R+L=J v.40

[Yukle]

I don't believe that Ashara is alive - at least one of the presumed dead should really be dead and stay dead.

The only thing that makes me hesitate is the number of supposedly dead characters that aren't dead at all, such as Catelyn (sort of), Davos, Aegon (maybe), Jon (hopefully)...

However, I can't see her being too important to things even if she has survived. I'm inclined to think she has died, though.

[corbon]

The fact that by all accounts Rhaegar was a smart/nice guy and the Crown Prince to boot, I see as a major inconsistency with the theory proposed.

It being logical and giving a convenient way to link A and B together, does not make the theory right.

No, it doesn't make it right, but it does remove the inconsistencies.

As long as you keep beating a nonsensical drum, you aren't going to get much sympathy. Essentially you complain there are inconsistencies, then when pointed out to you there is a coherent theory that shows they do not have to be consistencies, you say that doesn't make the theory right. Well, you are right, no it doesn't make the theory right. But it does show that the inconsistencies aren't.

[corbon]

Edit: conclusion Lyanna was the right age. Not too old, but not at all too young.

:bang: The argument isn't that Lyanna isn't old enough to be married, she clearly is. Its that she's not, old to be unmarried.

Yes, my first set of examples was messy, I was in a hurry. The fact remains that 16 is not 'old' for an unmarried woman normally. All, repeat all, of the girls married younger than that in the series have been in extra-ordinary circumstances.

[FittleLinger]

Yeah, on the Ashara thing, I think most of us believe her to be dead until we have further evidence to something else, me included. It just won't be a really terrible shocker if she turns out alive, as we haven't seen her die, her body was not recovered, and we have precedents. For now, she is dead till proven alive, meaning dead.

[corbon]

Without sounding sanctimonious and high handed, because I certainly don't mean to insult any well meaning and well read people who simply disagree, but many if not most of us are operating under the assumption that R+L=J is true. Given that, for which we have all sighted many textual references and gone to great lengths to prove, why do so many people seem to think that Ashara Dayne is still alive? We hold ourselves to such a high standard for what is at this point a well accepted theory, but many of these same people are convinced Ashara is still alive. Just wondering why since there doesn't seem to be much if any textual evidence to support this.

Please leave the Ashara Dayne stuff to the appropriate threads.

You might read them. There are a lot of textual connections between Lemore and Ashara - physical, personality, relationships, meta-story, future story options, all sorts of stuff. .

[corbon]

Yeah, on the Ashara thing, I think most of us believe her to be dead until we have further evidence to something else, me included. It just won't be a really terrible shocker if she turns out alive, as we haven't seen her die, her body was not recovered, and we have precedents. For now, she is dead till proven alive, meaning dead.

2nd (3rd really) hand reports of someone being dead are not really evidence of death, let alone proof. Thats practically a series theme.

[Greymoon]

:bang: The argument isn't that Lyanna isn't old enough to be married, she clearly is. Its that she's not, old to be unmarried.

Yes, my first set of examples was messy, I was in a hurry. The fact remains that 16 is not 'old' for an unmarried woman normally. All, repeat all, of the girls married younger than that in the series have been in extra-ordinary circumstances.

No, it doesn't make it right, but it does remove the inconsistencies.

As long as you keep beating a nonsensical drum, you aren't going to get much sympathy. Essentially you complain there are inconsistencies, then when pointed out to you there is a coherent theory that shows they do not have to be consistencies, you say that doesn't make the theory right. Well, you are right, no it doesn't make the theory right. But it does show that the inconsistencies aren't.

For the marriage thing, I'm not arguing against you, since all I'm saying is that Lyanna is the right age, and you've admitted your post wasn't very clear, so maybe I misunderstood. Anyway... for the rest I've already said I don't have another, better theory to propose, so I don't understand what the deal is? I'm not beating a nonsensical drum. I can disagree if I want to, can't I? Why should that be a problem? I was asked to point out what I find inconsistent, after I explicitly said, that I'd let it drop. I explained, and now, this has somehow offended you. If someone asks a question, I answer. If I've already given that answer before, then I'll give it again. So yes, I'm repeating the same thing, and yes, we haven't moved on, although I've been asking we do. It's rather pointless to keep coming back to the same disagreement.

I've already raised the white flag so why keep it up? :dunno:

[FittleLinger]

2nd (3rd really) hand reports of someone being dead are not really evidence of death, let alone proof. Thats practically a series theme.

All I'm saying is we don't have enough evidence to disbelieve what everyone in the realm thinks. As opposed to R+L, where we have tons of evidence to do exactly this.

[Alia of the knife]

Isn't that taking it a bit too far? It's like looking at the world with R+L=J tainted spectacles; of course, clues are to be found everywhere!

I do believe "wolf's blood" or "waking the dragon" is just a pitiful way to excuse bad temper.

No.

If this were the real world, then I would absolutely not stereo-type, nor assume that just because ones parent suffered from possible behaviorial/mental issues that the offspring are doomed to be impacted, but a parents temperament can often be found in the offspring, whether for better, or for worse.

And the clues aren't everywhere, they are scattered through thousands of pages over the course of books, though the majority are in the first book.

In the Winds of Winter sample chapter, did you read Elias character as a possible Rhaegar/Lyanna 2.0 between herself and Aegon? Or, did you see her introduction and description as a confirmation that Lyanna was indeed the Knight of the Laughing Tree and a mirror to past events?

I took her character as a clue to the latter.

In other words, her sole function as a character may be to tell the story of Lyanna, or hints of it as Martin often tells the story of someone through someone else, especially if they're dead.

He can't really use Arya anymore, because her arc has drastically changed.

.

I take it you have a concentration in science, but this is literature, and the genre of Fantasy with historical references, so you have to approach this with the other side of your brain, and come to terms with the fact that Martin is taking poetic and literary license with the world of genetics and behavior as implied by genetic impact.

That said, it is a hisorical reality that the Plantaganet/Angevin dynasty were renowned for their tempers.

Whether they needed anger-management classes, or suffered from something else such epilepsy and was misunderstood is another story, but the legend was that they were actually "descendents of the Devil," their rages so profound, and it carried on into the generations.

I believe Maritn has taken such licences in order to create demarkcations in particular families, and to make distinctions about them that can help point the reader in the direction of clues, and to potentially identify who's who, though there still may be anamolies like the Daynes and half the population of Lys.

To be sure, I agree that there are descrepencies in the behaviors of the characters that are not consistent with what we are told about them, but again we may have to suspend our desire for such consistency and realize that Martin has emphasized the narrative of the "grey" in Human Nature, highlighting that bad people can do good things, and good people can do bad things.

[MtnLion]

Ashara is with her child . . . ;)

[MtnLion]

The theory as it’s been explained is logical, but it’s also just a deduction.

The fact that by all accounts Rhaegar was a smart/nice guy and the Crown Prince to boot, I see as a major inconsistency with the theory proposed.

inconsistency:

1. lack of consistency: the fact of being inconsistent
   
2. inconsistent thing: something that contradicts something else or that is not in keeping with it
   

Wouldn't a major inconsistency be a lack of being logical?

In logic, a consistent theory is one that does not contain a contradiction. The lack of contradiction can be defined in either semantic or syntactic terms.

So, you are saying there are contradictions in the theory? Care to point them out?

[MtnLion]

Totally. What I care about anyway is HOW all this will be revealed (this, or, if R+L=J is wrong, whatever the truth is), not if the thory per se is right.

That is up to GRRM to write. He has given us clues so that after the reveal in hindsight we can look back and say, yes this was the case from the very beginning. I don't think anyone is too worried about how it will be revealed, we just hope that it does have the impact that it deserves. ;)

[Greymoon]

Wouldn't a major inconsistency be a lack of being logical?

So, you are saying there are contradictions in the theory? Care to point them out?

It's not the theory itself I find inconscistent, but the clues we have. The clues have been nicely put together in a theory to make them logical...but it's a theory I don't want to agree with, so let's leave it at that. I've already said where my objections lie. I'm not doubting the end result here, just the way the events took place, that's all. When I have a better theory to propose, I'll do it. Until then, I'll keep my doubts, and we can speculate about something else.

[Techelles]

That said, my objections are mostly against the theory stating this:

1- It was planned with foresight to hide in the tower.

2- Lyanna told Rickard

3- Someone tricked Brandon into believing his sister was kidnapped

4- Rhaegar didn't know anything was happening and that's why he didn't act

5- Polygamy is the most convenient way for Jon to be legit, so of course, Rhaegar and Lyanna had to be married.

Actually, I agree with you about a number of these things. My thoughts on them:

1) I don't think this is crucial to the theory. But it would be consistent with the need for secrecy and the fact that no little birds were aware of the tower.

2) I don't see a strong reason to assume that she did, nor do I think it is necessary to explain the theory. So I don't even consider this to be R+L=J canon.

3) Again, I don't consider this canon. It's a point that some people push, yes, but not all. And it's not necessary to explain R+L=J, in my mind. A few threads back, I argued very persistently against the idea that LF himself was this trickster. (MtnLion and corbon, please don't take this as a challenge to reopen the argument. I remain unapologetically unconvinced. Well, maybe if we had our own thread... :D )

4) Possible. Don't know.

5) Hell, it's the only way that Jon could be legit. And if he's not legit, we have to start asking questions about the KG. So yeah, I'm on board with this one.

The fact that by all accounts Rhaegar was a smart/nice guy and the Crown Prince to boot, I see as a major inconsistency with the theory proposed.

It being logical and giving a convenient way to link A and B together, does not make the theory right.

So you didn't like my big paragraph about Rhaegar's sense of his own destiny? Oh well.

I've also presented objections against the way genetics are perceived in GRRM's world.

As to this, well, first, I'll echo what Alia said about it, all of which I agree with.

I take it you have a concentration in science, but this is literature, and the genre of Fantasy with historical references, so you have to approach this with the other side of your brain, and come to terms with the fact that Martin is taking poetic and literary license with the world of genetics and behavior as implied by genetic impact.

I believe Maritn has taken such licences in order to create demarkcations in particular families, and to make distinctions about them that can help point the reader in the direction of clues, and to potentially identify whose who, though there still may be anomolies like the Daynes and half the population of Lys.

Second, I'll drop a couple quotes from GRRM that reflect his own attitude on the subject.

http://www.westeros....rienne_of_Tarth

This is the Middle Ages. They don't know about DNA. Their knowledge of genetics revolves around theories about a person's "blood." If I start worrying about Brienne's chromosomes, the next step is trying to figure out the aerodynamic properties of dragons, and then the whole thing falls apart.

http://www.westeros...._Signing_Oregon

I will now tell the story of what GRRM said when asked about the Stark children and their ability as wargs. He was asked if the trait of being a warg ran in the Stark family.

"I don't know if I want to get into genetics - this is fantasy," he replied.

Also, here's some random quote I found online, though I could not locate the original interview.

At one point, when asked why his characters were taller, healthier, and longer-lived than actual Medieval people, George R. R. Martin explained that human genetics and biology do not work the same way in Westeros as they do in the real world. So George R. R. Martin considered that he could change all of that while maintaining “authenticity.”

[The guy from the Vale]

Let's just say that I agree with Techelles. None of these 'inconsistencies' you note are truly important for R+L=J, except for the last one, and that one comes not from wishful thinking but from a careful analysis of why the KG are where they are. In fact, these 'inconsistencies' are the open questions about R+L=J, so they are naturally what those already familiar with the theory will gladly discuss - because there is something to actually think about. In such discussions, I'll often have my own position, but my attitude towards thetruth of the R+L=J theory is unaffected by the result of that debate - although I might be forced to see the actions of those involved in another light.

I'm also from a science background. But I also know art doesn't follow strict logics; that's just not how this kind of thing works. The story has to be internally consistent, of course; but foreshadowing works precisely by elision of important facts. You should stop looking at the text as the model. It isn't. The text is the, often incomplete, data. The models and theories are what the readers make out of this. At least until the mysteries are resolved, and often even long after.

[corbon]

All I'm saying is we don't have enough evidence to disbelieve what everyone in the realm thinks. As opposed to R+L, where we have tons of evidence to do exactly this.

Ahh, well I'm of the opposite opinion. Jut because someone claims something, doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it untrue either, but I don't need 'evidence' against it to consider it not-entirely-reliable - thats the default position. Perhaps thats why I never once thought Davos was dead, or Bran/Rickon, for example, and don't consider them to have 'come back from the dead'.

Actually, I agree with you about a number of these things. My thoughts on them:

1) I don't think this is crucial to the theory. But it would be consistent with the need for secrecy and the fact that no little birds were aware of the tower.

2) I don't see a strong reason to assume that she did, nor do I think it is necessary to explain the theory. So I don't even consider this to be R+L=J canon.

3) Again, I don't consider this canon. It's a point that some people push, yes, but not all. And it's not necessary to explain R+L=J, in my mind. A few threads back, I argued very persistently against the idea that LF himself was this trickster. (MtnLion and corbon, please don't take this as a challenge to reopen the argument. I remain unapologetically unconvinced. Well, maybe if we had our own thread... :D )

4) Possible. Don't know.

5) Hell, it's the only way that Jon could be legit. And if he's not legit, we have to start asking questions about the KG. So yeah, I'm on board with this one.

Nailed it.

Wrt 3), I don't think anyone is 'convinced', because there is no actual confirming data points. Its just a nice theory thats possible and explains some interesting points of apparent anomally. I think most of the argument is against the 'it doesn't work' people, because it does work, its just not backed by evidence we have available.

2) is not required, its just a counter to the "how could Rhaegar be such a selfish asshole-idiot and not tell anyone" complaints. Its not confirmed that they did, its just also not confirmed that they did not.

4) is just the logical extension of being in an isolated place with difficult communications. Its not necessary, but otherwise you have the inconsistency of a man famously 'dutiful' letting the world burn while he ignores it - which simply doesn't make sense.

[Techelles]

Let's just say that I agree with Techelles. None of these 'inconsistencies' you note are truly important for R+L=J, except for the last one, and that one comes not from wishful thinking but from a careful analysis of why the KG are where they are. In fact, these 'inconsistencies' are the open questions about R+L=J, so they are naturally what those already familiar with the theory will gladly discuss - because there is something to actually think about. In such discussions, I'll often have my own position, but my attitude towards the truth of the R+L=J theory is unaffected by the result of that debate - although I might be forced to see the actions of those involved in another light.

Exactly. Well said.

Nailed it.

Wrt 3), I don't think anyone is 'convinced', because there is no actual confirming data points. Its just a nice theory thats possible and explains some interesting points of apparent anomally. I think most of the argument is against the 'it doesn't work' people, because it does work, its just not backed by evidence we have available.

2) is not required, its just a counter to the "how could Rhaegar be such a selfish asshole-idiot and not tell anyone" complaints. Its not confirmed that they did, its just also not confirmed that they did not.

4) is just the logical extension of being in an isolated place with difficult communications. Its not necessary, but otherwise you have the inconsistency of a man famously 'dutiful' letting the world burn while he ignores it - which simply doesn't make sense.

3) Fair enough. I wanted to disprove it, and I tried, but I just couldn't do it. Oh well. :(

2) I guess if Ned knew about a letter, it could also help explain his surprisingly level-headed opinion of Rhaegar (insofar as we know his opinion, of course). Even so, my preferred counter to "Stupid Asshole Rhaegar" involves the prophecies and Rhaegar's belief that he is acting in the best interests of the realm.

4) I hear you. I can definitely see it working up to a point...but then I start to wonder about supply wagons and Ashara, and I ask why she wouldn't have sent word. Then again, there could be a hundred reasons for that. Can't wait for George to finally clear all this shit up.