Conversation with a Dying Man: the exact wording of Varys and Kevan's talk

[butterbumps!]

This is where I have a big problem with your argument. Varys is one of the cleverest people in the realm, and a master manipulator. If Kevan was misled by his conversation with Varys, then that's because Varys deliberately meant that to happen.

Or are you claiming that it was simply a misunderstanding betwen Varys and Kevan?

Yes, Varys knows exactly which Aegon Kevan is thinking of. Varys passively lets Kevan think this and goes on to the important (to Varys, given the attention to it) portion of the speech.

So yes, Varys is purposely letting Kevan believe that this is Aegon, Rhaeger's son. But the nature of the misdirection-- that it is merely an omission of correction-- is what I sought to clarify in the OP, not a "lie" as is the general assumption, which is a really considerable thing to account for. The onus is not on why Varys would lie, but rather, why did Varys not correct him in the event Aegon is fake. And the fact that it would be a correction of an omission rather than an outright lie becomes much easier to answer.

But the technics of this aside, the pressing issue is why Varys is doing this at all. Is there a reason for Varys to give this little swan song? Because I think if we can figure that question out, it leads to the answer of why Varys might not have corrected the omission. Turth be told, this whole exchange doesn't read like it was said for Kevan's benefit exclusively. That is, the speech itself reads as a form of propaganda for Enlightened Monarchism said for an audience. If this whole speech was said for another's benefit outside of Kevan, then this would answer why Varys doesn't correct anything pretty solidly.

[Maxpey]

Well, no, that's sort of the point. It's established that Varys speaks in half truths and technical truths, and usually doesn't confirm or correct mistakes by any number of listeners.

Well, thing is, I'm not actually advocating any theory here. You don't have to be upset when you find you have nothing to contribute, and instead, try to undermine a pretty straightforward issue with the "you're reading too much into this" retort.

I can't believe you're taking issue with the presentation of a passage-- not to put forward any theory-- but to clear up some mistaken ideas about what's written. At the very least, it puts the fact that Varys does not actually state anything about Rhaeger's son in the open, because given a few recent threads, I think that's the common assumption.

Also, the irony of your post is that I'm positing that we do take the "face value" reading of this. And in doing so, we see that the actual words exchanged don't pertain to Aegon's parentage.

Maxpey, no, that's not what I claimed, and in fact already addressed one of your previous posts stating that yes, of course Varys knows that Kevan is thinking of Aegon as Rhaeger's son. The issue is in what's actually being stated-- the referent that's articulated is Aegon at Storm's End, independently of an identity of Rhaeger's son.

I didn't see your response previously. I apologize.

That having been said, I think that if Varys knows that Kevan is referring to Rhaegar's son being dead and Varys response is "no" then either Varys lied to Kevan or he is telling the truth. My reasoning is as follows:

IMO, the word "No" is absolute crucial to the analysis and it's what differentiates this from the example you cite where Varys led Ned to believe that he was referring to Ser Hugh instead of LF. In that situation, Varys gave ambiguous clues about the identity of Jon Arryn's murderer. Ned came to the wrong conclusion and Varys didn't correct him.

In this situation, Varys expected Kevan to infer that the Aegon that had landed at Storm's End was Rhaegar's son. By responding "Aegon. Dead. He's dead" Kevan is clearly telling Varys that it can't be true, Rhaegar's son is dead. And what is Varys response? No. In other words, sorry Kevan, but you're wrong, Aegon is not dead. So not only does Varys want Kevan to believe that the Aegon who is attacking Storm's End is real, when Kevan says that can't be true because Rhaegar's son is dead, Varys goes out of his way to tell him "No." In other words, Varys goes out of his way to tell Kevan that Aegon, Rhaegar's son, isn't dead.

Not to be sarcastic, but I don't see how GRRM could have made it any clearer, other than him having Varys just come out and say to "Kevan, I know that you think Aegon, Rhaegar's son is dead, but he isn't."

Of course, as I have said before, I have been known to be completely wrong about the meaning of a passage,.

:dunno:

[Tommens Cat]

To be honest, I think you might have hit the nail on the head. Varys explained his plan to Kevan so the readers knew his motivation. If it was real life then obviously Varys would disappear straight away in case some one caught him, but in the world of books and films, the bad guy always explains his plan.

true, than i must ask though, why not have Varys as the POV for epilogue, rather than dilute the integrity of the story to foster to the readers beliefs, or disbeliefs?

i have to believe there is more to it, while also serving the purpose to the reader.

also, and kind of off topic, why isnt there an epilogue in all the books, only 3 and 5?

[FC_Lymond]

“No.” The eunuch’s voice seemed deeper. “He is here

I could maybe buy this argument if this line was different. But Varys is directly referencing Kevan's statement here. Remove the "no", and have a line like: "Aegon Targaryen has come to Westeros", then you might have something. Then Arys would be basically ignoring what Kevan said, and they could be talking of different things.

[Tommens Cat]

But the technics of this aside, the pressing issue is why Varys is doing this at all. Is there a reason for Varys to give this little swan song? Because I think if we can figure that question out, it leads to the answer of why Varys might not have corrected the omission. Turth be told, this whole exchange doesn't read like it was said for Kevan's benefit exclusively. That is, the speech itself reads as a form of propaganda for Enlightened Monarchism said for an audience. If this whole speech was said for another's benefit outside of Kevan, then this would answer why Varys doesn't correct anything pretty solidly.

this is what i am leaning towards believing.

Varys dialogue must have value to the universe. in order to bring value to the universe, while maintaining value for readers, there has to be some unspoken fact that we as readers are not privy to. this serves the purpose of having Kevan as POV instead of Varys, and also leads the readers and the characters within the acting universe to take value into Varys words.

[Dr. Pepper]

I totally agree with this. It doesn't really matter much to me whether Aegon is real or not. I'm curious to know, but I have no preference for one outcome or the other. I think so long as he gets to the throne and the people believe, it won't make a lick of difference.

I largely agree with this, in that, for the throne, it will not end up mattering much whether or not Aegon is truly son of Rhaegar. People will support him if they find supporting him suits their goals.

I think the relevance of Aegon's true heritage and of Vary's speech is that it helps us work out the motivations and end-goals of other characters. Aegon being real doesn't answer questions about Illyrio's goals, for example. Or at least, it leaves way too many questions unanswered. Working out Aegon's true heritage, or at least determining if he's son of Rhaegar or not, sheds a lot of light on the motivations of Varys, Illyrio, possibly Bloodraven, and several other characters. Aegon is likely not just there for Dany to have another foe to fight or for the throne to continue to be volatile.

[aceluby]

but that would compromise the intergrity of the story. to put things into a story that the people within the set universe can not comprehend of have no consequence makes the story weak. all facts, if done fight, should have value to the reader and the characters.

so, my question is as stated above, why have Varys say anything to Kevan? Did he talk to Pycelle? I cant believe GRRM would put something into the story that only holds value for readers an not characters within the set universe.

It's a good question and I think that is the right question to be asking. Telling Kevan the truth is completely against Varys' character, but lying doesn't make sense, so we can't know why he speaks to him with the information we have, therefore it's simply an opportunity to deliberately mislead the readers who have incomplete information.

[Wise Fool]

Telling Kevan the truth is completely against Varys' character,

Not really. Why would it be?

[H Reed]

If Varys is the brother of Serra, and (f)Aegon's uncle, the they would both associate with the same banner. An arrangement whereby Varys sought the throne first to be inherited to ilyro's son would not be inconsistent with their plans- and it would make the statement "he is here" rather literal.

[H Reed]

..if of course that is Varys' and original name.

[RedFishBlackFish]

But the technics of this aside, the pressing issue is why Varys is doing this at all. Is there a reason for Varys to give this little swan song? Because I think if we can figure that question out, it leads to the answer of why Varys might not have corrected the omission. Turth be told, this whole exchange doesn't read like it was said for Kevan's benefit exclusively. That is, the speech itself reads as a form of propaganda for Enlightened Monarchism said for an audience. If this whole speech was said for another's benefit outside of Kevan, then this would answer why Varys doesn't correct anything pretty solidly.

Yes!

It doesn't make much sense for Varys to decieve a dying man; Kevin won't live to tell anyone that Aegon is alive and in Westeros. Varys doesn't likely care whether Aegon is really Aegon or not, Varys only cares that "Aegon" is fit to rule; however, others certainly would care if Aegon was really a Targaryean.

Through the POV of characters in King's Landing, it's often acknowledged that things spoken in secret aren't likely to stay secret. There are ears everywhere, whether they be Vary's, Littlefinger's, Qyburn's, or anyone else's. I think it's very likely that this message was meant to be overheard, but this leaves a lot of unanswered questions...

1) Who wouldn't simply reveal Varys as the killer?

2) By extension, who would benefit from Varys' continued work to destabilize the realm?

3) If Varys wants (F)Aegon's arrival to be public, who was this message intended for?

[juanml82]

true, than i must ask though, why not have Varys as the POV for epilogue, rather than dilute the integrity of the story to foster to the readers beliefs, or disbeliefs?

i have to believe there is more to it, while also serving the purpose to the reader.

also, and kind of off topic, why isnt there an epilogue in all the books, only 3 and 5?

Because if Varys was the POV chapter, we'd get access to his thoughts, which would be too revealing. That's why we have, for instance, an Areo POV instead of a Doran POV, or why so many things in King's Landing and later the Vale are seen through Sansa.

First, Varys was not giving a "private joke." I don't understand where you are even getting this from. Ned asks him about Jon's poisoner as Varys is about to leave the room. This is part of Varys' answer to Ned's question. Ned assumes that Varys means Hugh.

Secondly, yes, this thread was intended to be civil. You kind of threw civility out the window, however, when you accuse me of being "deluded," and try to pass off use of the text that establishes precedent as my crazy "opinion."

Further to this, if you really want to pull the "people don't lie to dying men" trump card, then what do you make of all of the cases where a killer either lies or purposely torments the victim prior to death?

If you want to call what Varys does "a lie," and cling to this unfounded belief that people don't lie to dying men, then that's your prerogative. I more than adequately highlighted the part of the passage in which it's clear that in terms of what is actually said, no lie has taken place.

Lastly, I'd be more than happy to hear all these uncivil things you think of me. I'm sure they will be just as insightful as your other fine analysis.

Some opinions are given with reasons to support them. As when someone offers a textual basis for their argument. Other opinions are just obnoxious assertions offered without reason, as when you accuse the person offering textual basis for their argument of being 'deluded,' presumably to mask your inability to offer a contrary textually based argument.

I don't know, and care little, as to when, where and how you guys enter this forum. I mostly do it in my idle times at work, and I do it to do something mildly entertaining with that spare time. I certainly don't live for this forum. I'm not going to download digital copies of the books into my work computer to "win" an Internet discussion nor will I reread thousands of pages, while at work, to look for particular quotes.

If that's what you guys do with your time and you like it, fine for you. I definitely don't live for this forum or GRRM's works.

I'd also like to remind you guys a basic difference between maths and arts.

In maths, if 2+x=5, then x is always 3, and there is no other way around it. No matter how complicated a math problem is, there is no ambiguity in the solution. That's why it's called an exact science. And that's why someone can come to an indisputable solution.

This forum isn't about maths, though. It's about a work of art. And art isn't an exact science. There is no unique, indisputable, solution, because it's open to interpretations. Interpretations which rely in each reader's subjectivities.

And yet, over and over, maybe to "win" Internet discussions with strangers, maybe to "win" a virtual fan club of people stroking someone's ego, unique, indisputable solutions are presented and viciously defended as the Truth. When there isn't such a thing in art. Yeah, Mona Lisa's hair is black, and Ned doesn't torture small kids in his spare time. But when you move to the fine points, people ought to understand one of the wonders of good works of art is the lack of unique solutions like in 2+x=5.

Now, back to the "private joke". Varys is intentionally leading pointing Ned towards Ser Hugh of the Vale. He might be also referring to LF, or it might happen to be a coincidence. But if he is referring to LF, the fictional character of Varys has to realize there is no way Ned will understand him that way, because he's specifically sending him towards Ser Hugh. Why would Varys do such a thing? Well, it's my opinion that he's doing it because he finds it funny. And since he can't share that with anyone, then it's a private joke.

Now, some people would like me to stop whatever I'm doing at work to reread thousands of pages to find an instance of Varys lying as "proof" of Butterbumps unique solution to the Gordian Knot of Varys claiming Aegon is real. Of course, I won't. For some strange reason, my boss doesn't pay me to reread books at work. But, what if I did, and didn't find any? Does it mean Varys is, I don't know, Jim Carrey from the "Liar liar" movie? Is he magically incapable of lying? Or he finds lying as disgusting as Ned finds the killing of children?

Sorry guys, but anyone can lie.

As for the OP... well, it makes little sense in the end. The "Gordian Knot" of Aegon's authenticity is held by Varys' declaration. So, in order to break the "why would he lie to a dying man" argument, Butterbumps goes all into semantic, while deciding she found the 2+x=5 solution in an art piece, to show us how the argument doesn't hold, because Varys doesn't, technically lie.

But it's the same really. The argument can easily be replaced with different semantics and claim "Why would Varys deceive a dying man" - and we are back to square one. Because, no matter how we play with semantics, Varys purposely deceived Kevan if Aegon is fake.

He might have done it as a final act of cruelty? Perhaps. Now, was Butterbumps expecting an standing ovation (hence the "PSA" instead of "Crackpot" or "This is my theory" title) and no argument whatsoever because Varys never mentioned Aegon's last name... well, no, not everyone is going to buy that.

[Father of Hosts]

As for the OP... well, it makes little sense in the end. The "Gordian Knot" of Aegon's authenticity is held by Varys' declaration. So, in order to break the "why would he lie to a dying man" argument, Butterbumps goes all into semantic, while deciding she found the 2+x=5 solution in an art piece, to show us how the argument doesn't hold, because Varys doesn't, technically lie.

But it's the same really. The argument can easily be replaced with different semantics and claim "Why would Varys deceive a dying man" - and we are back to square one. Because, no matter how we play with semantics, Varys purposely deceived Kevan if Aegon is fake.

He might have done it as a final act of cruelty? Perhaps. Now, was Butterbumps expecting an standing ovation (hence the "PSA" instead of "Crackpot" or "This is my theory" title) and no argument whatsoever because Varys never mentioned Aegon's last name... well, no, not everyone is going to buy that.

So you don't buy that there are logical explanations for deceiving Kevan? Or are you hung up on the way Bumps described the technique for deception used on Kevan? Because that would make you the one arguing semantics.

Lied, didn't tell the truth, let someone else think false information; there is very little difference, pretty much only semantically, actually. It's more about the technique used for the deception more than it is if Vary's straight up lying or not.

There are logical explanations for deceiving Kevan. They have been stated:

Varys is careful. He knows someone is possibly listening.

It is for the benefit of his own little birds, some of whom may not work solely for him.

He doesn't like Kevan, so he decided to taunt him.

Lastly, hes not a mustachioed, monologuing moron. He's very particular about everything he says. GRRM didn't create a master of espionage and subterfuge to have him go down by giving the game away in a speech. He's not a Bond villain.

Therefore, we must look at who the deception was intended for. Was it truly intended for Kevan? Maybe, if Vary's is particularly cruel. Was it intended for other listeners? Maybe, as well as being the most logical choice.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

OP makes sense to me...

[ejhawman]

And judging by the rest of what Varys says, it's clear that lineage is not what Varys is interested in. Varys is focused on telling Kevan his master-plan to erect an "Enlightened Monarch," not continue a dynasty.

:bowdown: Major inference here. I've been on the fence as to what Varys is really after. Now you've put your finger on it. Thank you at least for that.

As to the main point: a bit abstruse for me. Failing to correct a wrong inference can be considered a form of misleading. There is no reason for Varys to lie to a dying man, but also no reason not to. Maybe it's just habit with him. Maybe Martin is trying to slip something by us, or not being careful enough in realizing what is being implied here. But a good discussion so far.

[UVA]

I don't know, and care little, as to when, where and how you guys enter this forum. I mostly do it in my idle times at work, and I do it to do something mildly entertaining with that spare time. I certainly don't live for this forum. I'm not going to download digital copies of the books into my work computer to "win" an Internet discussion nor will I reread thousands of pages, while at work, to look for particular quotes. If that's what you guys do with your time and you like it, fine for you. I definitely don't live for this forum or GRRM's works.

It's not about winning or scoring points to begin with but rather a multi-way discussion about the OP's mapping of the Varys-Kevan scene. I'm a professional and also a mother with young children who often doesn't have time to comb through the text but who values the efforts of those that provide textually-based arguments in support of a theory or idea. Unlike you, however, I'm not flippantly and indirectly trying to demean those that make ample and skillful use of textual examples to substantiate a point of view. Perhaps you can find other posters to debate topics who don't require such rigor.

I'd also like to remind you guys a basic difference between maths and arts.

No one in this thread is claiming that the OP's explanation of Varys' behavior is a priori knowledge. This is a pointless distinction, one that suggests to me that you've not had a great deal of training in literary analysis and debate. But thanks anyway, I guess I can ignore my academic background in determining the utility and validity of theoretical definitions and debate.

Now, back to the "private joke". Varys is intentionally leading pointing Ned towards Ser Hugh of the Vale. He might be also referring to LF, or it might happen to be a coincidence. But if he is referring to LF, the fictional character of Varys has to realize there is no way Ned will understand him that way, because he's specifically sending him towards Ser Hugh. Why would Varys do such a thing? Well, it's my opinion that he's doing it because he finds it funny. And since he can't share that with anyone, then it's a private joke.

If you make such a claim, it's most useful to provide some rationale as to why you think Varys' is taking the piss here. Then we could evaluate the veracity of this, and determine if you've make a good case for it. Even if one is only somewhat familiar with the text, it's not faulty to see that Varys is all about about subterfuge and perpetuating half-truths to his target's gauzy lens of perception and understanding. Probably more than with any other character, what is left un-said and un-spoken is most significant in Varys's scenes and should be carefully unpacked by the reader.

Now, some people would like me to stop whatever I'm doing at work to reread thousands of pages to find an instance of Varys lying as "proof" of Butterbumps unique solution to the Gordian Knot of Varys claiming Aegon is real. Of course, I won't. For some strange reason, my boss doesn't pay me to reread books at work. But, what if I did, and didn't find any? Does it mean Varys is, I don't know, Jim Carrey from the "Liar liar" movie? Is he magically incapable of lying? Or he finds lying as disgusting as Ned finds the killing of children? Sorry guys, but anyone can lie.

As for the OP... well, it makes little sense in the end. The "Gordian Knot" of Aegon's authenticity is held by Varys' declaration. So, in order to break the "why would he lie to a dying man" argument, Butterbumps goes all into semantic, while deciding she found the 2+x=5 solution in an art piece, to show us how the argument doesn't hold, because Varys doesn't, technically lie.

But it's the same really. The argument can easily be replaced with different semantics and claim "Why would Varys deceive a dying man" - and we are back to square one. Because, no matter how we play with semantics, Varys purposely deceived Kevan if Aegon is fake.

If you think backing up your interpretation with textual examples is not possible or is not palatable to you, then why do you keep pressing the issue that the OP is barking up the wrong tree, and subsequently resorting to ad hominem-tinged comments about boarders who do to justify your continued involvement in this particular debate? Butterbumps has persuasively (for me) made the case that is a semantic issue on Varys' part in-universe, not just something the reader imposes on the interpretation of the scene. It's a subtle issue to be sure, but far from crackpot.

[RumHam]

Yeah guys this is such hair splitting and reading way too far when it's very obvious on the face of it that they're talking about the same guy. You don't have to be upset because not everyone shares the same theories as you. A big part of what makes ASoIaF the series it is comes from the joy of reading and being surprised. You undermine that by being so "matter of fact" about your reading of the text. I'm sure George loves having enthusiastic readers hypothesizing the nuances of his stories, but when you start arguing away the text, it gets to be a bit much (like those who say Dany is delirious and lying about being unburned at the end of Dance)

I agree, though I probably wouldn't have bothered replying if your avatar wasn't totally awesome. Love that game.

As for everyone asking why Varys had the conversation with dying Kevan at all, it was for us. It is a book, remember.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'll read the replies later, but I just want to thank both of you for this. Too many people have misread this thing for too long.

[juanml82]

So you don't buy that there are logical explanations for deceiving Kevan? Or are you hung up on the way Bumps described the technique for deception used on Kevan? Because that would make you the one arguing semantics.

Lied, didn't tell the truth, let someone else think false information; there is very little difference, pretty much only semantically, actually. It's more about the technique used for the deception more than it is if Vary's straight up lying or not.

There are logical explanations for deceiving Kevan. They have been stated:

Varys is careful. He knows someone is possibly listening.

It is for the benefit of his own little birds, some of whom may not work solely for him.

He doesn't like Kevan, so he decided to taunt him.

Lastly, hes not a mustachioed, monologuing moron. He's very particular about everything he says. GRRM didn't create a master of espionage and subterfuge to have him go down by giving the game away in a speech. He's not a Bond villain.

Therefore, we must look at who the deception was intended for. Was it truly intended for Kevan? Maybe, if Vary's is particularly cruel. Was it intended for other listeners? Maybe, as well as being the most logical choice.

Perhaps it is. It's just that that's something that developed over the course of the thread, and not what the OP was about.

It's not about winning or scoring points to begin with but rather a multi-way discussion about the OP's mapping of the Varys-Kevan scene. I'm a professional and also a mother with young children who often doesn't have time to comb through the text but who values the efforts of those that provide textually-based arguments in support of a theory or idea. Unlike you, however, I'm not flippantly and indirectly trying to demean those that make ample and skillful use of textual examples to substantiate a point of view. Perhaps you can find other posters to debate topics who don't require such rigor.

No one in this thread is claiming that the OP's explanation of Varys' behavior is a priori knowledge. This is a pointless distinction, one that suggests to me that you've not had a great deal of training in literary analysis and debate. But thanks anyway, I guess I can ignore my academic background in determining the utility and validity of theoretical definitions and debate.

Well, those two paragraphs can be summarized to "I am awesome, you're not", so I'll let them be. If you want a flame war, get it with someone else.

If you make such a claim, it's most useful to provide some rationale as to why you think Varys' is taking the piss here. Then we could evaluate the veracity of this, and determine if you've make a good case for it. Even if one is only somewhat familiar with the text, it's not faulty to see that Varys is all about about subterfuge and perpetuating half-truths to his target's gauzy lens of perception and understanding. Probably more than with any other character, what is left un-said and un-spoken is most significant in Varys's scenes and should be carefully unpacked by the reader.

I don't see where this is coming from. I said my opinion on why Varys is playing with Ned, since Ned can't possibly realize he's talking about LF (If that's indeed the case), it's for his own personal amusement. Do I think that's the one and only answer to the mathematical equation presented by that particular fragment of the novel? Definitely not, because, as I said, there is no "one and only" answer to a particular detail of a work of art. It looks like a plausible explanation, though, and I don't think there is any need to expend hours on such a small detail.

Help yourself if you want, as you claim you are so awesome.

If you think backing up your interpretation with textual examples is not possible or is not palatable to you, then why do you keep pressing the issue that the OP is barking up the wrong tree, and subsequently resorting to ad hominem-tinged comments about boarders who do to justify your continued involvement in this particular debate? Butterbumps has persuasively (for me) made the case that is a semantic issue on Varys' part in-universe, not just something the reader imposes on the interpretation of the scene. It's a subtle issue to be sure, but far from crackpot.

No, what I think is that it's not required. It may earn "Oh... awesome" Internet cookies from some readers, but I think it goes to a simpler analysis: Is lying out of character for Varys? Well, nothing points in that direction.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Because if Varys was the POV chapter, we'd get access to his thoughts, which would be too revealing. That's why we have, for instance, an Areo POV instead of a Doran POV, or why so many things in King's Landing and later the Vale are seen through Sansa.

I don't know, and care little, as to when, where and how you guys enter this forum. I mostly do it in my idle times at work, and I do it to do something mildly entertaining with that spare time. I certainly don't live for this forum. I'm not going to download digital copies of the books into my work computer to "win" an Internet discussion nor will I reread thousands of pages, while at work, to look for particular quotes.

If that's what you guys do with your time and you like it, fine for you. I definitely don't live for this forum or GRRM's works.

No one is asking you to invest any more time into reading ASoIaF or posting on the forum than you want to invest. To the contrary, I'm sure at least a few of us would prefer if you invested even less time than you seem to want to invest. The point of contention here is that you refuse to engage on the level of the OP, but want to throw insults anyway. "I don't want to invest time in providing textual support for my opinions therefore the OP is deluded" is not a valid argument.