I must say, as an OG R+L=J hater, I'm done denying. I feel like we're just being stubborn. I think, rather than focusing on different parentages, we should maybe try to figure out how to patch the RLJ holes.
Wait, are you calling me stubborn? I am not stubborn! I defy anyone who calls me stubborn!
I will fight anyone to the ends of the earth who dares to call me stubborn!
I am the least stubborn person you ever met! Go on! Try me! I can out non-stubborn anyone!!!
In all seriousness--you may be totally right. And given how much is missing from the story, the holes in RLJ are likely totally patchable.
But I can't un-see the use of that sword. In books or show.
Hello. My name is Sly Wren. And I have Dawn blindness.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
The whole Dead Jon thing was a massive damp squib. We pretty much all expected him to be reanimated and he was, so no surprise there; the manner of his return - a mumble and a haircut - was massively underwhelming, and worst of all his character has changed not one iota. Thus, I have no expectations re. the resolution of Jon's parentage - probably we'll get a weak bit of dialogue telling us what most suspected for years, yeah R is the dad.
Possible. But they spent a lot of time and interviews insisting that Jon was dead and Kit was not coming back. BIG pushback against fan expectations.
This time, they muffled parts of the reveal and are hardly pushing back at all. My tinfoil hat says something's up!
Now, if you will excuse me, I'm late for my UFO-hunting party.
D&D honestly don't know at this juncture. They're waiting for TWOW to be finalised, or at least for GRRM to tell them definitively who the father is so they can get on and prepare that part of the script. Propping up Dawn at the end of the bed was a way to keep their options open (altho' I'm still in the 'Arthur = Dad' camp).
I agree with Matthew that they very likely know. No reason to troll us with that stupid shirt unless they know.
But propping Dawn up at the end of the bed was clearly deliberate. Same with the focus on Arthur and his death. If he's not the dad, he and that sword clearly matter somehow.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
Dunno, the show's idea of 'suspense' (at least for this last season, haven't really been following the previous ones, only sporadically) seems to be: 'Wait, why did they do that? Doesn't make sense unless there's some clever twist coming!' ... 'Hmmm, not looking good, but there's still some chance of a clever twist' ... 'pleaseletitmakesense pleaseletitmakesense' ... 'Nope, they went with the obvious and stupid AGAIN'
In other words, if they seem to be setting up RLJ in an obvious way (which they do), then RLJ it is ... even while they're still leaving a tiny possibility of it not being the case. (And I'm not saying RLJ is necessarily stupid, but the show is almost guarenteed to do it in a stupid way)
All very possible.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
But I can't un-see the use of that sword. In books or show.
Some people have interpreted Dawn, with Arthur Dayne's freshly spilled blood, as a fulfillment of Jon being "born beneath a bleeding star."
Personally, I don't believe that, and I think the scene was framed that way so that viewer attention would naturally flow from the action - placing down the sword - to the eventual subject of the frame - Lyanna's blood, its location, and its context.
That said, I'm pretty sure there's an SSM out there where GRRM says "the Sword of the Morning will rise again," so Dawn will eventually become important in the books, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of potential candidates among the known Daynes, sooo...
I must say, as an OG R+L=J hater, I'm done denying. I feel like we're just being stubborn. I think, rather than focusing on different parentages, we should maybe try to figure out how to patch the RLJ holes.
Wait, are you calling me stubborn? I am not stubborn! I defy anyone who calls me stubborn!
I will fight anyone to the ends of the earth who dares to call me stubborn!
I am the least stubborn person you ever met! Go on! Try me! I can out non-stubborn anyone!!!
In all seriousness--you may be totally right. And given how much is missing from the story, the holes in RLJ are likely totally patchable.
But I can't un-see the use of that sword. In books or show.
Hello. My name is Sly Wren. And I have Dawn blindness.
IMO the reason for showing us the sword is bc Jon is Dawn, bringer of light and he'll wield that sword. I know we're told "only a Dayne" can carry it but I think GRRM has intentionally omitted the part "until such time as a worthy Stark can have it back" since it's the Original Ice and all. Omitting that and other important Dayne deets keeps the mystery until a later big reveal. All the Jon/Dayne connections are there not bc of Jons parentage but bc of Ice/Dawn. And bc Ashara fell head over heels for a craggonman.
The blade was Valyrian steel, spell-forged and dark as smoke. Nothing held an edge like Valyrian steel.
The only thing missing from this scene on the show was a singer singing in the corner of the room performing the following piece by Purcell. I don't know how the oversight was made.
Some people have interpreted Dawn, with Arthur Dayne's freshly spilled blood, as a fulfillment of Jon being "born beneath a bleeding star."
Personally, I don't believe that, and I think the scene was framed that way so that viewer attention would naturally flow from the action - placing down the sword - to the eventual subject of the frame - Lyanna's blood, its location, and its context.
Yup. As far as I can tell, in the show, neither Mel nor anyone else talks about being born under a bleeding star. Mel talks about the darkness coming and the stars bleeding in general, but I couldn't find anyone talking about the prophecy including a bleeding star.
And, yes, the shot might just be a transition. But, they focused on the sword a lot in the previous scene, too.
That said, I'm pretty sure there's an SSM out there where GRRM says "the Sword of the Morning will rise again," so Dawn will eventually become important in the books, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of potential candidates among the known Daynes, sooo...
Yup! Something's coming re: the Daynes in the books.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
IMO the reason for showing us the sword is bc Jon is Dawn, bringer of light and he'll wield that sword. I know we're told "only a Dayne" can carry it but I think GRRM has intentionally omitted the part "until such time as a worthy Stark can have it back" since it's the Original Ice and all. Omitting that and other important Dayne deets keeps the mystery until a later big reveal. All the Jon/Dayne connections are there not bc of Jons parentage but bc of Ice/Dawn. And bc Ashara fell head over heels for a craggonman.
Possible--Ice/Dawn might get it done for Jon. And we have no backstory on why it's only a "worthy" Dayne. Or even what "worthy" is and how the Daynes decide what to do.
Still, if it is Arthur, they set up a HUGE gut punch for Ned and a BIG reason for him to lie about how he killed Arthur--a lie he may have intended to come clean on to Jon, but, at least according to show Bran, he did not EVER tell the real story or set the record straight.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
The only thing missing from this scene on the show was a singer singing in the corner of the room performing the following piece by Purcell. I don't know how the oversight was made.
I love this forum! Where else do we get jokes incorporating Purcell?
And I agree, ser. But I would also think that Handel would have done well, too.
And your new avatar is fabulous.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
The only thing missing from this scene on the show was a singer singing in the corner of the room performing the following piece by Purcell. I don't know how the oversight was made.
I love this forum! Where else do we get jokes incorporating Purcell?
And I agree, ser. But I would also think that Handel would have done well, too.
And your new avatar is fabulous.
I'm a Purcell fanboy, admittedly.
And I thought it was time for the Whitewolf to celebrate Summer.
I must say, as an OG R+L=J hater, I'm done denying. I feel like we're just being stubborn. I think, rather than focusing on different parentages, we should maybe try to figure out how to patch the RLJ holes.
Funny, but I'm a long-time RLJ liker and fence-sitter, and I think the issue is far from settled. If anything, the show has made me more confident that Jon was born at Starfall, and that his father is likely Arthur Dayne.
But I think RLJ hole-patching would be a wonderful and worthwhile group exercise.
Wanna start a thread for it?
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
Dunno, the show's idea of 'suspense' (at least for this last season, haven't really been following the previous ones, only sporadically) seems to be: 'Wait, why did they do that? Doesn't make sense unless there's some clever twist coming!' ... 'Hmmm, not looking good, but there's still some chance of a clever twist' ... 'pleaseletitmakesense pleaseletitmakesense' ... 'Nope, they went with the obvious and stupid AGAIN'
In other words, if they seem to be setting up RLJ in an obvious way (which they do), then RLJ it is ... even while they're still leaving a tiny possibility of it not being the case. (And I'm not saying RLJ is necessarily stupid, but the show is almost guarenteed to do it in a stupid way)
When confonted with an absolute truth, I can only offer a stern nod of agreement.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
GRRM, D&D, and Bryan Cogman had a week long meeting in 2013 to discuss what GRRM had written thus far of WoW, as well as to lay out a rough plot map for various character endings. It's from this, for example, that they learned that Hodor is "Hold the Door," a reveal GRRM acknowledges he'd been waiting to do for over 20 years, and was disappointed (in himself) for being beaten by the show.
While I might buy that the show hasn't confirmed the "R" part of RLJ, I don't believe that D&D don't know who Jon's parents are, because that's one of the few concrete answers that GRRM can provide, and while GRRM may be unprofessional when it comes to procrastinating, I have no reason to believe that he's operating dishonestly with HBO in this highly lucrative project just for the sake of protecting a plot point.
Wow, I'm further behind than I thought. Forgive the out of order catchup folks.
Great point Matthew. You've laid out some of my own concerns in your comment actually. GRRM has taken a methodical approach to his unfolding of the story's mysteries. And D&D have turned it into a pop-up book.
Literally.
Because they did not say Rhaegar was Jon's father on the show. If a lame infographic is the true means of revelation, I cry foul. It would be an enormous disgrace to fans, GRRM, and their own legacy as producers.
But propping Dawn up at the end of the bed was clearly deliberate. Same with the focus on Arthur and his death. If he's not the dad, he and that sword clearly matter somehow.
And, per the world book and SSM, only a son of Starfall may wield Dawn.
Some people have interpreted Dawn, with Arthur Dayne's freshly spilled blood, as a fulfillment of Jon being "born beneath a bleeding star."
Personally, I don't believe that, and I think the scene was framed that way so that viewer attention would naturally flow from the action - placing down the sword - to the eventual subject of the frame - Lyanna's blood, its location, and its context.
I thought it was interesting, visually speaking, that the last season ended with Jon Snow's death, in a bed of blood, and that this season ended (almost) with what appears to be his birth, also in a bed of blood. It made for a nice symmetry.
That being said, I don't see any reason for the camera to focus on the sword. The action had already ended. If anything, the sword is a distraction rather than a seque.
If we follow the camera...
Ned ascends the stairs.
Ned enters room.
A woman is laying down in a prominently featured bed, and two women are standing in the room.
Ned approaches.
Cut to sword being laid down at the foot of the bed, camera is focused upon Dawn's pommel and bloody linens, as Ned and Lyanna blurrily greet each other.
Cut to Lyanna's face, pan to Ned's
Plenty of imagery for fans of any stripe I think. The episode 3 prelude featured Arthur Dayne even more prominently than the books, and episode 10 focused once more upon his sword. If not for the following exchange in ep 3, there would've been nothing to connect Rhaegar to the scene at all.
Eddard Stark: "The Mad King is dead. Rhaegar lies beneath the ground. Why weren't you there to protect your prince?"
Arthur Dayne: "Our prince wanted us here."
In the book, we have no mention of Rhaegar in the toj dialogue of course. So the show did fans a solid by putting that in. Without that addition, Unsullied viewers would have no reason to even think of Rhaegar, which I find interesting.
Why didn't they cast Rhaegar, and film a scene with him? Why did they feature the fight instead of the Tourney at Harrenhal? Why did they cast Arthur, and lie about it?
It makes me suspicious. They trolled us pretty hard with Alfred Hunrith. Why?
It could be nothing of course, but it seems strange to me that they would fork out money on the fight scene if the fight itself were not a very significant part of the story. If RLJ is the story, I don't see why the fight and Arthur were so important (Gerold Hightower actually says more in the book). I'd rather see Rhaegar giving Lyanna a crown.
HBO needs their casual viewers to give a shit about Jon's parentage. And they need viewers to wonder who the father might be. If his father is Rhaegar, what reason have they given fans to really care about that?
What D&D did do, is make fans give a shit about Arthur Dayne. Why? Why is the Three Eyed Raven so disturbed by Ned's "victory"?
That said, I'm pretty sure there's an SSM out there where GRRM says "the Sword of the Morning will rise again," so Dawn will eventually become important in the books, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of potential candidates among the known Daynes, sooo...
And the world book states:
Though many houses have their heirloom swords, they mostly pass the blades down from lord to lord. Some, such as the Corbrays have done, may lend the blade to a son or brother for his lifetime, only to have it return to the lord. But that is not the way of House Dayne. The wielder of Dawn is always given the title of Sword of the Morning, and only a knight of House Dayne who is deemed worthy can carry it.
For this reason, the Swords of the Morning are all famous throughout the Seven Kingdoms. There are boys who secretly dream of being a son of Starfall so they might claim that storied sword and its title. Most famous of all was Ser Arthur Dayne, the deadliest of King Aerys II's Kingsguard, who defeated the Kingswood Brotherhood and won renown in every tourney and mêlée. He died nobly with his sworn brothers at the end of Robert's Rebellion, after Lord Eddard Stark was said to have killed him in single combat. Lord Stark then returned Dawn to Starfall, and to Ser Arthur's kin, as a sign of respect.
IMO the reason for showing us the sword is bc Jon is Dawn, bringer of light and he'll wield that sword. I know we're told "only a Dayne" can carry it but I think GRRM has intentionally omitted the part "until such time as a worthy Stark can have it back" since it's the Original Ice and all. Omitting that and other important Dayne deets keeps the mystery until a later big reveal. All the Jon/Dayne connections are there not bc of Jons parentage but bc of Ice/Dawn.
Very possible. And really, if Jon was born at Starfall, that alone might be enough. Added to that, Jon was nursed by Starfall's wetnurse. Thus regardless of his parentage, Jon may bear enough connections to Starfall and House Dayne to be deemed worthy of Dawn.
Mayhaps.
Both text and SSM seems to suggest the sword can only be bestowed upon a worthy son of house Dayne.
I think there is more hole than story, in terms of RLJ these days, but I do think it would be an interesting area to tackle.
Well, if they bring in a huge backstory where Rhaegar and Lyanna were in contact between Harrenhal and her disappearance, I could maybe see it. But that seems very unlikely given how we've been told the raven messaging works in Westeros--via the Maesters.
Or if he ended up with her (per my Tywin theory)--saved her from her attackers and she fell for him that way. . . those scenarios could work.
And I thought it was time for the Whitewolf to celebrate Summer.
Amen!
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
Fans of the series speculate about his parentage, with a large number believing that his true parentage is likely to be Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryen.[50]
In the Season 6 finale episode of Game of Thrones, titled "The WInds of Winter", this theory is confirmed to be true in the television series at least,as Bran sees the dying Lyanna giving baby Jon to her brother Eddard and making him swear to protect her child.
The bolded. . . huh. They give the statement and then the proof.
I find their "proof" a bit lacking. . . suggestive, but lacking.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.