Post by voice on Jun 22, 2016 4:40:41 GMT
Oh certainly. It's what we've got, so it's what our theories should try to work with. However if it turns out that there was nobody else there, I won't be hugely surprised. My point here was simply to point out that we're dangling a lot of framework on a single word, particularly given the words occurs very early on in the text. The first draft of those early chapters was written before much of the detail had been determined.
We agree fully. The "They" could be like Tyrion's somersault.
But if the tower of joy really were as important as is being suggested (Lyanna's death place, Jon's birth place, the Joyeuse Garde honeymoon suite) then wouldn't GRRM have worked those details out?
It seems unlikely to me that the "They" is an oversight, completely possible, but unlikely. I think GRRM has a very clear mental image of Ned holding Lyanna's body, and knows exactly who accompanied Howland into the room.
And while we are certainly composing symphonies from a single note, the "They" is but one anomaly that bothers me regarding the Lyanna@toj narrative. We can move on to some others if you feel we've squeezed all the juice from this lemon.
Some people seem to develop a sense of team loyalty about it, and thus view anyone doubting their view as a personal challenge. It's all very odd. Even as a believer in RLJ I find the R+L=J threads in The Other Place to be a cesspit at times.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Loyalty. Loyalty to a fictional character's presumed parent.
And it is a militant loyalty. It's bizarre.
I've invited many royalists from the mother ship, but it's been a while. I should send out some messages again soon. sfdanny stops by every once in a while. They are welcome at the Hearth. While we have a lot of alternative thinkers and sculptors of cracked ceramics, we also have our fair number of RLJ supporters. I hope it grows.
It's all about creating a healthy space for people to bounce ideas around, and the more ideas, the better.
But yeah, regardless of the fantasy fiction parentage scenario we find most plausible, there's no reason to attack other actual human beings simply because they read the books and found another scenario to be plausible. As I often say, the conversation is the reward. And such hostility only prevents rewarding conversation. I've seen people join Westeros, post their OP, get bullied, and never post again. That's no way to run a forum, imo, and I've seen the moderators protect some of the more hostile offenders.
And I should mention, just in case it needs to be mentioned, that count myself as an RLJ supporter. I no longer find it the most plausible scenario, but I quite like the idea of Jon being Rhaegar and Lyanna's son. It is an easy idea to like, and I always liked the "Son of Ice and Fire" angle. I lean towards a more natural light source these days, but I would still be happy with a dragonwolf.
This coming Sunday, there's a pretty high likelihood that the show will have a big ToJ reveal.
You think so? I think they will reveal Lyanna, Ashara, or some woman in the castle, but not a father. They will likely reveal the child is Jon or Dany (or both), but I think they'll wait for a future season for the father.
If they reveal the child and his name is Aegon, I'll be laughing my ass off.
While the details may not be exactly the same, if the show reveals Arthur is Jon's dad, I'll assume that's almost certainly how it'll go down in the books. If it reveals Rhaegar, I will consider RLJ virtually proven. Whatever is revealed, some people will argue that the show and the books will be different. Of course that's possible. However I'll bet right now that if RLJ is revealed, that view will mostly be held by people who currently don't believe in RLJ, while if RLJ is denied it will be mostly RLJ supporters who make the claim the books will be different.
So Spake D&D:
“People are talking about whether the books are going to be spoiled – and it’s really not true,” Benioff said. “So much of what we’re doing diverges from the books at this point. And while there are certain key elements that will be the same, we’re not going to talk so much about that – and I don’t think George is either. People are going to be very surprised when they read the books after the show. They’re quite divergent in so many respects for the remainder of the show.”
But yes. It will be very a very interesting chapter of the forum-verse in any case. If the show reveals Rhaegar to be the father, I will want to believe it, but until the book is out, it will be hard to give it much credibility. D&D have already begun using fan theories in place of canon (Benjen=Coldhands) and it will be impossible to know what elements are canonical, and which are simply their own preferences.
True, but not true that you had named them the shoes of joy. You would have described them as the shoes of joy. If you name an object, you are giving it a name, and names should be capitalised. It may be that GRRM is using "named" hyperbolically, of course. I'm not sure the grammatical analysis is worth making thought. Whether Rhaegar named or described the tower thus, he still must have had a reason to do so. You wouldn't call your shoes awesome unless you liked them.
But by quotative accounts, I have named them the shoes of joy. All we need is for Rhaegar to have said enough about some tower in the Red Mountains of Dorne to spawn a rumor that he had named a tower in the red mountains of Dorne as one of joy. Ned attributes the "naming" to hearsay.
I "named" the shoes, technically speaking, as "Jordans." (proper noun)
I praised them, and set them apart from my other pairs of shoes (there are many towers in the Red Mountains) by naming that pair the shoes of joy. (not a proper noun, but a naming nonetheless)
As you point out, if Rhaegar, Prince of the realm and heir apparent to the Iron Throne had formally named the tower, it should be capitalized.
And yet, it is not capitalized in the book.
That, combined with the hearsay, tells me the tower of joy is not a proper name.
While Barristan Selmy "named" Renly Baratheon a prancing jackanapes, that did not mean the lord of Storm's End was thenceforth The Prancing Jackanapes... although... I can how one could make the case for Renly actually being The Prancing Jackanapes during the Wot5K.
The Arthurian story has the summer prince kidnapping the winter maiden and taking her to a tower which in a later form of the legend is named as the Joyous Tower. GRRMs story has a summer prince kidnapping a winter maiden and it has a tower of joy where the prince of summer's companions are certainly found. Of course GRRM doesn't have to (and isn't) following every detail -- but I think it's a pretty strong reason to assume that Lyanna was indeed at the tower, just as Ned's dream implies.
As I said, I like the Dolorous/Joyeuse Garde symbolism. But if anything, I think it suggests that Dayne was making the two-backed beast with Lyanna.
In that story, the most famous knight in the realm (Lancelot) is revealed to have been the secret lover of the queen (Guinevere).
And I believe you are suggesting Lyanna is the queen. If Lyanna is the queen, wouldn't Rhaegar be the "king" who crowned her?
And who is the most famous knight of the round table?
Rhaegar=King Arthur
Arthur Dayne=Lancelot
...or, GRRM has simply deconstructed the entire thing and used the rubble to build eight cairns upon the ridge.