R+L may not equal J?

[Ivy Snow]

I agree with the posts here. The R+L=J isnt explicitly mentioned in the book to have a sudden twist to it. R+L= J isn't known to most of the people who read the books. I was lucky enough to figure it out myself but I did analyze it and it was obvious when I connected Targs = Fire and Starks = Ice. Rhaegar as Fire and Lynna as Ice = Jon. For other readers who weren't able to see it and wasn't able to find this board, they wouldn't have a clue who Jon's parents are. They might have even believed Jon's mom is the fisherman's daughter since it was explicitly mentioned.

[Ivy Snow]

When Rhaegar was shown speaking with his child in the house of the Undying, he mentions that his name is Aegon, and that "his is the song of Ice and Fire"

Maybe he thought it was Rhaegar since he is the first born son. Jon fits the bill better. Rhaegar = fire, Lyanna = Ice, making Jon the Song of Ice and Fire.

[Jorge Danger]

They might have even believed Jon's mom is the fisherman's daughter since it was explicitly mentioned.

The fisherman's daughter was a Red Herring!!!

I just love saying that. It has a wonderful half-pun quality to it.

[Ivy Snow]

The fisherman's daughter was a Red Herring!!!

I just love saying that. It has a wonderful half-pun quality to it.

Yes, it is. But for some readers they might not catch that one. lol. My friends weren't able to pick those up. >.>

[EgoistMusketeer]

This is the problem when a theory like this is allowed to "stew" for years on end. People actually solve it, then get paranoid and start second-guessing themselves. "Well if I could figure it out, I must be wrong!"

I don't know why some people think a left-field twist would be superior writing. Is it possible to guess who Jon's parents are? Yeah. But that's good writing. Good writing is not dropping clues and then yanking the rug out from under people in a cheap "gotcha" twist. If you figured out that R+L=J, all it means is that you figured it out. I still think that most casual readers haven't, at least not in my experience. It doesn't mean that Martin's leading you on, or that he's going to change his mind, or anything else.

:agree: everything I wanted to say and more!

[COYStars]

Well, I think it would be awesom, because that would mean that GRRM is building all of this emotion and attachment that we have for Jon Snow, just to crush our spirits in the end when he is killed, only to find out that we were wrong to begin with.

Then, we have "Aegon" who most of us feel no attachment to, who we are being led to believe that he is a "mummer's dragon", who could turn out to be the savior we have been looking for, right under our noses the whole time.

Now THAT is the kind of writing that GRRM is capable of. That is the way to evoke emotion in your readers.

On the contrary, killing off a character we've watched develop from the beginning and investing in a character that we hardly know, who's never had a POV chapter, and who we didn't even meet until halfway through the series - imho that's the way to leave your readership cold and turn them off completely.

[Yeade]

While it'd be an exaggeration to say I hate this idea that GRRM should write to upset reader expectations, it does frustrate me greatly. Quite frankly, I think it's telling that detractors of R+L=J seem to have largely abandoned presenting evidence from the text to refute the theory in favor of dismissing the entire premise as too cliched for ASOIAF, subjective as this assessment is.

Let's say that, after six novels of Harry Potter questioning Professor Snape's loyalties only for Dumbledore to assert that he trusts the man implicitly, JKR decides to reveal that Snape's allegiance has always been to the Dark Lord because a number of her readers figure out Snape's still Dumbledore's man, given orders to kill the Headmaster and aid Harry on the Horcrux hunt from as close to Voldemort's side as possible, within days, even hours, of The Half-Blood Prince being published. Turns out Dumbledore's such a poor judge of character he can't see what Harry does his first year at Hogwarts. Snape's just a nasty Death Eater, and all the backstory about his friendship with Lily Evans, his grudge against the Marauders having some basis, and his childhood bearing certain similarities to Harry's own--none of it has any impact on the story. Harry or another character on the side of the light will confront Snape, inevitably kill him, and be glad for it. The end.

Now, after more than a decade of speculation by characters and readers alike about Jon's parentage, GRRM decides to reveal that Jon's father is Ned, his mother Wylla, exactly as Ned claims within the first dozen or so chapters in AGOT. The frequent revisiting of events leading up to Robert's Rebellion has little relevance to future storylines. Some of the most stylized and evocative passages in the books--Ned's fever dream of the Tower of Joy, Meera's tale of the tourney at Harrenhal, Ygritte's legend of Bael the Bard--are no deeper than pretty tangents, distractions from the present. Rhaegar's a kidnapper and rapist, as mad as his father despite his better reputation, and Lyanna's his victim, a woman men fight over who has no hand in her own fate. Jon's the bastard son of Ned Stark as he's always been told, and Dany's the last true Targaryen as she's always been told. The end.

No, I'm sorry. I can't understand how ditching the sheer amount of setup for both Snape, Dumbledore's spy, and R+L=J can result in anything but anticlimax, shallow characterization and the degradation of dramatic moments in earlier novels. Not to mention, all us readers might as well stop analyzing every word GRRM writes because he'll intentionally troll everyone with the least likely or totally unpredictable option regardless of what foreshadowing there seems to be. If GRRM shows himself to be so careless of the literary integrity of his supposed masterpiece, so petty, I, for one, would be sorely tempted to read the rest of the series from a wiki.

There's a difference between saying "I hate the prospect of R+L=J" and "I hate the prospect of R+L=J, so I hope GRRM writes it out of ASOIAF." The former is an opinion that's neither right nor wrong. The latter begs an explanation of how such a feat can be accomplished. Which, in turn, leads to literary criticism that's not wholly subjective as it's dependent on the existing text and storytelling conventions that are as old as stories for very good reasons. Forget about the tropes of epic fantasy! Is ASOIAF a popular work of dramatic prose fiction? I don't want to discover five thousand pages in that I've been reading a satire.

[chris999]

While it'd be an exaggeration to say I hate this idea that GRRM should write to upset reader expectations, it does frustrate me greatly. Quite frankly, I think it's telling that detractors of R+L=J seem to have largely abandoned presenting evidence from the text to refute the theory in favor of dismissing the entire premise as too cliched for ASOIAF, subjective as this assessment is.

Let's say that, after six novels of Harry Potter questioning Professor Snape's loyalties only for Dumbledore to assert that he trusts the man implicitly, JKR decides to reveal that Snape's allegiance has always been to the Dark Lord because a number of her readers figure out Snape's still Dumbledore's man, given orders to kill the Headmaster and aid Harry on the Horcrux hunt from as close to Voldemort's side as possible, within days, even hours, of The Half-Blood Prince being published. Turns out Dumbledore's such a poor judge of character he can't see what Harry does his first year at Hogwarts. Snape's just a nasty Death Eater, and all the backstory about his friendship with Lily Evans, his grudge against the Marauders having some basis, and his childhood bearing certain similarities to Harry's own--none of it has any impact on the story. Harry or another character on the side of the light will confront Snape, inevitably kill him, and be glad for it. The end.

Now, after more than a decade of speculation by characters and readers alike about Jon's parentage, GRRM decides to reveal that Jon's father is Ned, his mother Wylla, exactly as Ned claims within the first dozen or so chapters in AGOT. The frequent revisiting of events leading up to Robert's Rebellion has little relevance to future storylines. Some of the most stylized and evocative passages in the books--Ned's fever dream of the Tower of Joy, Meera's tale of the tourney at Harrenhal, Ygritte's legend of Bael the Bard--are no deeper than pretty tangents, distractions from the present. Rhaegar's a kidnapper and rapist, as mad as his father despite his better reputation, and Lyanna's his victim, a woman men fight over who has no hand in her own fate. Jon's the bastard son of Ned Stark as he's always been told, and Dany's the last true Targaryen as she's always been told. The end.

No, I'm sorry. I can't understand how ditching the sheer amount of setup for both Snape, Dumbledore's spy, and R+L=J can result in anything but anticlimax, shallow characterization and the degradation of dramatic moments in earlier novels. Not to mention, all us readers might as well stop analyzing every word GRRM writes because he'll intentionally troll everyone with the least likely or totally unpredictable option regardless of what foreshadowing there seems to be. If GRRM shows himself to be so careless of the literary integrity of his supposed masterpiece, so petty, I, for one, would be sorely tempted to read the rest of the series from a wiki.

There's a difference between saying "I hate the prospect of R+L=J" and "I hate the prospect of R+L=J, so I hope GRRM writes it out of ASOIAF." The former is an opinion that's neither right nor wrong. The latter begs an explanation of how such a feat can be accomplished. Which, in turn, leads to literary criticism that's not wholly subjective as it's dependent on the existing text and storytelling conventions that are as old as stories for very good reasons. Forget about the tropes of epic fantasy! Is ASOIAF a popular work of dramatic prose fiction? I don't want to discover five thousand pages in that I've been reading a satire.

I may have an aversion to "R+L=J and then he is revived as Azor Ahai"

But my thread wasnt meant just to try and tear this theory to pieces. Honestly, I have no problem with this theory if it is well written, and evokes emotion from the reader, but I think that GRRM could prove to be worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as Tolkein if he can pull off a plot twist that is so huge, that it took 8000 pages to deliver it, and when we find out the truth, we are left in awe of his mastery.

He has already shown that he is a master of forshadowing. The best example of this being the fact that he names Jon's wolf "Ghost" and that 20 years later, we will find out why.

The only thing left for him to put into this story is a revelation that builds up through the entire series, but the moment we find out what really happens, it will be something brilliant, and unexpected. This is what I am hopeing for, and something like the plot that I am creating with this thread would be a great example. I just want that one moment where he can tie everything together, and show us that BAM, here it is, the moment you have been waiting for, and it is been there all along, the reader just didnt "see" it.

(By the way, I already think he already is as good as Tolkien if he can finish this story with the same quality that he started it with)

[Ghost714]

I may have an aversion to "R+L=J and then he is revived as Azor Ahai"

But my thread wasnt meant just to try and tear this theory to pieces. Honestly, I have no problem with this theory if it is well written, and evokes emotion from the reader, but I think that GRRM could prove to be worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as Tolkein if he can pull off a plot twist that is so huge, that it took 8000 pages to deliver it, and when we find out the truth, we are left in awe of his mastery.

He has already shown that he is a master of forshadowing. The best example of this being the fact that he names Jon's wolf "Ghost" and that 20 years later, we will find out why.

The only thing left for him to put into this story is a revelation that builds up through the entire series, but the moment we find out what really happens, it will be something brilliant, and unexpected. This is what I am hopeing for, and something like the plot that I am creating with this thread would be a great example. I just want that one moment where he can tie everything together, and show us that BAM, here it is, the moment you have been waiting for, and it is been there all along, the reader just didnt "see" it.

(By the way, I already think he already is as good as Tolkien if he can finish this story with the same quality that he started it with)

GRRM blows Tolkien out of the waters IMO.

I wouldn't say that Jon naming his wolf Ghost is the best example of foreshadowing, even if Jon does die. The funny thing is, we have no idea if Jon actually did die.

R+L=J is a revelation that he has been building the entire series, and while some people may have figured it out on there own, most readers have no idea. Most people didn't know about R+L=J until they came on these forums, and the people on these forums make up a small percentage of the readers. The people on these boards are usually the most hardcore fans, we go through everything with a microscope, doing multiple rereads back to back etc.. Most fans do not do that.

I now know 14 people that have read aSoIaF, and not one of them had a clue about R+L=J, until I pointed out all the clues, and even then only half of them got it without me flat out saying that Jon's parents were Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Just trying to remember all the names of characters and places is hard enough for the average reader, let alone questioning who Jon's parents are.

[lojzelote]

The fantasy hero getting killed in the first book wasn't screwing with our heads?

You mean killing off the parental figure, so the children have to fend for themselves? From my personal experience it´s like in every other fantasy book with a child protagonist. :dunno:

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You mean killing off the parental figure, so the children have to fend for themselves? From my personal experience it´s like in every other fantasy book with a child protagonist. :dunno:

But that's the thing, it wasn't obvious in the first book that it was really the children who were the protagonists.

[Yeade]

So far as I can tell, R+L=J is pretty much exactly the kind of theory you believe would make GRRM worthy of being called the American Tolkien. Five novels and fifteen years have failed to resolve it. Despite textual support from varied sources that span several generations of characters across Westeros and Essos, R+L=J is never directly stated or even suspected by anyone in-universe.

What's more, a full range of literary devices is employed in presenting this evidence, from Ned's flashbacks to Meera and Ygritte's stories within the story. And one of the reasons why R+L=J is so hard to ignore once it's known, IMO, is because it neatly ties together all the information given on Robert's Rebellion, illuminating the motivations of pivotal characters like Ned, while at the same time linking Jon, Dany, and their isolated character arcs with the central war for the dawn and game of thrones, almost retroactively.

As an extra cherry on top, assuming the most popular version of R+L=J that holds the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy proves Jon's legitimate, every instance Jon's called or identifies himself as a bastard of no particular lineage is terribly ironic and sad both. That is, the theory creates additional layers of meaning over otherwise minor story elements. Jon advising Sam on claiming Gilly's baby as his bastard and sending them to live with his father is another example.

Tell me then. Am I to understand that really the only explanation for why you'd prefer R+L=J to not be true is that you, I, and other readers have figured it out? Or is it that R+L=J makes future developments such as Jon being Azor Ahai, romancing Dany, and sitting the Iron Throne more likely? Never mind that many people, especially those newly introduced to the series from the HBO adaptation, remain clueless about R+L=J and the theory itself still has holes, namely what the heck the parties involved were thinking and how exactly the whole shebang can be revealed. If you truly have no issue with R+L=J so long as it's written well, why pursue an alternate theory that lacks the heaps of proof R+L=J has and undermines the earlier books? Or do you doubt GRRM's skill as an author?

Once again, it's perfectly fine to hate on any aspect of ASOIAF. Personally, I find the idea of Tyrion or Jaime and Cersei being the children of Aerys by rape of Joanna Lannister quite distasteful as I feel it mainly serves as a convenient excuse for Tyrion murdering Tywin, Jaime and Cersei's incestuous affair, Cersei's incipient madness and obsession with wildfire, etc. I won't hesitate to say so (obviously! :laugh:), but I also won't deny the possibility exists. Similarly, that Jon's my favorite character (my precious! :blush:) isn't why I dislike suggestions that, for example, he ought to stay dead or rise as a zombie after ADWD.

I refuse to let my emotions, positive or negative, blind me to hard, cold fact and logic. Want to convince me of a theory? Present evidence from the text with, preferably, a minimum of interpretation and unfounded speculation. Show me your theory won't unduly damage the existing narrative.

edit:

I'm too slow! The above is addressed to chris999, though everyone's free to comment, of course. I also second lojzelote and Apple Martini's latest posts. There are very few, if any, truly "original" plots in fantasy or fiction in general. Brilliant creativity is all in the execution. (No pun intended!)

Speaking of Tolkien, he did the warring dynastic families shtick, too. Incest and kinslaying included! Just read up on Aragorn's many and sundry ancestors. Actually, I'd say the main difference between LOTR and ASOIAF is the acknowledged existence in the former of Eru, omnipotent and omniscient creator of all.

[lojzelote]

But that's the thing, it wasn't obvious in the first book that it was really the children who were the protagonists.

Yes, GRRM took his sweet time about it. Even more so with Catelyn.

A friend of mine whom I introduced to aSoIaF recently asked me how many books are planned out to complete the series. When I answered that there should be seven books in the end, she was like: "Oh, so Ned will die soon! He´s completely out of his element in the King´s Landing, and he has many children, who will avenge him and get rid of that brat Joffrey. There will be plenty of time for that." (She was half way through aGoT at that time).

OK, I can totally see why would people think that Ned will be the protagonist of the entire series (I can´t say what I would have thought since I was spoiled. Grrr). He was the main character of Book 1, but in hindsight he truly was "only" a parental figure who had to die.

ETA: People who began the series when it should had been just a trilogy had it harder to guess, I guess. :)

[chris999]

So far as I can tell, R+L=J is pretty much exactly the kind of theory you believe would make GRRM worthy of being called the American Tolkien. Five novels and fifteen years have failed to resolve it. Despite textual support from varied sources that span several generations of characters across Westeros and Essos, R+L=J is never directly stated or even suspected by anyone in-universe.

What's more, a full range of literary devices is employed in presenting this evidence, from Ned's flashbacks to Meera and Ygritte's stories within the story. And one of the reasons why R+L=J is so hard to ignore once it's known, IMO, is because it neatly ties together all the information given on Robert's Rebellion, illuminating the motivations of pivotal characters like Ned, while at the same time linking Jon, Dany, and their isolated character arcs with the central war for the dawn and game of thrones, almost retroactively.

As an extra cherry on top, assuming the most popular version of R+L=J that holds the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy proves Jon's legitimate, every instance Jon's called or identifies himself as a bastard of no particular lineage is terribly ironic and sad both. That is, the theory creates additional layers of meaning over otherwise minor story elements. Jon advising Sam on claiming Gilly's baby as his bastard and sending them to live with his father is another example.

Tell me then. Am I to understand that really the only explanation for why you'd prefer R+L=J to not be true is that you, I, and other readers have figured it out? Or is it that R+L=J makes future developments such as Jon being Azor Ahai, romancing Dany, and sitting the Iron Throne more likely? Never mind that many people, especially those newly introduced to the series from the HBO adaptation, remain clueless about R+L=J and the theory itself still has holes, namely what the heck the parties involved were thinking and how exactly the whole shebang can be revealed. If you truly have no issue with R+L=J so long as it's written well, why pursue an alternate theory that lacks the heaps of proof R+L=J has and undermines the earlier books? Or do you doubt GRRM's skill as an author?

Once again, it's perfectly fine to hate on any aspect of ASOIAF. Personally, I find the idea of Tyrion or Jaime and Cersei being the children of Aerys by rape of Joanna Lannister quite distasteful as I feel it mainly serves as a convenient excuse for Tyrion murdering Tywin, Jaime and Cersei's incestuous affair, Cersei's incipient madness and obsession with wildfire, etc. I won't hesitate to say so (obviously! :laugh:), but I also won't deny the possibility exists. Similarly, that Jon's my favorite character (my precious! :blush:) isn't why I dislike suggestions that, for example, he ought to stay dead or rise as a zombie after ADWD.

I refuse to let my emotions, positive or negative, blind me to hard, cold fact and logic. Want to convince me of a theory? Present evidence from the text with, preferably, a minimum of interpretation and unfounded speculation. Show me your theory won't unduly damage the existing narrative.

edit:

I'm too slow! The above is addressed to chris999, though everyone's free to comment, of course. I also second lojzelote and Apple Martini's latest posts. There are very few, if any, truly "original" plots in fantasy or fiction in general. Brilliant creativity is all in the execution. (No pun intended!)

Speaking of Tolkien, he did the warring dynastic families shtick, too. Incest and kinslaying included! Just read up on Aragorn's many and sundry ancestors. Actually, I'd say the main difference between LOTR and ASOIAF is the acknowledged existence in the former of Eru, omnipotent and omniscient creator of all.

Thanks for the well written reply.

I guess my theory is flawed.

The main reason why I think I had such a hard time with this theory is because I am supposedly in the group of about 1% of readers who saw the R+L=J theory on my first read without a messageboard to point it out.

I still stick by my guns by saying that I think that the readers were supposed to be able to pick up on the clues. That those clues weren't supposed to be hard to figure out. I guess I am wrong about that, but my teachers always did say that I had excellent reading comprehension as a child in school...

My theory works a lot better if everyone picks up on the clues, then he throws the magical curve-ball, telling us that what was actually written in the books was correct, instead of the abundance of clues given to us whose purpose is to make us think otherwise.

If more people were able to pick up on the R+L=J clues, then my perfect little ironical situation would have been genius.

I still think, even with all of the opposition to my viewpoint, that I still may be on to something, and I am just going to save it in my back pocket until TWOW.

I'll eat my crow if I am wrong, but we'll just have to wait and see.

[Lord Ben]

If more people were able to pick up on the R+L=J clues, then my perfect little ironical situation would have been genius.

I liked the 6th Sense example someone posted. That's pretty much how I feel. Even if more people picked up the clues the switch at the end to have it be Wylla all along would be bad writing. You don't spend 5000 pages and a few decades (and counting) unraveling a complex plot with hidden clues and motivations just to ignore it all at the end.

[RWHamel]

I remember exactly when I realised that R+L=J was a possibility. That was when I was reading the part where Ned was in the dungeon, and he was talking to Varys about sending a message. So two things: Who would he write to? What could he say? More importantly: What needed to be said that had to remain a secret to Varys. I worked down the list of people, and could come up with nothing that needed to be secret until I got to Jon.

I think what would he say to Jon? Well tell him he loved him like everyone else on my short list, which isn't worthy of being secret, and then I remembered well there's Jon's mother. Now what about Jon's mother would need to be a secret, and that's when all the little pieces fell into place. All the times that he thinks of Lyanna, and the promise he made to her. Catelyn thinking how Ned must have loved Jon's mother fiercely. Ned couldn't have Jon at the high table because King Robert might have looked at him, and thought how much he looked like Lyanna, and put it together. Likewise, why he couldn't take Jon to King's Landing, because of the same reason. It seemed much more logical that Eddard Stark would break a vow to save the the son of a much beloved sister, than to break a vow for carnal lusts.

I then went on the web, and found the-board-that-came-before to find out if anyone else had come up with this. Of course they had.

[mutiny! he cried]

Maybe he thought it was Rhaegar since he is the first born son. Jon fits the bill better. Rhaegar = fire, Lyanna = Ice, making Jon the Song of Ice and Fire.

i've always thought ice was the Others and fire was Dany/her dragons.

i've thought for a while that Westeros will just continue to fall into chaos, the Others will somehow get past the wall and come South and Dany and her dragons will save the land

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

i've always thought ice was the Others and fire was Dany/her dragons.

i've thought for a while that Westeros will just continue to fall into chaos, the Others will somehow get past the wall and come South and Dany and her dragons will save the land

I'm not sure it will be that simple. I also don't think that the point of the story is one side "beating" the other. It's about balance.

[The Imp With A Pimp Limp]

And it wouldnt be the first time that GRRM has thrown a curve-ball (unexpected surprize) at us.

GRRM is the master at surprizes. I bet not a damn one of us thought that Robb was going to die at that wedding, unless we read spoilers.

Except a lot of people did, look at patchface's mumbling before the red wedding "Fool's blood, king's blood, blood on the maiden's thigh, but chains for the guests and chains for the bridegroom, aye aye aye."

A lot of people also foresaw Ned dying, the direwolf with a stag horn through its jaw and the wolf pups all alone for example.

I hate that people just want twists for sake of twists, that's bad writing IMHO.

The twist I am trying to convey is that GRRM has told us from the beginning, that Jon is just a bastard, that was sent to the wall, because, being a bastard, he has worn out his welcome at home.

The twist is that "we assume" that he is more than that, but at the end of the day, he is not.

His true death, without a revival, is also the perfect scenario to bring about chaos at the wall, so that the Others can finally invade.

Jon Snow's story is finished, just like Robb Stark's was.

Hell, maybe Stannis really is Azor Ahai?

That's not a twist that's a red herring, use the correct literary terms if you are going to say "you have a great reading comprehension"

And stop assuming, not everyone believe's that Jon will survive or thet r+l=j, a lot of people oppose that. And there's already many stories revolving jon's parentage just in the books.

I don 't feel like quoting you anymore because you just repeat how a big twist it would be

if this was just for big twists sake then he could just do this

Even though we've been promised that there's gonna be thee heads of the dragon and AA, and it can be either jon, stannis, tyrion or even aegon, it turns out that all that was to trick us and in reality Rhaegar never was killed, that it was someone else. A body double like the mance Rayder/ Rattle shirt situation. Now Rhaegar is back to fight the Others and hes the ice and fire

Shit like that doesn't make sense I'm sorry, anyone can write a story and then pull an unexpected twist out of their ass, that's not greatness. Greatness is dropping several hints that suggest Ned is not the real father or that there are many possible mothers and then delivering one of those parentages as the real one.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

^ Yeah, the Red Wedding is a pretty poor example of an unforeseen event. There were visions of a dead king with a wolf's head, Patchface's rhyme, Theon's vision of Robb and Grey Wind bleeding, etc. I think what made the Red Wedding so shocking is how it was done, but Robb's actual death was, I think, pretty well foretold.