't work. Also, if you find a Jon-Dany relationship acceptable because it is acceptable in Targaryen culture, then why don't you also find a Jon-Arya relationship acceptable because cousin-love is acceptable in Westeros?

There is very little two consenting adults could do behind closed doors that would squick me out, but that is a completely different philosophical debate, especially considering Westeros and modern culture disapproves of it. However, consider this: most of Westeros (and, until recently, modern culture) would disapprove of Loras and Renyl's relationship, so why does that make it less squicky than Jaime and Ceresi.

All I'm saying is that the realities of Westerosi culture don't change how I feel about things. Just because the Westerosi would find Renly and Loras' relationship squicky doesn't mean that I do; likewise, just because the Targaryens accepted incest doesn't mean that I do. And I'm not sure I understand why others don't feel this way as well.

I never said I approved of the incest, just that I accepted it. Look at the abominations created in Joffrey and the mad Targaryen kings. However, for reasons such as those provided by Nightbrain, J/C makes sense, so I accept it.

Again, I don't understand this. So you're not icked out by the Jaime-Cersei relationship because they yearn to be with each other? Well, doesn't that mean that you wouldn't be icked out by a Jon-Arya relationship if they yearned for each other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as i stated earlier: WHY THE HELL WOULD THE KINGSGUARD PROTECT THE TOJ WITH THEIR LIVE'S IF NOBODY OF ROYAL BLOOD WAS INSIDE??

If Rhaegar or Aerys had ordered three kingsguard to hold that tower and whoever was in it, then that could be why they're there and it wouldn't matter if royal blood were there or not.

Just to play devil's advocate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm saying that I don't understand this attitude. I readily accept that other cultures have different views on these sorts of things, but that doesn't change how I feel about it. If boy love were acceptable to Targaryens in the story, would you not be icked out by it?

Yes, I would be icked out by it, but I would accept it as part of their culture.

And my point was that Jon is not a part of Targaryen culture, so this argument doesn't work. Also, if you find a Jon-Dany relationship acceptable because it is acceptable in Targaryen culture, then why don't you also find a Jon-Arya relationship acceptable because cousin-love is acceptable in Westeros?

Because Arya is not even a teenager, while Jon is almost a man, and they grew up as siblings, both of those are what creeps me out. It's nothing short of rape, given the worship that Arya feels for Jon. I am saying something like that would be a shocker, while Jon doing his "duty" and marrying back into the Targaryen bloodline would be acceptable.

All I'm saying is that the realities of Westerosi culture don't change how I feel about things. Just because the Westerosi would find Renly and Loras' relationship squicky doesn't mean that I do; likewise, just because the Targaryens accepted incest doesn't mean that I do. And I'm not sure I understand why others don't feel this way as well.

well, then we have to realize that we each have our own set of values which we must put independent of the mindset we use to read this series.

Again, I don't understand this. So you're not icked out by the Jaime-Cersei relationship because they yearn to be with each other? Well, doesn't that mean that you wouldn't be icked out by a Jon-Arya relationship if they yearned for each other?

Like I said, Jamie and Ceresi are the same age, practically two haves of the same person, they are both adults, and they grew up as lovers. Jon would practically be raping Arya, who is like half his age and would have trouble (emotionally) rejecting him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we're assuming N+A=J here. And I'm sorry, but "we don't know" is a really weak argument. Nothing in the books suggests that bastards can receive Dawn. Bastards are entitled to nothing in this world, that's part of what makes Jon feel like he has nowhere to go other than the Wall. If a bastard could be entitled to Dawn, then that contradicts everything we've been told about bastards' lot in life. And even if Jon weren't a bastard, he wouldn't be a Dayne. Dawn is supposed to remain in the Dayne family, there's absolutely no precedent for otherwise. Now add in the fact that there is already a Lord of Starfall who is presumably set to inherit Dawn, and the prospect of Jon getting the sword becomes slim. If Jon did get the sword, it would come out of nowhere and wouldn't make sense in the context of what we've been told so far. Honestly, it really just seems to me that this is your pet theory, and you're trying to manipulate the evidence to fit it, even when it outright contradicts it.

Things have been given to bastards that they werent entitled by traditional Westerosi law. See Ramsay Bolton. And again, your assuming that somehow Dawn would go to Jon's kids or something. Once he was dead Im sure it would go right back to starfall. My point is that we dont know what the elligibility requirements for Dawn are, other than that you be a Dayne. Jon would be by blood? Is that good enough? Dont know. But the fact that we don't means that if Martin wants to open that door, he can open that door. Maybe its a sword in the stone kind of thing, where the first person to lift it after its returned is the one to weild it. Maybe the sword doesnt give a rats ass about Westerosi law, just that your a direct descendent of some Dayne from 1000's of years ago.

My point is, this is a blank slate for Martin to write on. We as readers can only speculate, which menas that Martin is free to do whatever he damn well pleases in this regard.

No, because under R+L=J he wouldn't just be finding out who his mother is, he'd be finding out that the man he thought was his father wasn't. If all Jon did was find out his mother was Ashara or Wylla, his only reaction would be, "Well, I guess that answers that." But if he finds out that he never really knew who either of his parents were, then it would seriously throw his identity into question. That sort of plot turn would be far more compelling than any other theory of Jon's parentage.

By the same token, why build it up for so long if it turned out that Jon's mother was exactly who others said she was? What's the point of that? Martin has been building this up for so long, the answer must be momentous; and what would be more momentous than finding out he's the son of the last dragon?

How many people among the readers think its Ashara. It seems to me that if Jon were a product of N+A, and dawn were lightbringer, that a huge portion of the readership would be blown away, even if it was hinted.

And I dont think its a matter of "that answers that". Imagine if he found out that his mother willingly gave him up... doesnt that open up more potential for pain then finding out yup, his mom is dead? Or that he could have had a mother that loved him, but his father denied it? I just think from Jon's perspective, the reveal will have a lot of potential either way.

Why would George give Jon the ability to warg if he wasn't some day going to use it?

But as I've said before, there would also be a natural thematic progression for Jon. Over the course of three books he's dealt with escalating temptations, from revenge to love to the prospect of receiving Winterfell. In the future, we can expect him to be tempted by Robb's legitimizing him as King in the North, and if R+L=J is true, he may be tempted by the Iron Throne. All of this is consistent thematic characterization, and not jarring as you've claimed. Yet when I point this out, you shift gears and claim it would be "boring." So either the theory is inconsistent and therefore jarring, or it is consistent and therefore boring. It really does seem like this theory can't do anything to win you over.

Jon hasn't had greenseers to help him along with his abilities. He would be even more of a Gary Stu-ish character if he naturally developed Bran's abilities simply by virtue of his awesomeness.

The temptations thing I could kind of see, but the temptation of being a Targ isn't really different then the temptation of being a Stark. I think if you offered him Winterfell or King's Landing, hed pick Winterfell. Its home for him. Hes never been south of the neck.

And why make Jon a warg? To tie him with ghost more closely to his totem animal, Ghost. And, i think thats sort of my point. Jon hasnt and seems to have no intention to train his warging.

As I said above, what would change under R+L=J is that he'd find out that none of his parents were who he thought they were. That's far more interesting than finding out his mother is who plenty of other people thought she was.

Well, when you say noone, your pretty much excluding his entire readership. :P

Yes, but his having kingsblood would make him Melisandre's number one target, rather than an insubordinate nuisance.

I think Jon balking Stannis on the wall and sabotaging him is more then "nuisance" and could easily be written into enemy territory. Im not saying that your wrong that it would be better, just that its an awfully small payoff to have for a mystery spanning 5 books.

But that's just it: R+L=J would make Jon realize it doesn't matter who his parents are, it matters how he acts. He's a Stark in every way it counts.

ETA--The Daynes are an ancient house, older than the Starks IIRC, perhaps even older than the Targaryens. If Jon's mother is Ashara, then why wouldn't it also be jarring that he seems not to have any Dayne features or characteristics? What exactly would be more consistent about that?

I dont know about him having no characteristics. For a house defined by its sword, hes a very very good swordsman. And it seems to me that Ned and Artur Dayne had pretty similar outlooks in terms of service and honor.

Ok Nine of Spades: WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET THE ABSOLUTELY RIDICIOULUS NOTION THAT BRAN MIGHT BE A TARG???? HIS MOTHER IS A TULLY, HIS FATHER A STARK, HOW DOES ANYTHING REMOTELY TARGARYEN FIT IN THERE?????

I myself already suspected halfway through AGoT that Rhaegar was Jon's father, though the nature of his parentship( rape yes/no) only became clear later in ASoS and aFfC, all those comments about Rhaegar's character by Jaime, Selmy, Cersei and others just downright excluded the possibilty of rape, especially the story about the tourney at Harrenhal f

And to all those of you who think Jon+Arya is a possibility: How exactly does that fit in with all the story that happened so far?, same as Gendry, how did you get that crazy idea?

the whole dayne angle, while it is derived from the common believe of the people in Westeros, how do you join that with Ned's character??

And as i stated earlier: WHY THE HELL WOULD THE KINGSGUARD PROTECT THE TOJ WITH THEIR LIVE'S IF NOBODY OF ROYAL BLOOD WAS INSIDE??

Seriously, reading comprehension is your friend. I never said that I thought that Bran was a Targ, I was just saying that thematically, I could see such a twist working. I dont see that same thing working with Jon. Bran is obviously not a Targ, and that twist obviously wont happen. It was just an example of how a stark/targ mix could work, not a serious suggestion.

And Ive offered the N+A theory I could see working, which is N+A=J, R+L=?? and Ashara was forced to fake her suicide and go into hiding to protect the ??. Jon has to get left behind, because it makes people think that she must have killed herself, since they couldnt see her leaving her little boy behind.

That said, R+L is the most likely. My whole point is I think the R+L reveal is most likely to be a fizzle, since John is so much like Lyanna the Rhaegar part will just seem tacked on. I actually like Jon as the son of Lyanna, its just the Rhaegar part that is flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I would be icked out by it, but I would accept it as part of their culture.

So then why aren't you icked out by Targaryen incest?

Because Arya is not even a teenager, while Jon is almost a man, and they grew up as siblings, both of those are what creeps me out. It's nothing short of rape, given the worship that Arya feels for Jon. I am saying something like that would be a shocker, while Jon doing his "duty" and marrying back into the Targaryen bloodline would be acceptable.

Woh, since when did her age come into this? This entire argument began because someone said it would be weird for Jon to be with Arya because they're cousins, then went on to say that it would be cool if Jon got together with Dany. I pointed out that was contradictory, but then you chimed in and said it wasn't because "Arya's not a Targ." I don't recall you mentioning age until now. All I'm doing is questioning the logic that Jon-Arya would be weird by virtue of their blood relationship, while Jon-Dany wouldn't.

well, then we have to realize that we each have our own set of values which we must put independent of the mindset we use to read this series.

Again, I'm questioning the logic of minding Jon-Arya based on blood relation, while not minding Jon-Dany.

Like I said, Jamie and Ceresi are the same age, practically two haves of the same person, they are both adults, and they grew up as lovers. Jon would practically be raping Arya, who is like half his age and would have trouble (emotionally) rejecting him.

And what if Arya were old enough to consent? How would you feel about it then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Melisandre finds out about R+L=J, I think she would be VERY interested in using his 'king's blood' for her assorted magic tricks. That, and she might dump Stannis to support Jon.

I guess that would depend on how she views Stannis. I'm not 100% convinced that she actually believes he is AA.

If Rhaegar or Aerys had ordered three kingsguard to hold that tower and whoever was in it, then that could be why they're there and it wouldn't matter if royal blood were there or not.

Just to play devil's advocate

It would be a mighty strange detail to include in that case. Just to play the advocatus Dei. ;)

Seriously, reading comprehension is your friend. I never said that I thought that Bran was a Targ, I was just saying that thematically, I could see such a twist working. I dont see that same thing working with Jon. Bran is obviously not a Targ, and that twist obviously wont happen.

I'm really not seeing the thematic connection you see with Bran and the Targs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things have been given to bastards that they werent entitled by traditional Westerosi law. See Ramsay Bolton. And again, your assuming that somehow Dawn would go to Jon's kids or something. Once he was dead Im sure it would go right back to starfall. My point is that we dont know what the elligibility requirements for Dawn are, other than that you be a Dayne. Jon would be by blood? Is that good enough? Dont know. But the fact that we don't means that if Martin wants to open that door, he can open that door. Maybe its a sword in the stone kind of thing, where the first person to lift it after its returned is the one to weild it. Maybe the sword doesnt give a rats ass about Westerosi law, just that your a direct descendent of some Dayne from 1000's of years ago.

My point is, this is a blank slate for Martin to write on. We as readers can only speculate, which menas that Martin is free to do whatever he damn well pleases in this regard.

Ramsay Bolton was actually legitimized. Jon technically was legitimized by Robb, but even then, nobody knows about it and anyways, he'd still be a stark, and not a Dayne.

How many people among the readers think its Ashara. It seems to me that if Jon were a product of N+A, and dawn were lightbringer, that a huge portion of the readership would be blown away, even if it was hinted.

I would be blown away by N+A=J, not only because GRRM dropped so many hints to the contrary, but also because he flat out threw that theory out there sixty pages into AGOT.

And I dont think its a matter of "that answers that". Imagine if he found out that his mother willingly gave him up... doesnt that open up more potential for pain then finding out yup, his mom is dead? Or that he could have had a mother that loved him, but his father denied it? I just think from Jon's perspective, the reveal will have a lot of potential either way.

But the pain would be inconsistent with the pain he has already felt, which is him being torn between duty and something else. Which wouldn't really be there in your scenario.

The temptations thing I could kind of see, but the temptation of being a Targ isn't really different then the temptation of being a Stark. I think if you offered him Winterfell or King's Landing, hed pick Winterfell. Its home for him. Hes never been south of the neck.

But he's been torn, multiple times, and he's always been on the verge of going under. First his brother, then Ygritte, and then Winterfell. He was on the verge of switching over each time. I can see what you mean by him not being Southron, but I recall reading in AGOT how after bringing Sam into the fold, he realized that he was slowly growing apart from the North, so he's no longer northron, but Night's Watchman. And he still nearly picked Winterfell. So I don't think it's out of the ballpark for him to be attracted to King's Landing. And one more thing, if he wouldn't select KL because he's not "southron, then why would he take Dawn if he already has Longclaw?

And why make Jon a warg? To tie him with ghost more closely to his totem animal, Ghost. And, i think thats sort of my point. Jon hasnt and seems to have no intention to train his warging.

So?

Well, when you say noone, your pretty much excluding his entire readership. :P

I don't think Dragonfish said no one, and anyhow, there are two levels of readers, one who spend far too much time analyzing ASOIAF, and who often called a number of the events, and those who skim the books and are honestly shocked by many major events until they simply start expecting twists by virtue of being shocked one too many times.

I think Jon balking Stannis on the wall and sabotaging him is more then "nuisance" and could easily be written into enemy territory. Im not saying that your wrong that it would be better, just that its an awfully small payoff to have for a mystery spanning 5 books.

But before, he wouldn't have been a major target.

I dont know about him having no characteristics. For a house defined by its sword, hes a very very good swordsman. And it seems to me that Ned and Artur Dayne had pretty similar outlooks in terms of service and honor.

Yes, but he's not a uniquely good swordsman, just a good swordsman, which is what you expect from a castle-raised person. I don't think his swordsmanship has ever been shown as being anything special, apart from having a cool sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Rhaegar or Aerys had ordered three kingsguard to hold that tower and whoever was in it, then that could be why they're there and it wouldn't matter if royal blood were there or not.

Just to play devil's advocate

Fair enough, but with a war raging all over the kingdom, a certain seriously paranoid Mad King might ponder why three of his Kingsguard were camping out at a tower in Dorne instead of (i) in the Red Keep protecting the King and the royal family, or (ii) off fighting by Rhaegar's side.

As for Jon pairing off with Arya/Sansa/Dany... I think it would be extremely out of character for Jon to even consider Arya or Sansa as anything other than little sisters even if they are in fact cousins. It has nothing to do with legality of cousins coupling and everything to do with emotional bonds they have as siblings. I can see Jon falling for the beautiful Targaryen Queen only to find out (tragically) later that she is really his aunt and there's no way to make that work under any culture into which he was raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then why aren't you icked out by Targaryen incest?

Woh, since when did her age come into this? This entire argument began because someone said it would be weird for Jon to be with Arya because they're cousins, then went on to say that it would be cool if Jon got together with Dany. I pointed out that was contradictory, but then you chimed in and said it wasn't because "Arya's not a Targ." I don't recall you mentioning age until now. All I'm doing is questioning the logic that Jon-Arya would be weird by virtue of their blood relationship, while Jon-Dany wouldn't.

Again, I'm questioning the logic of minding Jon-Arya based on blood relation, while not minding Jon-Dany.

And what if Arya were old enough to consent? How would you feel about it then?

We have to segregate what squicks you or me out and what squicks Westeros out. Statuatory rape of a preteen by an authority figure twice her age squicks me out; Westeros accepts it. Spousal rape squicks me out, especially age-inappropriate marriages like Sansa/Tyrion and Dany/Drogo; Westeros accepts it. Targaryen incest is accepted by Westeros; Stark incest is not accepted by Westeros. I am squicked by Arya/Jon because of the relative ages and authority; Westeros would harp on the incest factor. If we found out that Ned + Lyanna = Jon, I would be shocked by it; Westeros would call him an abomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that we dont know what the elligibility requirements for Dawn are, other than that you be a Dayne. Jon would be by blood? Is that good enough? Dont know.

No, we do know. Dawn is the sword of House Dayne, therefore it must go to a Dayne. If it went to Jon, it would go outside of House Dayne. Your theory has no support.

And I dont think its a matter of "that answers that". Imagine if he found out that his mother willingly gave him up... doesnt that open up more potential for pain then finding out yup, his mom is dead? Or that he could have had a mother that loved him, but his father denied it? I just think from Jon's perspective, the reveal will have a lot of potential either way.

Ok, sure, Jon would feel upset, but his feelings wouldn't concern his identity. I'm saying that the revelation of R+L=J would be compelling because it would throw his identity into question. Under N+A=J, that wouldn't happen. He'd get upset, but then where would his upset feelings lead him or the story? There's nothing compelling here.

Well, when you say noone, your pretty much excluding his entire readership. :P

Sorry, I should have been clearer here. I wasn't referring to the readership when I said that plenty of people thought Ashara was Jon's mother, I was referring to the people in the story. You claim that GRRM wouldn't build this up so much unless the answer was important, and I agree. I just think that the buildup indicates it's something momentous that no one in the books has thought of, like R+L=J. Seriously, what's the point of all the buildup if it turns out his mother is someone other people in the story have already figured out?

I think Jon balking Stannis on the wall and sabotaging him is more then "nuisance" and could easily be written into enemy territory. Im not saying that your wrong that it would be better, just that its an awfully small payoff to have for a mystery spanning 5 books.

Small payoff? Really? Melisandre wanting to burn Jon in order to wake dragons and fight the Others is small payoff? Creating a quasi-civil war within the defenders of the Wall is small payoff?

That said, R+L is the most likely. My whole point is I think the R+L reveal is most likely to be a fizzle, since John is so much like Lyanna the Rhaegar part will just seem tacked on. I actually like Jon as the son of Lyanna, its just the Rhaegar part that is flat.

Fizzle?! How would revealing that Jon is the son of the last dragon fizzle?! That'd be a far more momentous revelation than, "Oh, he's the son of someone that plenty of other people in the story figured out."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fizzle?! How would revealing that Jon is the son of the last dragon fizzle?! That'd be a far more momentous revelation than, "Oh, he's the son of someone that plenty of other people in the story figured out."

its only a small payoff if you are the type of person that comes on these boards and reads all of this...for the casual fan/casual reader they wont see it as a fizzle...i agree its a monumental payoff imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warning: This post will be long, and dark things will come with it.

We have to segregate what squicks you or me out and what squicks Westeros out. Statuatory rape of a preteen by an authority figure twice her age squicks me out; Westeros accepts it. Spousal rape squicks me out, especially age-inappropriate marriages like Sansa/Tyrion and Dany/Drogo; Westeros accepts it. Targaryen incest is accepted by Westeros; Stark incest is not accepted by Westeros. I am squicked by Arya/Jon because of the relative ages and authority; Westeros would harp on the incest factor. If we found out that Ned + Lyanna = Jon, I would be shocked by it; Westeros would call him an abomination.

Ok, I think we need to be clear on what the premises of the argument are. So, to recap (the bold parts are all my alterations):

House Stark for Life responded to someone suggesting that Jon would get with Arya by saying, "Errrrr, thats just not right. They are still cousins." S/he then went on to say, "If Jon gets another love interest my money is on Asha or Danny."

Notice that House Stark was icked out by the prospect of a Jon/Arya pairing. S/he wasn't saying, "That wouldn't be acceptable in Northern culture," s/he said, "Errrrr, thats just not right." And the basis for this being not right was the fact that Jon and Arya are still blood-related under R+L=J, specifically cousins. There was no mention of Arya's age relative to Jon's, nothing about her emotional connection to him. The entire premise of House Stark's disgust was that they were blood-related.

Now, a couple lines later, in the exact same post, House Stark said s/he'd like to see Jon and Dany get together. S/he said this two lines after professing his/her disgust at Jon and Arya getting together (again, on the basis of their blood relation). I then responded, in a post that was meant to be somewhat humorous, that these two attitudes were a bit contradictory. Specifically, I said, "Uhhh...so Jon getting with Arya is icky because they are cousins, but Jon getting with Dany isn't icky even thought she's his aunt?" Let me reiterate: my contention was that it was contradictory to be weirded out by Jon/Arya on the basis of their blood relation, and then speak favorably of Jon/Dany, because the latter two are not only also blood-related, but more closely blood-related than Jon and Arya are.

Ok, that's where things stood with me and House Stark. Let's move on to where you entered the picture, Galen M.

You responded to my question, "o Jon getting with Arya is icky because they are cousins, but Jon getting with Dany isn't icky even thought she's his aunt?" by saying, "Right, because Arya isn't a Lannister or Targaryen." The implication here, if I'm reading this correctly, is that Jon/Arya is wrong while Jon/Dany isn't because incest isn't acceptable to anyone but Targaryens and Lannisters (though the latter point is questionable). In other words, you were making a cultural argument. You made no mention of Arya's age being a problem here, none whatsoever. So when you finally did mention her age a couple posts ago, it seemed to me that you were shifting the premises of the debate.

So, let me first address your cultural argument that Jon/Dany is excused while Jon/Arya incest isn't, because Targaryens accept incest while Northerners do not. Simply put, this argument fails, because people in the Seven Kingdoms do accept cousin marriages. So if you're going to say that Jon/Dany isn't icky because it's accepted by Targaryens, then you must also say that Jon/Arya isn't icky because everyone in the Seven Kingdoms accepts cousin incest. Either both are icky, or none are. Again, this is only taking into account Jon's blood relation with these two characters as the premise of the debate. Arya's age is not a premise here. If you're going to object to Jon/Arya on the basis of their blood relation, then you must also object to Jon/Dany on the basis of their blood relation.

Now, you seem to be saying in your most recent posts that incest doesn't particularly bother you, except for Jon/Arya because Jon and Arya are emotionally siblings, and Arya is too young. And here's the thing: I agree that Arya's age and emotional connection to Jon would make their pairing icky. It's just that I also find it to be icky for an additional reason, namely her blood relation to Jon. And for this same reason, I find the prospect of a Jon/Dany pairing to be icky as well.

So, to reiterate what I've been trying to say the entire time: You cannot object to Jon/Arya on the basis of their blood relation without also objecting to Jon/Dany on the basis of their blood relation. Do you disagree with this point, Galen?

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...