Jump to content

Angalin

Recommended Posts

I've been wondering why Maester Aemon a Targaryen was at the wall, was it mere coincidence that he would meet on at a place he thought was were he belonged? I think that all Maester Aemon had told him and his role in the series was foreshadowing Jon's Targaryen lineage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, an explicit reference is when I say Lyanna sat in the garden. For that I'm not going to say she didn't. But literature, and good literature doesn't say things explicitly, otherwise it'd be dull. It says Lyanna returned to the room smelling flowers and fresh air. And where did I state such thing as It was explicitly referred to that Ned broke his bloody promise to his bloody sister, pray?

In post #343:

"When Ned is in the dungeons of the Red Keep he thinks of Jon and notes "Another promise broken" This can imply that the two promises (to Jon and Lya) were different, but clearly states that he never fulfilled the promise he made to Lyanna."

I'm not patronizing. I'm irritated.

I'm sure you're irritated, but that doesn't mean you weren't patronizing.

And where did you present that examination?

In post #356:

"Which is a broken promise of sorts. He misled Robert when he said he'd guard his children, when in reality he was planning on challenging Joffrey. He also never told Robert the truth about his suspicions regarding Jon Arryn's death and Joffrey's bastardy, a mistake which he feels led to Robert's death. This is driven home by this quote, which occurs just a few paragraphs after the broken promises one: 'I failed you Robert, Ned thought. He could not say the words.I lied to you, hid the truth. I let them kill you.' In fact, the whole chapter goes on and on about Ned's regrets regarding Robert, right up until Varys arrives. In contrast, Lyanna is not mention once, at least as far as I can tell. So in my opinion, I think the context implies that Ned is referring to his failed duties to Robert when he brings up the 'broken promises.'"

I was mistaken about Lyanna never being mentioned at all, so just mentally amend that part to say "Lyanna is not mentioned in close proximity to the 'broken promises' quote."

True again. You never said it explicitly refers to Robert, you said it explicitly does not refer to Lyanna, which is a mistake.

I did not say it explicitly does not refer to Lyanna, I said it does not explicitly refer to Lyanna. There is a difference. In the former sentence, I am affirming that the quote could not possibly refer to her; in the latter sentence, I am merely stating that the quote does not necessarily refer to her. I assume you agree with this, yes?

Explicitly it's refer to neither, so we must lean on implication. And my take on metaphors and symbols is that they refer to Lyanna. Your take is that it refers to Robert. Can we agree on as much as that? :)

Sure, though as long as we are talking about explicitness, I would hasten to remind you that Ned does explicitly recall keeping his promises to Lyanna, which is largely the source of my skepticism regarding the link between this quote and Lyanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahem. The title of this thread is "R + L = J v.24".

I expect everyone to show their work in this thread. No calculators allowed..

1. Prove R + L = J v. 24!

a) R+L=J v. 24, if |R= {L, R | ToJ}

B) R+L=/= J v. 24, when J= nS+x, x={A, W, y}

c) R+L =/= J v. 24, because integ(R+L)=A*(k-4)*0*N and A*(k-4)*0*N=/=(J)' , k-1=j, k-2=i, k-3=h, k-4=g

d) You can't say from this much information.

My answer: d), we don't know the variable WoW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In post #343:

"When Ned is in the dungeons of the Red Keep he thinks of Jon and notes "Another promise broken" This can imply that the two promises (to Jon and Lya) were different, but clearly states that he never fulfilled the promise he made to Lyanna."

Okay, I was wrong about that. I made a mistake there.

I'm sure you're irritated, but that doesn't mean you weren't patronizing.

It doesn't. Let me correct myself. I did not explicitly mean to be patronizing, although it could implicitly occur that I was patronizing to some minor extent, because when I'm patronizing on purpose, I'm worse.

I was mistaken about Lyanna never being mentioned at all, so just mentally amend that part to say "Lyanna is not mentioned in close proximity to the 'broken promises' quote."

I can't say I'm convinced about and by that explanation. But that's my problem, isn't it?

I did not say it explicitly does not refer to Lyanna, I said it does not explicitly refer to Lyanna. There is a difference. In the former sentence, I am affirming that the quote could not possibly refer to her; in the latter sentence, I am merely stating that the quote does not necessarily refer to her. I assume you agree with this, yes?

Yes, I understand grammar, I can tell the difference. (Now I'm patronizing)

Sure, though as long as we are talking about explicitness, I would hasten to remind you that Ned does explicitly recall keeping his promises to Lyanna, which is largely the source of my skepticism regarding the link between this quote and Lyanna.

All my skepticism will be gone if you tell me where Ned recalls that.

Last question: what exactly are we debating about? Because I'm starting to lose the point. All the explicitness blew my mind and we disagree on what broken promise refers to? Is that all? Then we could just agree on disagreeing and go to bed (it's 23.20 around here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All my skepticism will be gone if you tell me where Ned recalls that.

"'I will,' Ned promised her. That was his curse. Robert would swear undying love and forget them before evenfall, but Ned Stark kept his vows. He thought of the promises he made to Lyanna as she lay dying, and the price he'd paid to keep them."

I can't recall which chapter it's in, but the essay from Tower of the Hand says its on p. 380. I assume they're referring to the hardback version.

Last question: what exactly are we debating about? Because I'm starting to lose the point. All the explicitness blew my mind and we disagree on what broken promise refers to? Is that all? Then we could just agree on disagreeing and go to bed (it's 23.20 around here)

The only thing I'm saying is that the "broken promises" line may not refer to Ned's promises to Lyanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just rewatching the first season of GOT here, and I tell you what, if Benioff and Weiss know the truth of the matter, as seems to be the case, then the show is strong evidence to support the validity of the theory. The subtext is absolutely clear as day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just rewatching the first season of GOT here, and I tell you what, if Benioff and Weiss know the truth of the matter, as seems to be the case, then the show is strong evidence to support the validity of the theory. The subtext is absolutely clear as day.

I think that's actually why they left Ned's dream out of it entirely. It would have been too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's actually why they left Ned's dream out of it entirely. It would have been too much.

Exactly! If they had put all the clues from the first book on screen in the first season, it would have been OBVIOUS to everyone, even the skeptics on this thread, that R+L=J.

They also did a great job picking the little clues included in the series, especially for those of us that support the theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! If they had put all the clues from the first book on screen in the first season, it would have been OBVIOUS to everyone, even the skeptics on this thread, that R+L=J.

They also did a great job picking the little clues included in the series, especially for those of us that support the theory.

Agree they had to leave the dream out, but IMO they showed too little or nothing of R and L. Since the TV show is taking a lot of liberties with the story anyway, they could have shown R and L separately (Ned thinks about Lyanna, while Viserys/Dany remember Rhaegar). They didn't have to show the whole ToJ Lyanna dying scene. For folks who've not read the books, season 1 gives NO indication that R and L were such important figures in the history of the 7 kingdoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one have to failed to see any clues in the show. If I hadn't read the books, and hadn't been a supporter of the R+L=J theory, I really don't think that I had caught on to it. Reading the books I caught on by myself, mainly due to Ned's dream and his memories of Lyanna. So someone please enlighten me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one have to failed to see any clues in the show. If I hadn't read the books, and hadn't been a supporter of the R+L=J theory, I really don't think that I had caught on to it. Reading the books I caught on by myself, mainly due to Ned's dream and his memories of Lyanna. So someone please enlighten me.

I think most of the clues came in the second episode. Ned told Jon that "And you are a Stark. You may not have my name, but you have my blood," and also told Jon, "We'll talk about your mother," with an obvious (to me) tone of bittersweet pride. Not long after that exchange, Ned and Robert are eating and Robert rails against Rhaegar for carting off Lyanna. Robert asks Ned about Jon's mother and Ned says, "Wylla," which even then came off as a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering why Maester Aemon a Targaryen was at the wall, was it mere coincidence that he would meet on at a place he thought was were he belonged? I think that all Maester Aemon had told him and his role in the series was foreshadowing Jon's Targaryen lineage

I think that may be true. Another thing I got out of having Aemon present so early in the series was that we can see that not all Targaryens need be mad or crazy, which is critical at the beginning of the series. After hearing Robert's interpretation of Lyanna being carried off and raped I immediately thought that was plausible due to the fact that many of the Targaryen characters that had been referred to had been nutso. Once I read about a stable Targaryen, Maester Aemon, the thought crept into my head that maybe Robert's interpretation might not be quite accurate, since we now have a reference point to a sane Targaryen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree they had to leave the dream out, but IMO they showed too little or nothing of R and L. Since the TV show is taking a lot of liberties with the story anyway, they could have shown R and L separately (Ned thinks about Lyanna, while Viserys/Dany remember Rhaegar). They didn't have to show the whole ToJ Lyanna dying scene. For folks who've not read the books, season 1 gives NO indication that R and L were such important figures in the history of the 7 kingdoms.

I'm assuming that there are going to be more chunks doled out over the seasons rather than the most compelling evidence in the first book. Also, the evidence is internal and most, like the fever dreams, are going to reveal too much. A savvy viewer should have gotten a few hints from the first season: 1. That Rhaegar-Lyanna situation was more complicated than Robert's view 2. That Jon Snow's birth mother isn't Wylla the wet-nurse. 3. There's a secret surrounding Jon's mom because Ned feels the need to lie to Robert.

There aren't definitive hints about R+L, but I don't think that many people went out of the last season believing that Ned wasn't hiding something about Jon's mother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of the clues came in the second episode. Ned told Jon that "And you are a Stark. You may not have my name, but you have my blood," and also told Jon, "We'll talk about your mother," with an obvious (to me) tone of bittersweet pride. Not long after that exchange, Ned and Robert are eating and Robert rails against Rhaegar for carting off Lyanna. Robert asks Ned about Jon's mother and Ned says, "Wylla," which even then came off as a lie.

I think it is also relevant that in the exact same scene where he mentions Wylla, Ned also shows his disgust with Robert for contemplating killing more Targaryen children. And this all took place in the same episode as the above "you are a Stark;you might not have my name but you have my blood" and the "next time I see you we'll talk about your mother" quotes. I think all of this together, and the way it is delivered, is a pretty strong indication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that there are going to be more chunks doled out over the seasons rather than the most compelling evidence in the first book. Also, the evidence is internal and most, like the fever dreams, are going to reveal too much. A savvy viewer should have gotten a few hints from the first season: 1. That Rhaegar-Lyanna situation was more complicated than Robert's view 2. That Jon Snow's birth mother isn't Wylla the wet-nurse. 3. There's a secret surrounding Jon's mom because Ned feels the need to lie to Robert.

There aren't definitive hints about R+L, but I don't think that many people went out of the last season believing that Ned wasn't hiding something about Jon's mother.

I can see those suggestions on the show, but I don't think we should generalize and believe all or most viewers realized there was something strange going on there. All casual viewers that I know (that is, people who watch every episode but don't go obsessing over details, and haven't read the books) believed Ned's word where Wylla was concerned and looked at me like I was crazy for suggesting R+L=J (mostly because they could barely remember who Rhaegar and Lyanna were).

I think the clues are there, but mostly to satisfy people like us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When showing my parents the show - during that scene before Jon and Ned split up in episode 2 - my father who has no background with the books said "Ned isn't Jon's father" right after he said the line about being blood and not mentioning son. I think there is a good shot it will end up being an "ah-ha" moment for people rewatching the series after the reveal...if we are right, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When showing my parents the show - during that scene before Jon and Ned split up in episode 2 - my father who has no background with the books said "Ned isn't Jon's father" right after he said the line about being blood and not mentioning son. I think there is a good shot it will end up being an "ah-ha" moment for people rewatching the series after the reveal...if we are right, of course.

That's such a lovely anecdote. I'll tell my mom about the R+L=J theory and see what she has to say about it. Well, so far she's glad she can remember the characters, but she already has her favorites and hated ones. She likes Jon, and wishes our dogs obeyed her just as Ghost obeys Jon. :D :D Though, unfortunately she still has no notion of who Rhaegar is. I say you know, Daenerys' older brother. And she's like, Ah yes, the Khaleesi's brother, ah what, that guy died! And I'm like No mom, the other brother and start telling the story again. At least she's starting to like the show which is half success. (Her highlight was Golden Crown scene. Ever since she likes it) And her English improved a lot being forced to watch series in original language every weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When showing my parents the show - during that scene before Jon and Ned split up in episode 2 - my father who has no background with the books said "Ned isn't Jon's father" right after he said the line about being blood and not mentioning son. I think there is a good shot it will end up being an "ah-ha" moment for people rewatching the series after the reveal...if we are right, of course.

I had a friend who made a similar aha! moment. It's cool that the production put that in, since they apparently know the truth about Jon's parentage.

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...