Unless there has been some kind of massive communication between D&D and the show's production staff, they're not setting up Arthur Dayne as Jon's father. Their official production blog, which contains all kinds of inside (if mostly boring) stuff like storyboards and cast interviews has confirmed that, within the show's canon, Jon is Rhaegar's son.
Unless there has been some kind of massive communication between D&D and the show's production staff, they're not setting up Arthur Dayne as Jon's father. Their official production blog, which contains all kinds of inside (if mostly boring) stuff like storyboards and cast interviews has confirmed that, within the show's canon, Jon is Rhaegar's son.
Yep. And Jon Snow is dead.
Why must I always be the isle of crazy alone in an ocean of sensibility? The should to everybody else’s shouldn’t? The I-will to their better-nots?
I love that the most concrete confirmation of RLJ to date is that fucking mess of an infographic on a show production blog.
Especially since the article discussing the graphic in Entertainment Weekly says the show has "confirmed" Jon's father with the graphic AT THE SAME TIME it quotes the director in saying he cannot say who Jon's father is.
Unless there has been some kind of massive communication between D&D and the show's production staff, they're not setting up Arthur Dayne as Jon's father. Their official production blog, which contains all kinds of inside (if mostly boring) stuff like storyboards and cast interviews has confirmed that, within the show's canon, Jon is Rhaegar's son.
Wait--so the idea is that they actively muffled what Lyanna said, are telling their director NOT to say who Jon's father is in interviews, are having the Bran actor say in interviews that he didn't hear and doesn't know--the idea is that they are doing all of that AND still revealing Jon's paternity to us on a blog graphic???
Or--perhaps the guys who do the blog have some autonomy. And put up what they thought--a VERY plausible and likely theory, but one not "confirmed" by the show itself.
Yep. And Kit Harrington is never coming back to the show.
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.
I'm telling you guys, D&D don't know everything...or its not up to them to reveal it.So they just put popular theories on screen to fill in.It makes for great tv,and giving the fans what they want makes for amazing tv.
The truth is D&D created an out for themselves.We have no clue what Lyanna said to Ned.The inaudible moments before and when Bran was the focus is completely unknown to us and that was D&D's out.Whatever that was can change the context of everything we heard after.They just have to put the relevant phrases.
The toj scene could change in context itself.Its all about perception.
Or--perhaps the guys who do the blog have some autonomy. And put up what they thought--a VERY plausible and likely theory, but one not "confirmed" by the show itself.
I haven't been tracking interviews on the subject, and didn't know the party line was that it's still supposed to be vague. The blog guys probably do have some autonomy, though; or, if nothing else, a lack of oversight.
D&D aren't micromanaging every secret, as evidenced by the "Nights King" title being accidentally revealed in an episode synopsis, and things like Melisandre's age, the return of the Hound, and even Cersei destroying the sept have all been leaked (or inferred) from careless actor interviews.
That said, since D&D intended for the correct reading of the scene to be that Jon's father is still a mystery, that trumps everything else (for me), so you're absolutely right: I jumped the gun, and Jon's father is still a mystery, within the show's universe.
Doesn't this comparison essentially make the opposite case of what you actually intend? D&D, the people we're assuming cannot be trusted because they insisted Jon Snow was dead, are the ones now insisting that his parentage is still a mystery--it's a little blog that fucked up.
Unless there has been some kind of massive communication between D&D and the show's production staff, they're not setting up Arthur Dayne as Jon's father. Their official production blog, which contains all kinds of inside (if mostly boring) stuff like storyboards and cast interviews has confirmed that, within the show's canon, Jon is Rhaegar's son.
If you're talking about that info graphic, I'm pretty sure there' no line going from Rhaegar to Jon that says "parent". There's one going from Lyanna to Jon that says "parent" and there's only a line going from Rhaegar to Lyanna that says "abducted". So that doesn't confirm jack about whether or not he's Jon's dad. Only that rhaegar (alledgedly) abducted her. There's nothing in the word abducted that implies love or rape or pregnancy or sex that I am aware of. It certainly could IMPLY any of those things, but obviously doesn't NECESSITATE any of them either. The simple fact is, this infographic says or confirms nothing on who Jon's father is. It narrows it down, certainly, but other than that the simple fact of the matter is very much an open question in both the books and the show. Hence you have the mysterious dropping of the audio in the scene, and the ominous close up of the hilt of Dawn lain against Lyanna's bed of blood.
She say's "robert will kill him". I'm not saying I am ultimately correct, but this does fit with my theory. Remember one of the main points of my essay is that the Daynes (to a greater or lesser extent) share the purple eyes and silvery hair of the Targaryens. If the realm mistakenly believes Lyanna was kidnapped by Rheagar, when in truth she ran off with Arthur, the appearance of the child possibly looking like Rhaegar (because of Dayneish genes) would lead everyone to believe Jon is a Targaryen. Fortunately for Ned, he turned out looking like his mother.
Of course this point is much more relevant to the books than the show because the show didn't go with the purple eyes for Targaryens. But they do have silver hair. So it's still in play. Also I believe the show put so much emphasis on Arthur's death and Dawn for a reason. Part of my theory is that Arthur is represented by blood imagery and that he killed Lyanna with his "sword" (wink wink) leaving her in her bloody bed of birth.
I'm pretty sure there' no line going from Rhaegar to Jon that says "parent".
There's a parent line going from Rhaegar to Jon, it's to the left/above the line going from Rhaegar to Rhaenys and Aegon.
I'll repeat, though, that I made a big mistake here; between the infographic and the "previously on" at the beginning of the episode, I assumed they were done treating it as a mystery, because I wasn't aware of the interviews. I was wrong.
I'm pretty sure there' no line going from Rhaegar to Jon that says "parent".
There's a parent line going from Rhaegar to Jon, it's to the left/above the line going from Rhaegar to Rhaenys and Aegon.
I'll repeat, though, that I made a big mistake here; between the infographic and the "previously on" at the beginning of the episode, I assumed they were done treating it as a mystery, because I wasn't aware of the interviews. I was wrong.
Well forgive me, I'm color blind and that chart is a nightmare haha. I still think it's either a fuck up, an assumption of the part of the production staff, or D and D don't know Jon's father and the paternity will differ in the show than in the books. We'll see when The Winds of Winter comes out. I know who my money's on.
I haven't been tracking interviews on the subject, and didn't know the party line was that it's still supposed to be vague. The blog guys probably do have some autonomy, though; or, if nothing else, a lack of oversight.
D&D aren't micromanaging every secret, as evidenced by the "Nights King" title being accidentally revealed in an episode synopsis, and things like Melisandre's age, the return of the Hound, and even Cersei destroying the sept have all been leaked (or inferred) from careless actor interviews.
That said, since D&D intended for the correct reading of the scene to be that Jon's father is still a mystery, that trumps everything else (for me), so you're absolutely right: I jumped the gun, and Jon's father is still a mystery, within the show's universe.
I just realized I came off sounding rather. . . strident. My apologies--did not intend to do so and will be more careful in the future.
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.
She say's "robert will kill him". I'm not saying I am ultimately correct, but this does fit with my theory. Remember one of the main points of my essay is that the Daynes (to a greater or lesser extent) share the purple eyes and silvery hair of the Targaryens. If the realm mistakenly believes Lyanna was kidnapped by Rheagar, when in truth she ran off with Arthur, the appearance of the child possibly looking like Rhaegar (because of Dayneish genes) would lead everyone to believe Jon is a Targaryen. Fortunately for Ned, he turned out looking like his mother.
Of course this point is much more relevant to the books than the show because the show didn't go with the purple eyes for Targaryens. But they do have silver hair. So it's still in play.
On this--in the "Win or Die" episode in season 1, Ned explicitly states that Cersei must run with her children because he, Ned, will not have her kids' blood on his hands. And that wherever she goes, Robert's wrath will follow her.
The books have Ned say something similar.
Sounds like they said flat out (in book and show) that Ned believed Robert would kill any child if the betrayal/vengeance was enough. So, seems like that would apply to Arthur's kid with Lyanna, too, regardless of what he looked like. Arthur helped "steal" Lyanna. Robert would likely assume Arthur raped her. And would want the kid dead.
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.
I just realized I came off sounding rather. . . strident. My apologies--did not intend to do so and will be more careful in the future.
No need for apologies, your reaction was right--that post I made at the top was way more dismissive than I intended, and I should have known better, since I've been considering "giving up" on the Heresy thread for essentially the same reason (too much dismissive attitude from a particular poster).
Regardless of what ends up happening, treating any theory as confirmed doesn't serve to do anything but shut down discussion, so I deserved some scolding. B-|
She say's "robert will kill him". I'm not saying I am ultimately correct, but this does fit with my theory. Remember one of the main points of my essay is that the Daynes (to a greater or lesser extent) share the purple eyes and silvery hair of the Targaryens. If the realm mistakenly believes Lyanna was kidnapped by Rheagar, when in truth she ran off with Arthur, the appearance of the child possibly looking like Rhaegar (because of Dayneish genes) would lead everyone to believe Jon is a Targaryen. Fortunately for Ned, he turned out looking like his mother.
Of course this point is much more relevant to the books than the show because the show didn't go with the purple eyes for Targaryens. But they do have silver hair. So it's still in play.
On this--in the "Win or Die" episode in season 1, Ned explicitly states that Cersei must run with her children because he, Ned, will not have her kids' blood on his hands. And that wherever she goes, Robert's wrath will follow her.
The books have Ned say something similar.
Sounds like they said flat out (in book and show) that Ned believed Robert would kill any child if the betrayal/vengeance was enough. So, seems like that would apply to Arthur's kid with Lyanna, too, regardless of what he looked like. Arthur helped "steal" Lyanna. Robert would likely assume Arthur raped her. And would want the kid dead.
Though it obviously works for Rhaegar's kid, too.
Right but my point is the Arthur Dayne is not a Targaryen. His child with Lyanna is not a political threat to Robert's reign. House Dayne is well revered. Even if the realm learned of Dayne's oathbreaking, they might look upon King Robert's butchering of Dayne's son as itself a mad and disturbing act. So Robert would have motive to kill the child no matter what. What he would not have is a Justifiable reason in the eyes of the realm. Not that that would necessarily have stopped him, but it might not have gone well for him (or the Starks, Arryns, and Tullys for that matter).
However if the realm believed falsely that Rhaegar was Jon's father it would give Robert both motive and a legitimate excuse to remove a Targaryen heir from the picture, thus turning what was an act of pointless brutality into a ugly, but necessary securing of the new Baratheon reign.
Right but my point is the Arthur Dayne is not a Targaryen. His child with Lyanna is not a political threat to Robert's reign. House Dayne is well revered. Even if the realm learned of Dayne's oathbreaking, they might look upon King Robert's butchering of Dayne's son as itself a mad and disturbing act. So Robert would have motive to kill the child no matter what. What he would not have is a Justifiable reason in the eyes of the realm. Not that that would necessarily have stopped him, but it might not have gone well for him (or the Starks, Arryns, and Tullys for that matter).
However if the realm believed falsely that Rhaegar was Jon's father it would give Robert both motive and a legitimate excuse to remove a Targaryen heir from the picture, thus turning what was an act of pointless brutality into a ugly, but necessary securing of the new Baratheon reign.
Very true. But, given Ned's take on Cersei's children, seems like he, at least, was convinced that Robert would take his wrath out even on the uber-powerful Lannisters and those little kids.
It might be really stupid for Robert to kill a Dayne heir, but if he was angry enough, seems like Ned thinks Robert would kill children even from powerful, influential houses.
That said--I fully agree that Ned may have also hedged his bets re: Jon's appearance. That's way too big a risk, given how muck kids can change, not to worry that the kid might look Targaryen-ish, as Daynes apparently can.
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.
No need for apologies, your reaction was right--that post I made at the top was way more dismissive than I intended, and I should have known better, since I've been considering "giving up" on the Heresy thread for essentially the same reason (too much dismissive attitude from a particular poster).
Regardless of what ends up happening, treating any theory as confirmed doesn't serve to do anything but shut down discussion, so I deserved some scolding.
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.
Right but my point is the Arthur Dayne is not a Targaryen. His child with Lyanna is not a political threat to Robert's reign. House Dayne is well revered. Even if the realm learned of Dayne's oathbreaking, they might look upon King Robert's butchering of Dayne's son as itself a mad and disturbing act. So Robert would have motive to kill the child no matter what. What he would not have is a Justifiable reason in the eyes of the realm. Not that that would necessarily have stopped him, but it might not have gone well for him (or the Starks, Arryns, and Tullys for that matter).
However if the realm believed falsely that Rhaegar was Jon's father it would give Robert both motive and a legitimate excuse to remove a Targaryen heir from the picture, thus turning what was an act of pointless brutality into a ugly, but necessary securing of the new Baratheon reign.
Very true. But, given Ned's take on Cersei's children, seems like he, at least, was convinced that Robert would take his wrath out even on the uber-powerful Lannisters and those little kids.
It might be really stupid for Robert to kill a Dayne heir, but if he was angry enough, seems like Ned thinks Robert would kill children even from powerful, influential houses.
That said--I fully agree that Ned may have also hedged his bets re: Jon's appearance. That's way too big a risk, given how muck kids can change, not to worry that the kid might look Targaryen-ish, as Daynes apparently can.
Precisely. Ned knew all too well that Robert's fury could threaten undo all they had done. And so he had to protect the child's identity. For Ned this was both DEEPLY personal (safeguarding his beloved nephew) and DEEPLY political (safeguarding all the Starks, his friends, allies and bannermen).