Xray the Enforcer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 A discussion of the first Davos chapter. Do not discuss events from later in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdyphillip Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Lord Godrick discussion at the end of the chapter about Ned Stark and the Fisherman's daughter was interesting. This is second hand knowledge of course, but it may be the start of dispelling the R+L=J theory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahri Adaran Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Lord Godrick discussion at the end of the chapter about Ned Stark and the Fisherman's daughter was interesting. This is second hand knowledge of course, but it may be the start of dispelling the R+L=J theory...I find that doubtful... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdyphillip Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I find that doubtful...Any particular reason? There is a story circulating that Ned Stark got a woman pregnant and gave her a bag full of silver. This predates Ned's trip to the Tower of Joy. I am not saying that it 100% reliable, but there is substantial evidence that Jon was Ned's son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caitlin Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Yeah, I highlighted that section. I doubt it will dispel any theories - if anything, it just undermines the statements in the text that say Wylla is the mother, doesn't it? Unless we take Wylla to be the fisherman's daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahri Adaran Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Any particular reason? There is a story circulating that Ned Stark got a woman pregnant and gave her a bag full of silver. This predates Ned's trip to the Tower of Joy. I am not saying that it 100% reliable, but there is substantial evidence that Jon was Ned's son.Well, all of the standard evidence of R + L = J. I don't think that some conjecture by a random Sisterman lord is enough to overturn that.Martin very often gives of gazillions of false rumors for everything interesting that happens. Rumors don't count for much in this series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Bee Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 ....Unless we take Wylla to be the fisherman's daughter.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we didn't really know anything about Wylla.Is there any reason she couldn't have been a fishermans daughter? I also took it as more evidence (if not quite hard evidence) against R + L = J, or at least that there was certainly more going on with Ned at the time than I'd originally assumed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spilt Pea Soup Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Well, all of the standard evidence of R + L = J. I don't think that some conjecture by a random Sisterman lord is enough to overturn that.Martin very often gives of gazillions of false rumors for everything interesting that happens. Rumors don't count for much in this series.This whole digression in the chapter was pointless and completely non sequitor. Martin almost certainly only included it to "muddy the snow", so to speak.Damn him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Grifter Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 This whole digression in the chapter was pointless and completely non sequitor. Martin almost certainly only included it to "muddy the snow", so to speak.Damn him.Surely a red herring about Ned and the scurvy merwhore (hoho, fishing pun) but I liked this Lord Godrik fella for some reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray the Enforcer Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 My memory isn't what it used to be. Does anyone remember what was supposed to be special about the kitchen woman's hands? Davos looked at it and was brought up -- and Lord Godric commented upon it. I'm deathly afraid to check the wiki and the appendix (there are supposedly spoilers in the appendix), so maybe I'll just have to finish the damned book before I'll know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Hat Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 R+L=J is probably not done for, but man, I'd love it if this was the end. Such an ignominious death for such a grand theory would be hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loras Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 X-Ray,I figured that they were webbed, just like Lord Borell's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray the Enforcer Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 X-Ray,I figured that they were webbed, just like Lord Borell's.Ah! Thank you. That was the answer I was looking for. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andhaira Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Yeah, they were webbed. By the way X-Ray, are you still reading the book or have you finished? If you are still reading, are you only allowing spoilers up till the POV that you have read? I would think so, otherwise you would hget spoiled because you also have to moderate the threads you make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Crispy of Bacon Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 if Jon were conceived on the Sisters, wouldn't his name be Jon Stone (for the Vale)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malarky1231 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 If Jon was conceived in the ToJ, wouldn't his surname be sand? Jon Sand? This rumor does nothing to dispel the R+L=J theory. It's just another rumor, along with the one concerning Wylla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cklabyrinth Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I shrugged it off as just a rumor since I didn't see Ned staying at Sisterton nine months to take Jon with him after he was born. It just says he left her with a bastard in a belly, and that she named him Jon. Could there be another bastard of Ned's named Jon, but probably Stone, and the tale has mutated into Jon Snow being the bastard he sired in the Vale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sun Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I took it as one possible, if not probable, theory to Jon's parentage coming from a source with no 1st hand knowledge. If it turns out to be the only theory GRRM offers in this book, then I'll have no choice but to take it more seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CryFenril Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 GRRM is perfectly aware of our strenuous R+L = J theories. And I wouldn't put it past him to throw little teasers like this into the book for the sole purpose of throwing the die-hard fanboys into rabid paroxysms. For all I know, R+L = J was his original plan... but after seeing the enormous amount of debate going on about it, he switched courses midstream and has decided to lead us about by the nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Early Earl Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Ok, enough of that R+L talk, could be anything, could be rumors spread by Ned himself later on or what people made of him coming ashore with a girl and adding the rest later upon learning about the bastard. whateeever.Now, Frey+Manderley?? I did so like those fatties! And Rickon was going there! Now, either they're really cool or... I suppose there hasn't been a dead Stark for a while. Actually they tended to become alive again. So maybe it's time to even it out again a bit. Hate that thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.