R+L=J v.46

[FittleLinger]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up as I haven't been over the other 45 threads, but has anyone thought it peculiar that a good chunk of this theory stems from a dream Ned has, and not a recollection?

I don't know about you, but I never dream of past events in perfect clarity with each event happening in my dream exactly as it occurred in reality. There are many characters dreaming throughout the books and not all of them are dreaming of past events. When it comes time to describe past events, it's typically a character thinking back and recalling it and/or relating it to another character.

So why a dream and not a simple recollection or reflection? Is there significance to that? And why have we (and I say we as I also buy into R+L=J) latched on to this as one of the compelling pieces of evidence when Ned could have coloured this dream in any manner of ways based on his subconcious?

A huge thing is that there is something along the lines of, "Ned dreamed of it [KG, TOJ], just how it had happened". And afterwards there are the fantastic elements of the wraights and shadows, but they come after the factological stuff, which is confirmed to be "just how it had happened".

[Alia of the knife]

Thank you, really :blushing:

Not only for the - undeserved - compliments but for the timing. I made the mistake to get involved in another discussion and overall the level of the arguments (low) not to mention the level of rudeness (high) depressed me quite a bit. Ygrain brilliantly calls it 'hatefest'. For the first time I found myself deleting a reply before even posting it :stunned: The flow of nasty, snarky and plainly offensive remarks was such that I deemed my work of historical research, textual analysis and translation (English is not my mother tongue) to be utterly wasted. I wondered why keeping on reading a book if the distaste for certain key characters and/or the narrative choices of the author is so... overwhelming :dunno:

I told myself, just go back to your peaceful reading and lonely analytical challenges. Then I read your post and it reminded me that sometimes sharing thoughts can be fun ^_^

You've always been awesome, and you've always been generous even agreement is not always there,

But, the exchange of ideas should always be fun, and informative.

People sometimes forget that in the process of disagreement over fictional characeters, there are real people on the other end, do I commend you for your ability to "choose your battles" and delete.

I'm working on that as I'm not always great at just moving on in the face of extreme rudeness.

[Jon Icefyre]

You speak of the same Targaryens who imprisoned him in the black cells and sent him to serve at the Wall for the rest of his life which ended with him turned into a tree?

It has been implied that he killed Baelor's sons in order to put Aerys I on the throne and rule through him, so I believe he actually supported himself. I think it would be a big mistake to put any faith in BL's words so soon or believe that he wants to help Maekar's descendants.

Just because he was at odds with a few family members doesn't mean he hated his enitre house. I'm sure throughout history there were a lot of Targs that hated each other, but I highly doubt that hatred extended to the entire house as a whole. Also you're point about him not wanting to help the descendants of Maekar is kind of a moot point, because those same descendants would also be the descendants of Daeron ll the brother he defended/fought for in the Blackfyre rebellion and is most likely the same brother he told Bran he loved. So it could definitely be argued that he would want to help the descendents of his beloved brother Daeron ll. I really don't think Bloodraven is the type of person that would let the negative actions of a few family members towards him specifically, effect his outlook on his entire house at this point of the story in current Westeros.

I also think it would be a "big mistake" to buy into the hype of all the negative rumor talk about him that was most likely started by the ppl in KL/the small folk, as well as Blackfyre supporters. The small folk were angry with him because he was the current hand during a tough time for them so it's likely they had a very biased opinion of him, same can be said about Blackfyre supporters who most likely held a grudge against him for killing their king(Daemon Blackfyre), two of Daemon's sons, and probably being the biggest factor in the loyalist victory. Also it should be noted that there are mutliple examples of the ppl in KL misjudging/falsely labeling an overall good character as a villian Tyrion and Ned Stark come to mind just to name a few. So again I wouldn't be too quick to buy into the negative gossip about Bloodraven either.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

Thank you, really :blushing:

Not only for the - undeserved - compliments but for the timing. I made the mistake to get involved in another discussion and overall the level of the arguments (low) not to mention the level of rudeness (high) depressed me quite a bit. Ygrain brilliantly calls it 'hatefest'. For the first time I found myself deleting a reply before even posting it :stunned: The flow of nasty, snarky and plainly offensive remarks was such that I deemed my work of historical research, textual analysis and translation (English is not my mother tongue) to be utterly wasted. I wondered why keeping on reading a book if the distaste for certain key characters and/or the narrative choices of the author is so... overwhelming :dunno:

I told myself, just go back to your peaceful reading and lonely analytical challenges. Then I read your post and it reminded me that sometimes sharing thoughts can be fun ^_^

I for one always appreciate intelligent and thoughtful discussion and analysis. Even honest debate and disagreement is possible without rudeness if people would think before they post. (My mother always told me that if I had nothing nice to say, then say nothing) I have also deleted more than one post because I realized it would add nothing but more negative energy which is the last thing we need here sometimes. If I disagree I try to do so courteously and provide evidence why-- not just my emotions!-- and I appreciate others who do the same.

So... thanks for continuing to share your (dare I say tremendous?) insight and here's to more fun and civil discourse :cheers:

[Ygrain]

Thank you, really :blushing:

Not only for the - undeserved - compliments but for the timing. I made the mistake to get involved in another discussion and overall the level of the arguments (low) not to mention the level of rudeness (high) depressed me quite a bit. Ygrain brilliantly calls it 'hatefest'. For the first time I found myself deleting a reply before even posting it :stunned: The flow of nasty, snarky and plainly offensive remarks was such that I deemed my work of historical research, textual analysis and translation (English is not my mother tongue) to be utterly wasted. I wondered why keeping on reading a book if the distaste for certain key characters and/or the narrative choices of the author is so... overwhelming :dunno:

I told myself, just go back to your peaceful reading and lonely analytical challenges. Then I read your post and it reminded me that sometimes sharing thoughts can be fun ^_^

I don't think I can claim authorship of the term :-)

But, I had a peep at the thread, and wholeheartedly agree: there is no use arguing text clues if all you get in response is blind Rhaegar hatred, the depth of which I really don't understand. I don't think I've seen e.g. Gregor hated with such a passion.

[UVA]

The flow of nasty, snarky and plainly offensive remarks was such that I deemed my work of historical research, textual analysis and translation (English is not my mother tongue) to be utterly wasted. I wondered why keeping on reading a book if the distaste for certain key characters and/or the narrative choices of the author is so... overwhelming :dunno:

I told myself, just go back to your peaceful reading and lonely analytical challenges. Then I read your post and it reminded me that sometimes sharing thoughts can be fun ^_^

Keep on rolling with the analysis FF, you definitely are not alone! :grouphug:

I posted a couple of short, very sarcastic comments last night in the thread you speak of (because I'm so overwhelmed by the elevation of the badassery of the warhammer). The level of Targaryen hate by some is so profoundly irrational, I think I'd pull my hair out at any attempt to provide a well-argued point.

[Jon Icefyre]

I don't think I can claim authorship of the term :-)

But, I had a peep at the thread, and wholeheartedly agree: there is no use arguing text clues if all you get in response is blind Rhaegar hatred, the depth of which I really don't understand. I don't think I've seen e.g. Gregor hated with such a passion.

Agreed, I think a lot of the negativity comes from the fact that Ned Stark introduced the series as the main character and House Stark as the main house to root for, while the first Targ king we got introduced to was Aerys who happened to be one of if not the madest king of all-time. So we started off the story getting a lot of rebel biased opinions about the Targs(not including Ned of course), that shows us the Targs(at least the male Targs) in a very negative light as this pure evil, incestrial, narcissistic(Viserys didn't help) house. That ruled Westeros in darkness until the glorious rebel army led by the believed hero Robert Baratheon saved the day at took westeros out of darkness, all while fighting to save his true love(Lyanna) who was also the sister of fan fav Ned Stark from the big bad Targ monster Rhaegar Targaryen who supposedly 'kidnaped and raped' her numerous times. So a lot of ppl start off with this really negative image of Rhaegar and the male Targs in general, yet they ignore signs that there was also good and honor to be found in house Tagaryen with characters like Maester Aemon. So then as we get farther into the books and story in general we start to get different opinions, perspectives, and more general info about the Targs history that gives us a very different outlook on the house and the rebellion in general, in which we then see it was not as black and white as we once thought and that the situation had a lot of gray areas concerning right and wrong.

Yet some ppl have become so stuck on/satisfied with the initial negative perception of Rhaegar and the Targs in general that once they are presented with new evidence/info/perspectives that suggest Rhaegar was not the monster we intially were lead to believe, they have a hard time accepting that. And that final acknowledgement and self admittance that they were indeed fooled by GRRM about the type of man Rhaegar was leads some ppl to strongly resent the character.

[Kosh Naranek]

Wow! I don't know what thread you guys are talking about but it sounds like a real corker.

I was just reading a thread on Bloodraven and what he knows - very interesting. It made me wonder about who will know what, and if the people surrounding certain characters indicates them being/knowing more later?

Forgive me if these musings do not belong here, but I did not think a thread was warranted. And, as my thoughts featured Jon, Dany and Aegon, I decided to dump them here. Because R+L = J makes them related.

Marwyn is on his way to Dany. (We do not truly know the level of his abilities. Therefore, his presence could be indicative of absolutely squat.) Quaithe is in communication with her. Vic and the horn are enroute.

Bloodraven seems to be heavily meddling with Jon's life, and Jon has his relationship with his siblings (all wargs). Melisandre is also near Jon at the Wall.

Do we know of anyone fantastical in Aegon's train? Does that mean anything at all?

I asked that because, they are debating if Bloodraven would know if Aegon was a fake by warging Balerion (the cat) at Aegon's supposed time of death or using the wierwood network/ravens to spy in Westeros and Essos.

That made me wonder if the lack of fantastical persons surrounding Aegon is a clue?

Of course, I suppose one could argue that fanstastical people do not surround Jon and Dany; they are only in the vicinity, and that what is important is that Jon and Dany are fantastical in and of themselves.

What a rambling mess.

[MtnLion]

Death in the air, Jon leaving her hands?

How about baby's crying filling the air, and Ned knowing that it meant death with the Kingsguard there? Yes, Jon falling from her hands as she died makes a lot of sense.

[UVA]

Agreed, I think a lot of the negativity comes from the fact that Ned Stark introduced the series as the main character and House Stark as the main house to root for, while the first Targ king we got introduced to was Aerys who happened to be one of if not the madest king of all-time. So we started off the story getting a lot of rebel biased opinions about the Targs(not including Ned of course), that shows us the Targs(at least the male Targs) in a very negative light as this pure evil, incestrial, narcissistic(Viserys didn't help) house.

Absolutely. There's a great deal of guilt-by-association with Rhaegar. But his apparent villainy is consistently chipped away as the books progress. Yet, for Rhaegar-haters, the sources who shed light on the positive aspects of Rhaegar's character are essentially unreliable witnesses. So how can you argue when the goal posts are constantly being moved?

...That ruled Westeros in darkness until the glorious reblel army led by the believed hero Robert Baratheon saved the day at took westeros out of darkness, all while fighting to save his true love(Lyanna) who was also the sister of fan fav Ned Stark from the big bad Targ monster Rhaegar Targaryen who supposedly 'kidnaped and raped' her numerous times.

This trope began to unravel as soon as we meet Robert in GoT. And aren't we all the better for it because beneath it there is a much richer and tragic story of Robert's Rebellion. I'm far from praying at the altar of Rhaegar though too, but I'm eagerly waiting for the further fleshing out of the character for sure.

[J. Stargaryen]

I completely agree with the recent posts by Jon Icefyre and UVA. Since I've been here I've noticed that a lot (maybe most?) of the R+L=J denials stem from a dislike of Rhaegar.

In general, I'm quite surprised by the amount of hate the Targaryens get around here. When pressed for anything more than a personal opinion, the justifications usually end up being paper thin. Especially when compared to the reasons to hate houses Lannister, Bolton and Frey, for example.

Another one I don't get, and maybe this is because I'm still early in AFfC, is the hate for House Tyrell. What did they do that was so bad? Because whatever it was, they also killed Joffrey. So... call it even?

[Jon Icefyre]

I completely agree with the recent posts by Jon Icefyre and UVA. Since I've been here I've noticed that a lot (maybe most?) of the R+L=J denials stem from a dislike of Rhaegar.

In general, I'm quite surprised by the amount of hate the Targaryens get around here. When pressed for anything more than a personal opinion, the justifications usually end up being paper thin. Especially when compared to the reasons to hate houses Lannister, Bolton and Frey, for example.

Another one I don't get, and maybe this is because I'm still early in AFfC, is the hate for House Tyrell. What did they do that was so bad? Because whatever it was, they also killed Joffrey. So... call it even?

:agree: I couldn't agree more with you well said my friend. As far as the Tyrell thing goes to relate it to U.S. regions, I think while the Lannisters are seen as this all rich, politically powerful, and currupt Washington D.C. white house family, the Tyrells are more seen as the spoiled rich kids from the upper east side of Manhattan. They haven't really earned anything and seem to have had everything handed to them since day one. They were only stewards of the Reach until Aegon l promoted them to Highlord and Warden of the south for simply bending the knee to him after he defeated King Mern Gardener at the field of fire. As a whole they are extremely fake and don't seem to have any real sense of loyalty other than perhaps Ser Loras, they kind of just go whatever way the wind blows. If anything there just annoying but I agree I don't really see any event in the series that could possibly make anyone strongly hate them, they haven't really done anything that bad other than kill a monster who most ppl wanted dead anyway. As I said before they're more annoying than anything.

[Stann]

A huge thing is that there is something along the lines of, "Ned dreamed of it [KG, TOJ], just how it had happened". And afterwards there are the fantastic elements of the wraights and shadows, but they come after the factological stuff, which is confirmed to be "just how it had happened".

Just finished re-reading it. He mentions two specific things that were just like in life:

In the dream his friends rode with him, as they had in life.

They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it had been in life.

After that, the rest of the dream unfolds as it's written without that little misnomer. Afterward, when Eddard reflects, it's says the following:

Ned had pulled the tower down afterward, and used its bloody stones to build eight cairns upon the ridge. It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory. They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed. He did not think it omened well that he should dream that dream again after so many years.

Even Eddard, when thinking about it later, doesn't say to himself that he hadn't thought about that night in a long time or even remembered it. He thought it omened ill that he dreamed that dream. And even when he reflects on it, he seems much more saddened by the fight and the deaths of the noble knights then what happened to his only sister.

I just find the narrative choice interesting. Dreams are open to interpretation and to changes based on the subconscious. Seems weird Martin chose this device to tell that tale.

[Jon Icefyre]

Just finished re-reading it. He mentions two specific things that were just like in life:

In the dream his friends rode with him, as they had in life.

They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it had been in life.

After that, the rest of the dream unfolds as it's written without that little misnomer. Afterward, when Eddard reflects, it's says the following:

Ned had pulled the tower down afterward, and used its bloody stones to build eight cairns upon the ridge. It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory. They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed. He did not think it omened well that he should dream that dream again after so many years.

Even Eddard, when thinking about it later, doesn't say to himself that he hadn't thought about that night in a long time or even remembered it. He thought it omened ill that he dreamed that dream. And even when he reflects on it, he seems much more saddened by the fight and the deaths of the noble knights then what happened to his only sister.

I just find the narrative choice interesting. Dreams are open to interpretation and to changes based on the subconscious. Seems weird Martin chose this device to tell that tale.

This is false. He thinks about Lyanna consistently throughout the first book and everytime he does it brings up a great sadness in him. In fact when he confronts Cersei Lannister about the truth concerning her and Jamie, Cersei say Lyanna's name and Ned thinks to himself that he wanted to cry and that's just from Cersei mentioning her. Just because Ned doesn't seem as sad about Lyanna in the TOJ dream to you, doesn't make it so. We know based on Ned's other refrences to Lyanna throughout the story that he's obviously just as if not probably more sadened by what happened to Lyanna than what happened to the noble knights.

[Stann]

This is false. He thinks about Lyanna consistently throughout the first book and everytime he does it brings up a great sadness in him. In fact when he confronts Cersei Lannister about the truth concerning her and Jamie, Cersei say Lyanna's name and Ned thinks to himself that he wanted to cry and that's just from Cersei mentioning her. Just because Ned doesn't seem as sad about Lyanna in the TOJ dream to you, doesn't make it so. We know based on Ned's other refrences to Lyanna throughout the story that he's obviously just as if not probably more sadened by what happened to Lyanna than what happened to the noble knights.

First, I wasn't stating my opinion. I was merely reiterating what was on the page immediately following the dream. When Ned reflects on it, he only reflects on the fight and the deaths, as quoted.

Second, I was referring to his reflection of the dream he'd just had, not in general. I've only asked about and discussed the dream. My apologies if you took that to mean that I think Ned wasn't upset about what happened to Lyanna, regardless of how vague that part of the story is, throughout the rest of the book. I never said that.

[Jon Icefyre]

First, I wasn't stating my opinion. I was merely reiterating what was on the page immediately following the dream. When Ned reflects on it, he only reflects on the fight and the deaths, as quoted.

Second, I was referring to his reflection of the dream he'd just had, not in general. I've only asked about and discussed the dream. My apologies if you took that to mean that I think Ned wasn't upset about what happened to Lyanna, regardless of how vague that part of the story is, throughout the rest of the book. I never said that.

Haha no apology necessary I'm saying he doesn't need to specify again in the dream because he's already expressed his feelings on Lyanna in several other scenes so you're point about him "Seeming more saddened by the fight and the death of the noble knights then what happened to his sister." is a pretty moot point because he'd already shared his sadness for his sister several times prior. So it makes sense that GRRM would have focused on Ned's feelings towards the noble knights in the dream in Ned's specific reflection instead of Lyanna because the readers already knew how saddened he is by Lyanna, so there's really no need in pressing that matter concerning his sadness concerning Lyanna any further than he already had because GRRM would risk spoiling the plot in the process.

[nirolo]

First, I wasn't stating my opinion. I was merely reiterating what was on the page immediately following the dream. When Ned reflects on it, he only reflects on the fight and the deaths, as quoted.

Well, not quite. The very first paragraph before that recollection says this:

He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood.

So Ned's dream is no less about the 3 KGs as it is about Lyanna.

Another telling part is at the very end of the dream:

As they came together in a rush of steel and shadow, he could hear Lyanna screaming. "Eddard!" she called. A storm of rose petals blew across a blood-streaked sky, as blue as the eyes of death.

"Lord Eddard," Lyanna called again.

"I promise," he whispered. "Lya, I promise..."

The ellipsis at the end means that there is something more to this dream. But what Ned promised Lyanna is conveniently (and intentionally) hidden from us.

So it seems the dream is about as much as the 3 KGs who died that day as it is about the promise that Ned made to a dying Lyanna.

In fact, It seems, to me at least, that the fighting with the 3 KGs (and Ned's dream) culminated in that deathbed promise Lyanna extracted from Ned.

[Stann]

Well, not quite. The very first paragraph before that recollection says this:

So Ned's dream is no less about the 3 KGs as it is about Lyanna.

Another telling part is at the very end of the dream:

The ellipsis at the end means that there is something more to this dream. But what Ned promised Lyanna is conveniently (and intentionally) hidden from us.

So it seems the dream is about as much as the 3 KGs who died that day as it is about the promise that Ned made to a dying Lyanna.

In fact, It seems, to me at least, that the fighting with the 3 KGs (and Ned's dream) culminated in that deathbed promise Lyanna extracted from Ned.

All good points. I can see that now. I've been swayed! Clearly, the dream still had a great deal to do with Lyanna.

My original point still stands, though. Why a dream? Why not a memory? I find it a curious narrative device to use. Especially when he highlights specific parts of the dream as matching what happened in real life, but not the rest which is obviously filled with fantastical elements that didn't happen in real life.

I'm not implying none of it happened, but can we accept everything narrated in the dream as a true memory of the actual events? Other than the very obvious dream elements?

[J. Stargaryen]

All good points. I can see that now. I've been swayed! Clearly, the dream still had a great deal to do with Lyanna.

My original point still stands, though. Why a dream? Why not a memory? I find it a curious narrative device to use. Especially when he highlights specific parts of the dream as matching what happened in real life, but not the rest which is obviously filled with fantastical elements that didn't happen in real life.

I'm not implying none of it happened, but can we accept everything narrated in the dream as a true memory of the actual events? Other than the very obvious dream elements?

It doesn't matter if it actually happened or not. What's important is what the dream tells us. But why a dream? Well, I think in literature you're supposed to highlight dreams as having a special meaning attached to them. That is certainly true in this case.

[nirolo]

All good points. I can see that now. I've been swayed! Clearly, the dream still had a great deal to do with Lyanna.

My original point still stands, though. Why a dream? Why not a memory? I find it a curious narrative device to use. Especially when he highlights specific parts of the dream as matching what happened in real life, but not the rest which is obviously filled with fantastical elements that didn't happen in real life.

I'm not implying none of it happened, but can we accept everything narrated in the dream as a true memory of the actual events? Other than the very obvious dream elements?

I'm not qualified to answer your question of why using a dream rather than a memory. Maybe butterbumps! has done a Ned POV re-read project, and you might be able to find your answers there.

As to the question of what is fact and what is imagined in Ned's dream, here is my take.

Ned's dream highlights several key factors for me:

1. Three KGs died protecting the ToJ.

2. The reasons given by the 3 KGs for defending the ToJ, and thus the reasons they died for, are as follows:

"The Kingsguard does not flee."

"We swore a vow"

3. Lyanna was at the ToJ and she made Ned promise her something before she died.

4. Few people know exactly what happened that day (since of the 10 who fought that day, only 2 lived to ride away).

I take these four points as fact. Since it is also true that Ned only took 6 companions with him that day to the ToJ (a fact confirmed by GRRM), you have to ask what is left of the dream what is not fact? I say a very small part and of very little importance.

ETA: Now that you got me rereading this passage, I noticed that Lyanna addressed Ned as, "Lord Eddard," which is strange (and rather formal) especially when Ned addressed Lyanna as "Lya". It reminds me of the scene where Jon is trying to convince Ned of keeping the 5 direwolf pups, and he addresses Ned as "Lord Strak" rather than father. Just something I thought interesting.