Jump to content

R+L=J v. 57


Stubby

Recommended Posts

This is not really relevant to the current discussion, but I wanted to comment on the idea that ASOIAF would be just as awesome if R+L=J turns out to be false. I think that, in the heated debate over whether this-or-that passage from the books supports the theory, people have kind of overlooked that the very fact that R+L=J is even potentially relevant to understanding the intended nuances of so much of GRRM's writing means that Jon Snow's parents proving to be any other couple at this late date would also remove an entire layer of richness from the text.

Reading ASOIAF with R+L=J in mind is an interesting experience, IMO. Not only does the theory lend narrative weight to sequences like Ygritte recounting the legend of Bael the Bard to Jon and Meera entertaining Bran with a fanciful take on the tourney at Harrenhal, which otherwise are difficult to explain in terms of relevance to the present story, but it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that every other line about or involving Jon on a wide range of subjects from family and honor to kings and dragons doubles as some pretty fantastic dramatic irony.

Take this observation of Jon from Tyrion in AGOT:

He had the Stark face, if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son.

Minus R+L=J, this is just a throwaway thought. Tyrion tells us readers nothing that we don't already know from Catelyn and Arya's earlier POVs. With R+L=J, however, there is suddenly a wealth of sly humor in Tyrion assuming Jon inherited little from his mother when in fact the exact opposite is true.

Similar ironies are sprinkled throughout the series. As another example, Jon advising Sam on his plan to send Gilly and her son to Horn Hill, claiming to Lord Randyll that the babe is his bastard.

[sam] swallowed nervously and said, "Jon, could there be honor in a lie, if it were told for a... a good purpose?"

"It would depend on the lie and the purpose, I suppose."

Neatly echoing Ned in his assurance to Arya that she was right to force Nymeria to leave her: "And even the lie was... not without honor." R+L=J theorists tend to believe Ned's remembering the lies he told to protect Jon and keep his promise to Lyanna, who's on his mind not a page earlier for Arya's resemblance to her.

With R+L=J, these two scenes are lovely mirrors to one another, resonant with connective emotion and history. Minus R+L=J... I suppose the identical phrasing is merely a coincidence. And both conversations are a tad bit flatter because there's no subtext to either beyond what the characters are discussing.

So, can R+L=J be wrong? That possibility cannot be categorically ruled out, IMO. If so, though, I must admit I'll lose some of my respect for GRRM as a writer. For either missing a huge opportunity to deepen his story, both in complexity and coherency, or changing his original ideas only for the sake of doing the unexpected.

Shocking twists are vastly overrated as a literary device in this fandom, I feel. The lasting impact of a work of literature surely rests in the profundity of its themes and characterization, which is often supported structurally by symbolism and parallels that connect seemingly different elements of the narrative together. For example, characters to their foils or the past to the present to the future. Surprises are surprising only the first time around, whereas foreshadowing and other literary clues, meticulously laid, reward the reader who reads the books again and again.

In terms of sustainable literary merit, then, R+L=J has every other theory of Jon's parentage beat by dozens of allusions, ranging from the Targaryen colors appearing unexpectedly in Jon's chapters to all the references to kings and dragons both, which seem to be increasing in number through ADWD. So, no, excising R+L=J does not a better series make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that Cat hears the rumors about Ashara from Ned's men. . . Harwyn hears the story in the North, and I imagine the tale travelled around on the way there with Ned's gossipy soldiers, who by virtue of being Ned's, lent the story credence.

You made me think of something, here. We know that only Ned and Howland survived the fight at the tower, and went on to Starfall. How are Ned's men going to know these tales if they are at Storm's End under command of Stannis? Did the wetnurse spill those beans, or purposely plant them?

Barristan's words were also that "a Stark dishonored her," which to me is much more suggestive of Brandon.

No, a thousand times no. Read the sentence, exclude everything else, and try to figure out why Barristan would prefer to be in that line, himself. If Barristan knows who dishonored Ashara, he is going to say so, instead of using the generic "man", given his infatuation with Ashara; isn't he . . . Isn't he?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not really relevant to the current discussion, but I wanted to comment on the idea that ASOIAF would be just as awesome if R+L=J turns out to be false. I think that, in the heated debate over whether this-or-that passage from the books supports the theory, people have kind of overlooked that the very fact that R+L=J is even potentially relevant to understanding the intended nuances of so much of GRRM's writing means that Jon Snow's parents proving to be any other couple at this late date would also remove an entire layer of richness from the text.

Reading ASOIAF with R+L=J in mind is an interesting experience, IMO. Not only does the theory lend narrative weight to sequences like Ygritte recounting the legend of Bael the Bard to Jon and Meera entertaining Bran with a fanciful take on the tourney at Harrenhal, which otherwise are difficult to explain in terms of relevance to the present story, but it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that every other line about or involving Jon on a wide range of subjects from family and honor to kings and dragons doubles as some pretty fantastic dramatic irony.

Take this observation of Jon from Tyrion in AGOT:

He had the Stark face, if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son.

Minus R+L=J, this is just a throwaway thought. Tyrion tells us readers nothing that we don't already know from Catelyn and Arya's earlier POVs. With R+L=J, however, there is suddenly a wealth of sly humor in Tyrion assuming Jon inherited little from his mother when in fact the exact opposite is true.

Similar ironies are sprinkled throughout the series. As another example, Jon advising Sam on his plan to send Gilly and her son to Horn Hill, claiming to Lord Randyll that the babe is his bastard.

[sam] swallowed nervously and said, "Jon, could there be honor in a lie, if it were told for a... a good purpose?"

"It would depend on the lie and the purpose, I suppose."

Neatly echoing Ned in his assurance to Arya that she was right to force Nymeria to leave her: "And even the lie was... not without honor." R+L=J theorists tend to believe Ned's remembering the lies he told to protect Jon and keep his promise to Lyanna, who's on his mind not a page earlier for Arya's resemblance to her.

With R+L=J, these two scenes are lovely mirrors to one another, resonant with connective emotion and history. Minus R+L=J... I suppose the identical phrasing is merely a coincidence. And both conversations are a tad bit flatter because there's no subtext to either beyond what the characters are discussing.

So, can R+L=J be wrong? That possibility cannot be categorically ruled out, IMO. If so, though, I must admit I'll lose some of my respect for GRRM as a writer. For either missing a huge opportunity to deepen his story, both in complexity and coherency, or changing his original ideas only for the sake of doing the unexpected.

Shocking twists are vastly overrated as a literary device in this fandom, I feel. The lasting impact of a work of literature surely rests in the profundity of its themes and characterization, which is often supported structurally by symbolism and parallels that connect seemingly different elements of the narrative together. For example, characters to their foils or the past to the present to the future. Surprises are surprising only the first time around, whereas foreshadowing and other literary clues, meticulously laid, reward the reader who reads the books again and again.

In terms of sustainable literary merit, then, R+L=J has every other theory of Jon's parentage beat by dozens of allusions, ranging from the Targaryen colors appearing unexpectedly in Jon's chapters to all the references to kings and dragons both, which seem to be increasing in number through ADWD. So, no, excising R+L=J does not a better series make.

:agree:

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greymoon, yes the Tourney at Harrenhal, during the year of the false spring, was 24 +/- 3 months before the fall of King's Landing. (You seem sold that the word Stark implies that the man was a Stark. If that is the case, why would Barristan not say Stark dishonored Ashara? It is pretty simple, and easy to understand where the misconception comes from if you switch Stark with Barristan in the last sentence. He wanted Ashara to look to him, too, yet he had just reaffirmed his vow of chastity.) [...]

Aegon would be born at the same time as Ashara's stillbirth. (In spite of something I read upthread, stillbirth implies FULL TERM pregnancy. Any premature birth would be termed a miscarry in Westeros.)

[...]

Then we have the matter of how Rhaegar discovered the tower in the Prince's Pass. Was it a case of escorting Ashara home to Starfall, and learning some secrets from her or her brother that set his course on pursuing Lyanna? Was the tower noticed during this or the return trip? Things certainly lineup for me. I believe that we will learn that Aerys dishonored Ashara. That the Starks couldn't do anything to help her in her looking for justice. That Elia's daughter was stillborn. That Ashara's child was assumed to be the one that Ned saw killed at King's Landing. That when Ned returns Dawn, and he relates news of the grisly scene at King's Landing at the hands of the Lannisters to Ashara she became depressed for a reason that she could not tell anyone about. Thus those who observed her depression had to make up their own stories to justify it.

The first part in bold, I don't understand. Is this something you covered yesterday in the thread 56? The second...where/how do you know what is and what isn't considered a stillbirth in Westeros?

And the last part about Ashara being dishonored by Aerys, its possible but we have little evidence for that. Could you explain what you mean about the Starks? How they would be involved with Ashara, if Ashara was dishonored by Aerys?

So, according to this Lemore is not Ashara, Ashara really killed herself, and Aegon is fake? Or do you mean, Aegon is real but Ashara's son, and Lemore is Ashara?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip] and

Shocking twists are vastly overrated as a literary device in this fandom, I feel. The lasting impact of a work of literature surely rests in the profundity of its themes and characterization, which is often supported structurally by symbolism and parallels that connect seemingly different elements of the narrative together. For example, characters to their foils or the past to the present to the future. Surprises are surprising only the first time around, whereas foreshadowing and other literary clues, meticulously laid, reward the reader who reads the books again and again.

Thank you for this! :cheers:

I am fine with surprising twists, but in terms of literary quality, they have to work! I agree, even if writers want to bend the rules of fiction writing, it doesn't work to just parachute the answer to the mystery into the last chapter at the zero hour, readers have to arrive there by following clues (though they might not recognize them at the time). Surprises work when readers look back at the trajectory and the brain gets that satisfying 'mind blown' sensation. Not so much the angry/confused surprise sensation 'what the eff?' While this might potentially be the reaction of readers who hold any number of theories dear by the end, this series would certainly lose layers without R+L=J.

Greymoon, yes the Tourney at Harrenhal, during the year of the false spring, was 24 +/- 3 months before the fall of King's Landing. (You seem sold that the word Stark implies that the man was a Stark. If that is the case, why would Barristan not say Stark dishonored Ashara? It is pretty simple, and easy to understand where the misconception comes from if you switch Stark with Barristan in the last sentence. He wanted Ashara to look to him, too, yet he had just reaffirmed his vow of chastity.) . . .

You made me think of something, here. We know that only Ned and Howland survived the fight at the tower, and went on to Starfall. How are Ned's men going to know these tales if they are at Storm's End under command of Stannis? Did the wetnurse spill those beans, or purposely plant them?No, a thousand times no. Read the sentence, exclude everything else, and try to figure out why Barristan would prefer to be in that line, himself. If Barristan knows who dishonored Ashara, he is going to say so, instead of using the generic "man", given his infatuation with Ashara; isn't he . . . Isn't he?

I see what you are saying and am looking at this passage again more carefully

Even after all these years, Ser Barristan could still recall Ashara’s smile, the sound of her laughter. He had only to close his eyes to see her, with her long dark hair tumbling about her shoulders and those haunting purple eyes. Daenerys has the same eyes. Sometimes when the queen looked at him, he felt as if he were looking at Ashara’s daughter …

But Ashara’s daughter had been stillborn, and his fair lady had thrown herself from a tower soon after, mad with grief for the child she had lost, and perhaps for the man who had dishonored her at Harrenhal as well. She died never knowing that Ser Barristan had loved her. How could she? He was a knight of the Kingsguard, sworn to celibacy. No good could have come from telling her his feelings. No good came from silence either. If I had unhorsed Rhaegar and crowned Ashara queen of love and beauty, might she have looked to me instead of Stark?

He would never know. But of all his failures, none haunted Barristan Selmy so much as that.

I think when I first read it I interpreted it as Ashara looked for help after being dishonored; she looked for help from Stark (meaning one of the Starks, presumably male, probably Ned over Brandon). However, as you've pointed out, Barristan had a thing for Ashara and regrets about his failure to act on it (so the past isn't done with Barristan, either). Reading it now I think he means that if he'd spoken up she wouldn't have been dishonored (by a Stark) in the first place; she would have been interested in Barristan instead of Stark (in which case I think he means Brandon, who would be more the type to 'take advantage' of someone, as he did Barbery Dustin). Was this written so as to be deliberatey ambiguous? Likely.

As for who spilled the beans, or whether they did so on purpose, I think Alia of the Knife mentioned that people had already seen Ned and Ashara dancing at the Tourney. Whether or not anyone genuinely in the know was involved in spreading the rumor among the soldiers may not even matter: people probably already knew about Ashara's pregnancy; at some point Ned and his forces had to make contact after he left Storm's End; a whiff of baby in connection with Ned and speculation had already done its work.

Edited to remove double quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first part in bold, I don't understand. Is this something you covered yesterday in the thread 56? The second...where/how do you know what is and what isn't considered a stillbirth in Westeros?

I will give what I think GRRM was telling us, since it is his perspective that Westeros is built upon.
A stillbirth occurs when a fetus has died in the uterus. A wide variety of definitions exist. Once the fetus has died, the mother may or may not have contractions and undergo childbirth. The term is often used in distinction to live birth or miscarriage and the word miscarriage is often used incorrectly to describe stillbirths. Most stillbirths occur in full-term pregnancies.
So, I will assume that if GRRM meant a miscarriage that he would have written it so, but his intent was to tell us that it was a full term pregnancy.

And the last part about Ashara being dishonored by Aerys, its possible but we have little evidence for that. Could you explain what you mean about the Starks? How they would be involved with Ashara, if Ashara was dishonored by Aerys?

In case where one of the subjects has been wronged by the king, it would be up to the major houses to pursue redress. The use of the word "look" in the last sentence has a legalistic tone to it, and that the house name was used implied that Ashara was looking for justice through House Stark. Then we need to consider how Barristan thought that he could provide justice, which could be quite easy with his access to the king.

So, according to this Lemore is not Ashara, Ashara really killed herself, and Aegon is fake? Or do you mean, Aegon is real but Ashara's son, and Lemore is Ashara?

That would fit, wouldn't it? Things really begin to make sense if you look at it in this light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure the timeline does not fit for Eddard/Ashara? I think the commonly followed timeline here (not that I agree with all of it) is this.

1. Battle of the Bells.

2. Eddard marries Catelyn.

3. Eddard and Catelyn have a two week honeymoon at Riverrun.

4. Eddard leaves Catelyn and then fights for 9 more months "in the South."

5. Jon is born more than 9 months after the Eddard/Catelyn wedding.

Looking at this timeline, why couldn't Eddard and Ashara meet up and conceive Jon after Eddard's honeymoon while he is warring in the south?

Supposing that this timeline for one minute did fit, there is one question that has not been addressed, and that is why the secrecy surrounding Jon's mother?

Why wouldn't Ned just tell Jon that his mother is Ashara? What is to fear or lose? Catelyn already believes this woman to be Jon's mother as does Cersei, so why the big secrecy?

Ned then goes and tells Robert that the mother is merely a fisherman's daughter called Wylla! Why is that? He inadvertently lets Cat and Cersei believe one thing while telling Robert something else. The whole secrecy is surely a major driver in this theory, the whole narrative concerning Jon's parentage has been building up to this over the course of the last five books.

In psychology, it is apparently theorised that people who wish to hide something, may divert blame or suspicion elsewhere, without ever localising it, and when you think of it, that is exactly what Ned is doing, when he allows Cat and Cersei to believe in something without correcting it. He only tells Robert the name "Wylla" when he is asked outright by his King, and even then, it seems mysterious why he does not also use the same line when questioned by Cersei and Cat.

Ned's desire to safeguard the identity of Jon's mother is so profound that he takes the secret with him to the grave. It is hinted that he wants to talk to Jon while imprisoned in Kings Landing but Varys tells him that all his correspondences will be intercepted by the Lannisters. Again, what is there to lose if Ned writes one final letter to Jon proclaiming either Wylla or Ashara as his mother? I doubt the Lannisters will care much for a letter proclaiming either a fisherman's daughter or even Ashara Dayne as Jon's mother?

So, what reason could Ned possibly have to take this secret with him to the grave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not really relevant to the current discussion, but I wanted to comment on the idea that ASOIAF would be just as awesome if R+L=J turns out to be false. I think that, in the heated debate over whether this-or-that passage from the books supports the theory, people have kind of overlooked that the very fact that R+L=J is even potentially relevant to understanding the intended nuances of so much of GRRM's writing means that Jon Snow's parents proving to be any other couple at this late date would also remove an entire layer of richness from the text.

Reading ASOIAF with R+L=J in mind is an interesting experience, IMO. Not only does the theory lend narrative weight to sequences like Ygritte recounting the legend of Bael the Bard to Jon and Meera entertaining Bran with a fanciful take on the tourney at Harrenhal, which otherwise are difficult to explain in terms of relevance to the present story, but it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that every other line about or involving Jon on a wide range of subjects from family and honor to kings and dragons doubles as some pretty fantastic dramatic irony.

Take this observation of Jon from Tyrion in AGOT:

He had the Stark face, if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son.

Minus R+L=J, this is just a throwaway thought. Tyrion tells us readers nothing that we don't already know from Catelyn and Arya's earlier POVs. With R+L=J, however, there is suddenly a wealth of sly humor in Tyrion assuming Jon inherited little from his mother when in fact the exact opposite is true.

Similar ironies are sprinkled throughout the series. As another example, Jon advising Sam on his plan to send Gilly and her son to Horn Hill, claiming to Lord Randyll that the babe is his bastard.

[sam] swallowed nervously and said, "Jon, could there be honor in a lie, if it were told for a... a good purpose?"

"It would depend on the lie and the purpose, I suppose."

Neatly echoing Ned in his assurance to Arya that she was right to force Nymeria to leave her: "And even the lie was... not without honor." R+L=J theorists tend to believe Ned's remembering the lies he told to protect Jon and keep his promise to Lyanna, who's on his mind not a page earlier for Arya's resemblance to her.

With R+L=J, these two scenes are lovely mirrors to one another, resonant with connective emotion and history. Minus R+L=J... I suppose the identical phrasing is merely a coincidence. And both conversations are a tad bit flatter because there's no subtext to either beyond what the characters are discussing.

So, can R+L=J be wrong? That possibility cannot be categorically ruled out, IMO. If so, though, I must admit I'll lose some of my respect for GRRM as a writer. For either missing a huge opportunity to deepen his story, both in complexity and coherency, or changing his original ideas only for the sake of doing the unexpected.

Shocking twists are vastly overrated as a literary device in this fandom, I feel. The lasting impact of a work of literature surely rests in the profundity of its themes and characterization, which is often supported structurally by symbolism and parallels that connect seemingly different elements of the narrative together. For example, characters to their foils or the past to the present to the future. Surprises are surprising only the first time around, whereas foreshadowing and other literary clues, meticulously laid, reward the reader who reads the books again and again.

In terms of sustainable literary merit, then, R+L=J has every other theory of Jon's parentage beat by dozens of allusions, ranging from the Targaryen colors appearing unexpectedly in Jon's chapters to all the references to kings and dragons both, which seem to be increasing in number through ADWD. So, no, excising R+L=J does not a better series make.

Yeah, I take it back because I realized I said I'd still think of it as a great series if it wasn't true. It would be far less than its potential whole if it came out that Jon's mother was, in fact, a nameless fisherman's daughter. (or Wylla the wetnurse or Ashara Dayne even)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fine with surprising twists, but in terms of literary quality, they have to work! I agree, even if writers want to bend the rules of fiction writing, it doesn't work to just parachute the answer to the mystery into the last chapter at the zero hour, readers have to arrive there by following clues (though they might not recognize them at the time). Surprises work when readers look back at the trajectory and the brain gets that satisfying 'mind blown' sensation. Not so much the angry/confused surprise sensation 'what the eff?' While this might potentially be the reaction of readers who hold any number of theories dear by the end, this series would certainly lose layers without R+L=J.

Exactly. There must be a sufficient amount of foreshadowing that, in retrospect, clearly points to the answer. If this is not done properly, the author will receive the same backlash that Bioware did for the ending of Mass Effect 3. Not only did they change the plot in the middle of the trilogy and created starship-sized plotholes, but they totally failed to foreshadow the big reveal at the end. The whole issue, known as ME3 ending controversy, basicaly undercut an otherwise highly popular series and (together with other blunders) seriously undermined Bioware's credibility. It's really a big no-no, to do such a stupid twist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Aerys and Lyanna at all possible given the timelines and locations?

No. Lyanna was missing for about a year, i.e. the duration of the rebellion, and Jon was born at its end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will give what I think GRRM was telling us, since it is his perspective that Westeros is built upon. So, I will assume that if GRRM meant a miscarriage that he would have written it so, but his intent was to tell us that it was a full term pregnancy.

In case where one of the subjects has been wronged by the king, it would be up to the major houses to pursue redress. The use of the word "look" in the last sentence has a legalistic tone to it, and that the house name was used implied that Ashara was looking for justice through House Stark. Then we need to consider how Barristan thought that he could provide justice, which could be quite easy with his access to the king. That would fit, wouldn't it? Things really begin to make sense if you look at it in this light.

It wasn't me who used the word miscarriage but Alia. I was just pointing out that by common definition, after 20 weeks it's no longer a miscarriage but a stillbirth (if the fetus dies in the womb) or a (high risk) premature birth. I see we've read the same Wikipedia article, and if you scroll down a bit on the page, you'll find that the definition for stillbirth varies from 20 to 24 weeks, depending on the country. Usually it does imply full-term pregnancy, but the greatest difference, between miscarriage and stillbirth is that the fetus has reached a certain stage of development before dying in the womb. After 20 weeks, a baby, albeit small, has a chance to survive premature birth. So if there is no fetal death, than it's not a miscarriage but a premature birth and if there is a fetal death - in the womb - its a stillbirth.

Can you quote the sentence you're speaking about? I'm not following you at all. What chapter of Barristan is that?

Ashara being Lemore and Aegon her son? is that what makes sense? or the opposite? there was two questions asked ;)

about the first, I don't know. I don't like it. I prefer to think that Varys and Illyrio are really plotting to put a Blackfyre on the throne. I don't believe for one second that the both of them are acting for the good of the Targaryen house. And wouldn't Ashara hated Aegon, if he was born from rape?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Lyanna was missing for about a year, i.e. the duration of the rebellion, and Jon was born at its end.

The only reason I asked is because Mark Addy (Robert Baratheon) once said that as far as Robert knows, Lyanna was raped by Aerys and cohorts. I can understand if he confused Aerys and Rhaegar but where did the "cohorts" part come from? It was most likely a mistake but it has always made me a bit curious. Alfie Allen also talked about a Darth Vader type situation in regards to Jon's father.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned's desire to safeguard the identity of Jon's mother is so profound that he takes the secret with him to the grave. It is hinted that he wants to talk to Jon while imprisoned in Kings Landing but Varys tells him that all his correspondences will be intercepted by the Lannisters. Again, what is there to lose if Ned writes one final letter to Jon proclaiming either Wylla or Ashara as his mother? I doubt the Lannisters will care much for a letter proclaiming either a fisherman's daughter or even Ashara Dayne as Jon's mother?

So, what reason could Ned possibly have to take this secret with him to the grave?

In 19c. Victorian fiction, family secrets often have to be kept because they reveal something that will not only fracture the well-being of the family and the individual who discovers them, but because they will often reveal something distasteful that will fracture the myth of national righteousness, rightness, morality, well-being or particular vision of itself of the nation or empire. Very dangerous stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason I asked is because Mark Addy (Robert Baratheon) once said that as far as Robert knows, Lyanna was raped by Aerys and cohorts. I can understand if he confused Aerys and Rhaegar but where did the "cohorts" part come from? It was most likely a mistake but it has always made me a bit curious. Alfie Allen also talked about a Darth Vader type situation in regards to Jon's father.

But what did he mean by that? I'm sorry to say I've fallen asleep at every turn when I tried to watch Star Wars...I have no idea what this means...besides the "I am you're father" quote, m'not even sure I got that right. But, it seems irrelevant, because whether Ned, Brandon, Aerys, Rhaegar...Robert...they are dead. That leaves, Bloodraven of course...and Mance Rayder, and Tormund - there's one title Tormund doesn't have yet! father to wolves - and Jon Connington :)

Had this thought - just a thought - once, that Rhaegar meant for Jon Connington to marry Lyanna...Jon would have had an heir, without having to do the deed, and Lyanna would have been made a proper lady, not a second wife, nor anything else and Jon would have been so happy to raise Rhaegar's son... Anyway. So Darth Vader? What's the story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darth Vader is the bad guy or enemy who ends up being the father of the hero. I suppose Rhaegar could be defined as an enemy depending on your perspective and how much you know about him. Alfie Allen's knowledge of the books may be limited. Aerys however seems to be more of a typical bad guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darth Vader is the bad guy or enemy who ends up being the father of the hero. I suppose Rhaegar could be defined as an enemy depending on your perspective and how much you know about him. Alfie Allen's knowledge of the books may be limited. Aerys however seems to be more of a typical bad guy.

Plus, there is this parallel of a special boy brought up by his uncle in ignorance of who his parents truly were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darth Vader is the bad guy or enemy who ends up being the father of the hero. I suppose Rhaegar could be defined as an enemy depending on your perspective and how much you know about him.

Not sure if you were following the previous thread, but there was a discussion as to where Bran might have heard the "official version" of Lyanna's kidnap and alleged rape.

I would imagine that at some point, everyone in the Stark household were exposed to this "official story". Depending on Jon's take on things, he may also have viewed Rhaegar as the aggressor, hence it could still fit with this "Darth Vader" parallel.

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...