Jump to content

Howland Reed + Ashara Dayne = Meera & Jojen?


maidenandwarrior

Recommended Posts

The known Reeds during the timespan of the events described on A Song of Ice and Fire are:

Why does it list Howland's wife as a crannogman? Are you implying Jyana Reed is Ashara Dayne in hiding?

Where did you find this? I don't remember her being mentioned at all. Hmmm... Jyana Reed contains "Dayne."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you refrain from insulting me? I'm not sure what I personally did to piss you off.

This is getting fucking ridiculous. I'm not running a racket to determine acceptable theories, or conspiring to get people to listen to me. I didn't write some endorsement of myself (and, most recently, admitted to being severely criticized by people). I gave praise and criticism to the theory. I subsequently tried to explain, very politely I might add, what I found valuable in response to your meta-critique questions. Don't take whatever this is out on me.

butterbumps,

I fear I share part of the blame, and I apologize. I stated that I enjoy seeing posters grasp for straws to disprove the theory. I meant no offense to anyone. Just that when there is little to argue, my interest in the topic, as I'm sure others interest as well, increases.

And once again I have not seen maidenandwarrior on this thread yet today, but bravo to you for grasping our attention as a whole (good or bad).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow I must type in a tone that is vastly different from the tone I think or speak in - really did not think I was attacking or being confrontational with anyone (apart from the guy who was clearly not bothered by confrontation)

Can someone please quote what they view as an attack so I know for future? (again excluding exchange between me and guy who doesn't care)

Finally I really don't think I am criticising people for complementing OP - I was actually one of the first people to defend her theory against accusations of crackpottery, but I am definitely criticisng people who base what they think on what other people think. Sorry to anyone I have offended i guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woah ok sorry didn't realise changing your name was a heinous crime I thought we were just mucking about, also nowhere did I say you endorse yourself or try and make people agree with you i just said they do thats obviously not your fault - will just leave it now fucking hell didn't realise you were so sensitive.

ETA: Saw your last post. I'm hardly sensitive, but given the less-than-playful series of posts that came before, and the fact that I was the one earnestly engaging you without tomfoolery, I don't think it's exactly unreasonable why I'd see that as a cheap shot.

Why does it list Howland's wife as a crannogman? Are you implying Jyana Reed is Ashara Dayne in hiding?

In the appendix, this is what we see:

—HOWLAND REED, Lord of Greywater Watch, a crannogman,

—his wife, JYANA, of the crannogmen,

—their children:

—MEERA, a young huntress,

—JOJEN, a boy blessed with green sight,

Notice that it says "OF THE crannogman," not "A crannogman" as it does with Howland. The books are more canon than the wiki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listed on the appendix of AFFC but I took that from the wiki. But hold the phone Daenarys wait for it contains "DAYNE" OMG people daenarys is Ashara Dayne in disguise........now who's grasping at straws.

"Grasping at straws?" I don't believe this theory, though I think it's a great crackpot, and I wasn't using that as evidence, just thinking aloud. Who have I accused of grasping at straws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone please quote what they view as an attack so I know for future? (again excluding exchange between me and guy who doesn't care)

Most of page 8.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that supporting a theory that ultimately proves to be wrong holds no value. This particular theory - H+A- is attractive to me because it forces me to look at bits I had previously ignored or glanced over. This isn't an "Asha is a boy" or "Sandor's sword is magical" sort of theory. It's not a complete dead end from the get-go, and nearly all of the responses attempted to refute it wholesale have absolutely been grasping at straws. It has the potential to evolve and be refined and even if evidence is uncovered to completely refute it, the OP has introduced certain points that hold great analytical value. Of course, ymmv.

Listed on the appendix of AFFC but I took that from the wiki.

The wiki is an open source content provider. Anyone can edit. Just check out what it says now in that entry. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of page 8.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that supporting a theory that ultimately proves to be wrong holds no value. This particular theory - H+A- is attractive to me because it forces me to look at bits I had previously ignored or glanced over. This isn't an "Asha is a boy" or "Sandor's sword is magical" sort of theory. It's not a complete dead end from the get-go, and nearly all of the responses attempted to refute it wholesale have absolutely been grasping at straws. It has the potential to evolve and be refined and even if evidence is uncovered to completely refute it, the OP has introduced certain points that hold great analytical value. Of course, ymmv.

I'm sorry but how is anything I said to you on p. 8 more of an attack or more confrontational that what you said to me? And yes I completely agree this discussion is certainly worth wile, but I really do not understand how you can characterise as 'grasping at straws' arguments that are made to disagree with what is (almost everyone admits) ultimately a massively speculative theory.

ETA - accusations of straw grasping in this thread are reaching unsustainable levels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting theory. I tried to read most of the OP post and the comments but I admit that I didn’t get through all so I apologise for not fully grasping it.

I can believe that Ashara and Howland fell in love and that he is the father of her child but I don’t understand why would she need to fake her death, abandon her family and go into hiding for the rest of her life.

I saw couple people speculating that she did it to protect Jon because once she “killed herself” people would start assuming that she was the mother of Ned Stark’s bastard but that makes absolutely no sense to me. Firstly nobody suspect that Ned’s bastard is actually Lyanna’s, secondly most people don’t really care who Jon’s mother is and thirdly if Ashara threw away her life for that particular lie, wouldn’t it make sense for Ned to officially acknowledge her as Jon’s mother to stop anybody digging deeper into it.

I also don’t understand how Howland being Arthur’s brother in law (or soon to be brother in law) could have saved Ned’s life.

Thanks a lot for clearing it up for me. Kudos to OP for coming up with something interesting and original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@FuriousGeorge,

My apologies for butting in but from what I can see is that the people you're arguing with don't believe this theory, but they find it intriguing. However improbable it may be, it's not impossible. It makes for interesting reading which is why I presume many of us use the forum. Now I'm sorry if this isn't true and I haven't been paying enough attention, but you seem to be criticising those people for complimenting and encouraging the OP who thought of a theory you clearly don't like. It's fine that you disagree with the theory, but I don't see what your problem is with those who just wan to discuss the possibility.

ETA: the altering of usernames is killing me guys. :lol:

Peaches, I think you bring up a good point in all theorizing which is probable v possible. They aren't the same thing. What the OP presented was a sound theory with good textual basis for being possible. The Howland and Ashara part. That has nothing to do with it being probable.

This theory is very possible, and I'm continuing my current reread with this in mind in the Bran and Barriston chapters in particular. Probability is where I think it runs into some problems. But the themes brought forward are very much worth looking at and discussing, whether it is likely or not. And thus, time will tell, as others who are interested in the theory be they supportive or not reread and poke at if it holds up to closer scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really have a great deal to add to what has been happening over the past few pages, other than to say that I think any theory that is plausible, meaning possible, and supported by textual evidence, is certainly worthy of discussion and consideration. That is the very basis of almost all academic inquiry. The world would be far worse off if people decided not to consider new ideas just because those ideas might be incorrect.

A theory on a literary discussion forum may not have real world consequences, but in the context of a literary discussion forum, the same argument in favor of curiosity and inquiry applies. This theory may not be correct, but no-one has been able to demonstrate that it is implausible, and it is interesting enough to be a fertile ground for discussion.

OP: As others have done I would just like to commend you on one of the most compelling, and to the best of my recollection, original theories on the forum in quite some time!

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...