Jump to content

R+L = J v 64


Stubby

Recommended Posts

I think you are right Ygrain.


I never really thought about Reading comprehension, or should I say I never thought the people I've been asking about who they think Jon Snow's mother is might have low reading comprehension. Probably because I have no college or University education and so have never learnt how to understand literature formally, learning purely through reading the greats it just never struck me that not everyone does grasp how story telling works or how a tale is layered up.



Also the power of denial is strong. Very Strong. A lot of people just don't want Jon to be anything special.


but for me it was a no brainer. I clicked it and then it all just made so so much sense, re reading the relevant sections knowing the truth makes it crystal clear.


It makes me sad for those who just see a story and don't experience all the layers.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Professional deformation on my part, I guess :D



I think that what makes R+L difficult to grasp is that the clues are spread across hundreds of pages and people get distracted by the stuff happening in between. Once taken out of the text and assembled, it's really a no brainer.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are right Ygrain.

I never really thought about Reading comprehension, or should I say I never thought the people I've been asking about who they think Jon Snow's mother is might have low reading comprehension.

Also the power of denial is strong.

but for me it was a no brainer. I clicked it and then it all just made so so much sense, re reading the relevant sections knowing the truth makes it crystal clear.

It makes me sad for those who just see a story and don't experience all the layers.

Sometimes I feel the "too cliche" crowd are being deliberately obtuse with their arguments. The arguments in the thread that shall not be mentioned comes to mind. I agree with you and Ygrain. Once you read the relevant parts, Jon's parentage, legitimacy and the purpose of the KG at the ToJ is plainly clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I feel the "too cliche" crowd are being deliberately obtuse with their arguments. The arguments in the thread that shall not be mentioned comes to mind. I agree with you and Ygrain. Once you read the relevant parts, Jon's parentage, legitimacy and the purpose of the KG at the ToJ is plainly clear.

I always feel like a good part of the group that claims "too cliche" and argues against any possibility of Rheagar and Lyanna having wed, among other things, are so entrenched in their views of where the story should go or will go or, I suppose more correctly, where it absolutely shouldn't go, that presenting any evidence to the contrary is a futile effort. What gets me is people who claim that any belief that Jon could have been a legitimate son or that he will be offered a crown is influenced by blind fanaticism, when their own view points are fueled by a sort of anti-fanaticism and/or an inherent, predisposed dislike of the character or the possibilities that surround him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I believe that one of the reasons they remained was because Jon was the legitimate king, I think it's one of many, because I do think the motivations of the KG are fluid within the bounds of their rules, in other words, if the situation merits it, then they do step out of their KG "box."

Certainly the actions of LC Cole regarding his role in the succession has ramifications down to the present as it seems to allude to the fact that it was not the Westerosi tradition to be ruled by Queens. At least to this point, beyond Dorne, we don't hear of any Queens ruling any of the Seven Kingdoms in their own right, having instead something akin to the rules of France.

He defied the will of Viserys I, and the daughter, first born and legitimate was passed over for the brother. And it would seem he made the choice because he thought it the better, stronger choice.

LC Hightower faced with the choice between Aerys and Rhaegar, may have chosen Rhaegar. After all, he had a direct order from Aerys to bring Rhaegar back, Rhaegar was not the king, so why did Hightower NOT bring Rhaegar back as Aerys commanded?

Crown Prince or no, Aerys order trumps Rhaegars if we strictly follow those rules it seems to me.

(And granted I'm not fond of the KG, so I take a jaundiced view of them as historically, they remind me more of the Roman Praetorian guard).

"While the Guard had the power to make or break emperors, it had no role in government administration, unlike the personnel of the palace, the Senate, and the bureaucracy."

So, while they didn't have a desire to rule, I think they were very much aware of their power behind the throne, especially absent the dragons.

Alia, You make a very good point about LC Cole and his political maneuverings for what he thought was the good of the crown and the realm. He was partly responsible for the civil war that followed, but the Targaryen dynasty continued for long while after that. Also, I share some of your dislike of the KG. I’m not big on “just following orders” when it means standing by while the King commits atrocities. I think it’s reasonable to imagine that a man of honor would finally reach his limit. If LC Hightower wanted to protect the legacy of the King, not just the person of the King, he might have thought his best option was to chose Rhaegar.

As I said before, I think the Kings Guard at the ToJ had more than one motivation for protecting Jon and I think they would have done so even if they didn’t believe that he was Rhaegar’s true heir (which I think they did, assuming their words that Ned recalls in his dream are accurate:

“Ser Willem is a good man and true," said Ser Oswell.

"But not of the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold pointed out. "The Kingsguard does not flee.").

It’s already been established that Rhaegar’s closest personal friends were the same two Kingsguard that accompanied him in his abduction of Lyanna and remained with him in Dorne. I don’t think there’s much question where their true loyalties lay and staying away from Kings Landing kept them out of Aerys’ direct control.

LC Hightower was a man who took his duty seriously, but when the King became a tyrant and threatened the peace and stability of the realm, then what? I think the LC would consider the effects of Aerys’ unjustified and brutal killing of Lord Stark and his son and compatriots, on top of Aerys’ other madness-induced violence (rape of Raella) and come to the conclusion that Aerys’s rule was intolerable and something needed to change.

Even if Hightower swore a vow to protect King Aerys, Rhaegar probably seemed a much more acceptable alternative, as he’s not violently paranoid* and not likely to turn the rest of the seven kingdoms against him in the way Aerys had. (*although I wonder if Rhaegar may have been bipolar).

In fact, I think the LC might have been relieved to know that Rhaegar was planning to make the necessary changes after the war which everyone expected him to win. All the LC, Arthur and Oswell had to do was sit tight in Dorne and protect pregnant Lyanna and Rhaegar’s soon-to-be-born child and await further orders from him.

But Rhaegar didn’t win and was killed and then Aerys was killed by s the son of the man who ordered the murder of Rhaegar’s children, and the man on the Iron Throne was the same man who killed Rhaegar and condoned the murders of Rhaegar’s children. At that point the whole thing was a loss, except for Rhaegar’s one surviving child and they would protect him with their lives. I think the three had regrets that they could not have saved Rhaegar and Aerys – guilt about failing in their duty as Kingsguard and for surviving after the royal family they swore to protect was slaughtered. For Oswell and Arthur, it would also be about grieving for a close friend and wanting to honor his legacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think R+L=J is "obvious" in the sense that most people probably don't delve that deeply beyond what is the basic story. My mom introduced me to the books, and she totally missed it. When I first read GoT, I immediately "knew" that Jon was Rheagar and Lyanna's son. I admit I wasn't convinced at that time that he was legit, though I've been swayed. But, I come from reading lots and lots of fantasy literature and pouring over the works of Joseph Campbell, as any truly dedicated Star Wars fan would do. Once you are familiar with the basics of the Myth Cycle and the common tropes, well...chosen one in hiding with special parents and certain gifts that allow him to be able to defeat the Big Bad? Um, hi Luke! Hi Harry! I mean, there are tons of examples. At that point, I do think it is obvious and it would be ignoring thousands of years of these stories resonating with people to pretend that such a story isn't happening right now just because it has happened before in other stories. That totally misses the point of the Myth Cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always feel like a good part of the group that claims "too cliche" and argues against any possibility of Rheagar and Lyanna having wed, among other things, are so entrenched in their views of where the story should go or will go or, I suppose more correctly, where it absolutely shouldn't go, that presenting any evidence to the contrary is a futile effort. What gets me is people who claim that any belief that Jon could have been a legitimate son or that he will be offered a crown is influenced by blind fanaticism, when their own view points are fueled by a sort of anti-fanaticism and/or an inherent, predisposed dislike of the character or the possibilities that surround him.

Well said. I honestly don't understand how Jon being legitimate is a cliche.

Sometimes the "too cliche" arguments make me want to post "You should pick up a dictionary and look up the word cliche". GRRM does use fantasy tropes but I have the utmost confidence that those tropes, or the vast majority at least, will play out in a manner that will not be considered cliched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alia, You make a very good point about LC Cole and his political maneuverings for what he thought was the good of the crown and the realm. He was partly responsible for the civil war that followed, but the Targaryen dynasty continued for long while after that. Also, I share some of your dislike of the KG. I’m not big on “just following orders” when it means standing by while the King commits atrocities. I think it’s reasonable to imagine that a man of honor would finally reach his limit. If LC Hightower wanted to protect the legacy of the King, not just the person of the King, he might have thought his best option was to chose Rhaegar.

As I said before, I think the Kings Guard at the ToJ had more than one motivation for protecting Jon and I think they would have done so even if they didn’t believe that he was Rhaegar’s true heir (which I think they did, assuming their words that Ned recalls in his dream are accurate:

“Ser Willem is a good man and true," said Ser Oswell.

"But not of the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold pointed out. "The Kingsguard does not flee.").

It’s already been established that Rhaegar’s closest personal friends were the same two Kingsguard that accompanied him in his abduction of Lyanna and remained with him in Dorne. I don’t think there’s much question where their true loyalties lay and staying away from Kings Landing kept them out of Aerys’ direct control.

LC Hightower was a man who took his duty seriously, but when the King became a tyrant and threatened the peace and stability of the realm, then what? I think the LC would consider the effects of Aerys’ unjustified and brutal killing of Lord Stark and his son and compatriots, on top of Aerys’ other madness-induced violence (rape of Raella) and come to the conclusion that Aerys’s rule was intolerable and something needed to change.

Even if Hightower swore a vow to protect King Aerys, Rhaegar probably seemed a much more acceptable alternative, as he’s not violently paranoid* and not likely to turn the rest of the seven kingdoms against him in the way Aerys had. (*although I wonder if Rhaegar may have been bipolar).

In fact, I think the LC might have been relieved to know that Rhaegar was planning to make the necessary changes after the war which everyone expected him to win. All the LC, Arthur and Oswell had to do was sit tight in Dorne and protect pregnant Lyanna and Rhaegar’s soon-to-be-born child and await further orders from him.

But Rhaegar didn’t win and was killed and then Aerys was killed by s the son of the man who ordered the murder of Rhaegar’s children, and the man on the Iron Throne was the same man who killed Rhaegar and condoned the murders of Rhaegar’s children. At that point the whole thing was a loss, except for Rhaegar’s one surviving child and they would protect him with their lives. I think the three had regrets that they could not have saved Rhaegar and Aerys – guilt about failing in their duty as Kingsguard and for surviving after the royal family they swore to protect was slaughtered. For Oswell and Arthur, it would also be about grieving for a close friend and wanting to honor his legacy.

Doesn't Hightower tell Jaime that it is not up to them to judge the king, right after the murders of Rickard and Brandon? Also, that brutal rape of Rhaella which Jaime remembers happened at the time when Hightower was at ToJ already. Given how he proclaims the loyalty to Aerys, I don't think he changed his stance much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't Hightower tell Jaime that it is not up to them to judge the king, right after the murders of Rickard and Brandon? Also, that brutal rape of Rhaella which Jaime remembers happened at the time when Hightower was at ToJ already. Given how he proclaims the loyalty to Aerys, I don't think he changed his stance much.

Yes. But we know that what the Kingsgaurd say and do is sometimes different than what they think. My theory is that regardless of what the LC told Jaime, he was not so dispassionate about Aerys' atrocities and when offered an alternative that allowed him to keep this vow by following Rhaegar's orders and staying in Dorne (and out of Aerys's control), he took it for the good of the realm and the King's legacy. In other words, he was turning a blind eye to Rhaegar's proposed coup plot if not actively supporting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. But we know that what the Kingsgaurd say and do is sometimes different than what they think. My theory is that regardless of what the LC told Jaime, he was not so dispassionate about Aerys' atrocities and when offered an alternative that allowed him to keep this vow by following Rhaegar's orders and staying in Dorne (and out of Aerys's control), he took it for the good of the realm and the King's legacy. In other words, he was turning a blind eye to Rhaegar's proposed coup plot if not actively supporting it.

I have always held that the White Bull fulfilled his obligation to retrieve Rhaegar, and then Rhaegar sent him directly back, to protect the secret location from the prying of the king. I mean, that once Rhaegar had been found, Ser Hightower escorted him to the gates of King's Landing, then Rhaegar ordered him to return to the tower, since he was released from his obligation to Aerys at that point. We know that Rhaegar always traveled in the company of a White Sword (usually Arthur, but perhaps mainly Arthur and Oswell), except when he visited Summer Hall's ruins. So, we must assume that at least one White Sword returned to King's Landing with Rhaegar. If the Kingsguard remained at King's Landing he would be placed at odds with his vow, if Aerys asked where Rhaegar had been hiding, why he had been hiding, and what he had been hiding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always held that the White Bull fulfilled his obligation to retrieve Rhaegar, and then Rhaegar sent him directly back, to protect the secret location from the prying of the king. I mean, that once Rhaegar had been found, Ser Hightower escorted him to the gates of King's Landing, then Rhaegar ordered him to return to the tower, since he was released from his obligation to Aerys at that point. We know that Rhaegar always traveled in the company of a White Sword (usually Arthur, but perhaps mainly Arthur and Oswell), except when he visited Summer Hall's ruins. So, we must assume that at least one White Sword returned to King's Landing with Rhaegar. If the Kingsguard remained at King's Landing he would be placed at odds with his vow, if Aerys asked where Rhaegar had been hiding, why he had been hiding, and what he had been hiding.

I agree, but I'm going to add to that my strong suspicion that for Aerys this was all about Lyanna from the start. That is, going back to the KotLT Aerys was obsessed with bringing the mystery knight to "justice", that the original "kidnaping" was in fact a rescue, and that in addition to Rhaegar, Hightower was charged with bringing in Lyanna. Him not returning to KL with Rhaegar would have been a way for him to fulfill that part of his directive that he could (return the Prince) without fulfilling that part that was abhorrent to Rhaegar (bringing in Lyanna) Rhaegar may have ordered him to return to ToJ specifically to that end, as I think that sort of parsing would have been more in character for him than for Hightower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. But we know that what the Kingsgaurd say and do is sometimes different than what they think. My theory is that regardless of what the LC told Jaime, he was not so dispassionate about Aerys' atrocities and when offered an alternative that allowed him to keep this vow by following Rhaegar's orders and staying in Dorne (and out of Aerys's control), he took it for the good of the realm and the King's legacy. In other words, he was turning a blind eye to Rhaegar's proposed coup plot if not actively supporting it.

I'm not saying that this is impossible but that we do not have any indication of a change of heart. Barristan had one only very late, after a lot of life-changing eye-openers. It is not inconceivable that Hightower never had one.

There is one thing I'd like to add about the "cliched" argument.

The number of motives that can be used to compose a story is limited while the number of stories to be told is infinite. Inevitably, the motives get repeated. Yet, somehow, even if the same motives are used over and over, stories do not feel repetitive if the motives are correctly implemented and fleshed out, and this is what truly matters - not so much what is done but how it is done. The use of a traditional motive does not detract from the quality of the story in the least.

Let me give a little example from my latest obssession, Assassin's Creed: the main characters of ACII and III, Ezio and Connor, share the same background feature of losing a family member to a violent death and being hell-bent on revenge. Ezio's is the traditional story of a careless younger son of a noble family who loses (almost) all, becomes a badass and hunts down those who hurt him and his (with a minor variation of staying his hand when it comes to the main villain).

On the other hand, Connor gets the subversions: the man whom he has been hunting all his life turns out not to be the one responsible; the ones responsible are the "good" guys whom Connor has sided with. Add to it that Connor's father is an antagonist but at a certain point, the two of them cooperate and there seems to be a chance of them coming together, until it's wasted and comes the tragic finale with a fight to the death, because Connor's father is protecting the man whom Connor has been hunting.

Now (as far as I can say from only watching game movies and not playing myself), Connor's story is more interesting but it is Ezio who wins the popularity contests, being handsome and charismatic and his traditional story well done.

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...