The thing is though that Brandon's the one Stark I'm pretty confident isn't Jon's baby daddy.
It was a tasty observation from @morrigansraven, but I'm with you on this. Not only was he a bit dead, but you'd think Lyanna's comments about Robert would apply to Brandon, too.
There are two characters, Jon and Joff, who are repeatedly contrasted with each other
I must have missed this where are they "repeatedly" contrasted against each other exclusively.Also,Joff's looks in relation is not consistent on page until Stannis/Arryn brings it up and until Ned figures it out.But that question never crosses anyone's mind.Not even Ned's.
How's it not hard? Where's the connection? Cersei thinks very highly of her golden brother, and despises Robert.
This isn't a matter of thinking highly of her brother or defending her brother.Her tonal phrase place intamacy on Jamie and removes it from Robert.That's the point i'm trying to make and that's what IMO confirmed Ned's thought. Which i will add we never get in totality how he arrived at it. I'm paraphrasing her but Ned on thinking back on it when he decided to send the girls back to WF says "One day he will tell Sansa how her words revealed the truth." This to me doesn't involved i figured it out because its what happened in our family with your aunt and your uncle or me.His spontaneous outburst after Sansa's remark "out of the mouth of babes," again doesn't evoke this is from experiance.
How does the fact that they tried to kill Bran give any hint at all that they were having an incestuous relationship? For Bran to learn that Cersei's children were not Robert's is entirely enough reason to want to silence him. Why would Ned assume that Bran learned this by seeing Cersei having sex with one of her brothers?
Well is what Ned said,he was the one that says Bran must have found out some truth about it and they tried to kill him.So again,i think GRRM wrote Ned's process of finding out the way normal humans think.We don't need all the pieces of a puzzle to see that it makes a face.certain things will just click.
The idea I am proposing here is that Ned already had the idea in his head that such a pure appearance could be the result of incest, from Jon's example. Thus, even without any evidence of who the father is from the appearance of the kids, Ned has a reason to consider Jaime as a possibility, and sees that it fits. If he did not have that prior example, why would he jump to that conclusion?
And what i'm saying is that he had the idea in his head because eventhough he didn't have most of the pieces,he had enough to make that guess.Of which the look of the kids in conjunction with Robert's gene against Lannister genes was enough to make him think it was Cersie and another Lannister.The process of determining it was Jamie from Ned's point of view didn't need to be in depth all he had to do was consider.
1.Proximity and access- Who was around her the most? Who had the most access to her and who was she close to? 2.Secondly,her conversation in the garden and the intimate endearment of which she spoke about Jamie and distanced herself from Robert by tell Ned "his Robert" was the icing.
"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes"--Sherlock Holmes"
But glad someone did finally touch on it. It does tend to get ignored for the "Ew factor" but there certainly is evidence for it. Can I ask why you didn't include Rickard? He falls under the same category as Brandon due to (at least perceived) timeline issues, but he at least over Brandon, Benjen, and Lyanna has a factor going for him that we know that he had a particular Stark feature which Jon inherited: the long face
<snip> I do think the timeline problem is a pretty major one. While there is scope for shenanigans to have been played with our understanding of the timeline, there's simply so much intertwined at this stage that I think it's very unlikely. So much of what we know of events around the time of the rebellion would have to be wrong, and so many things GRRM has written would have to turn out to be deceptive. With Rickard even deader that Brandon, that's a problem for me. <snip>
To take this seriously one has to ignore the timeline. Specifically one has to think George either made a huge error or he flat out lied to readers when he told us that Jon was "eight to nine" months older than Daenerys. His quote means Jon is conceived after both Rickard and Brandon are dead, and after the young Benjen and Ned are separated from Lyanna by the tide of the rebellion. Really doesn't work.
Also, cousin marriage in Westeros isn't considered incest. Lots of examples in various Houses to prove it isn't so. Tyrion, if he is the son of Tywin and Joanna, is not a product of incest.
Allen Muth and his younger sister Patricia married and had three children. After they abandoned the middle child, who was disabled, the State of Wisconsin petitioned to terminate their parental rights because of their incestuous parenthood. After the courts approved the termination, both Allen and Patricia were convicted of incest and sentenced to years in prison.
Ned also grew up apart from his sister, and might only have seen her rarely.
Which reminds me of the fact that Ned is awfully, awfully close to his sister that he rarely saw. I mean, if he went to the Vale at 8, Lyanna would have been, what 4? 5? And if he saw her a couple of times a year, how would they develop the deep and intimate relationship that is implied in the books?
Unless the deep and intimate relationship didn't come from childhood, and didn't develop until they were older.....
<snip> I do think the timeline problem is a pretty major one. While there is scope for shenanigans to have been played with our understanding of the timeline, there's simply so much intertwined at this stage that I think it's very unlikely. So much of what we know of events around the time of the rebellion would have to be wrong, and so many things GRRM has written would have to turn out to be deceptive. With Rickard even deader that Brandon, that's a problem for me. <snip>
To take this seriously one has to ignore the timeline. Specifically one has to think George either made a huge error or he flat out lied to readers when he told us that Jon was "eight to nine" months older than Daenerys. His quote means Jon is conceived after both Rickard and Brandon are dead, and after the young Benjen and Ned are separated from Lyanna by the tide of the rebellion. Really doesn't work.
Also, cousin marriage in Westeros isn't considered incest. Lots of examples in various Houses to prove it isn't so. Tyrion, if he is the son of Tywin and Joanna, is not a product of incest.
Welcome Sfdanny and nice to see you join the convo.I don't think GRRM lied or made a mistake i think we the fans screwed ourselves with that one.Its something i've brought up over and over again.If GRRM had said Jon was born 1 month or so of the sack there would be no out for him or any ambiguity.But his answer prompts us to question what Dany was told about her birth.Ambiguity favors Dany's supposed birth when he says "Jon was born 8-9 months before Dany."
It makes no sense to repeatedly act as if Jon's parantage is a mystery when all that is needed to figure R+L=J out is simple math and accepting the supeficial perception of a lot of characters.So i don't think its a matter of ignoring timelines,but a matter of recognizing that information provided by characters in several cases aren't objective.Also,critically thinking about what George said.
"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes"--Sherlock Holmes"
Now with this in mind, I'm reinterpreting some of the more famous passages from Ned's POV in AGOT.
Like this one:
"Robert will never keep to one bed," Lyanna had told him at Winterfell, on the night long ago when their father had promised her hand to the young Lord of Storm's End. "I hear he has gotten a child on some girl in the Vale." Ned had held the babe in his arms; he could scarcely deny her, nor would he lie to his sister, but he had assured her that what Robert did before their betrothal was of no matter, that he was a good man and true who would love her with all his heart. Lyanna had only smiled. "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man's nature."
When you brought this up, it made me think of Cersei's convo with Ned as well, about Robert being unfaithful.
honestly, I think this might be the one possibility that might shock the most readers across the board, collectively. However, Ned doesn't feel jealousy toward Robert like Jaime did. He says Robert loved Lyanna more than he did, and loved Robert for it- or something like that.
“Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armour yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.” ― George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones
To take this seriously one has to ignore the timeline. Specifically one has to think George either made a huge error or he flat out lied to readers when he told us that Jon was "eight to nine" months older than Daenerys. His quote means Jon is conceived after both Rickard and Brandon are dead, and after the young Benjen and Ned are separated from Lyanna by the tide of the rebellion. Really doesn't work.
Also, cousin marriage in Westeros isn't considered incest. Lots of examples in various Houses to prove it isn't so. Tyrion, if he is the son of Tywin and Joanna, is not a product of incest.
Welcome Sfdanny and nice to see you join the convo.I don't think GRRM lied or made a mistake i think we the fans screwed ourselves with that one.Its something i've brought up over and over again.If GRRM had said Jon was born 1 month or so of the sack there would be no out for him or any ambiguity.But his answer prompts us to question what Dany was told about her birth.Ambiguity favors Dany's supposed birth when he says "Jon was born 8-9 months before Dany."
It makes no sense to repeatedly act as if Jon's parantage is a mystery when all that is needed to figure R+L=J out is simple math and accepting the supeficial perception of a lot of characters.So i don't think its a matter of ignoring timelines,but a matter of recognizing that information provided by characters in several cases aren't objective.Also,critically thinking about what George said.
Thank you for the welcome, wolfmaid, and thanks to others who invited me to check out these forums as well. I've been very impressed with kingmonkey's contributions over at Westeros.org, especially his wonderful posts of the intersection between Martin's work and Celtic mythology. So, seeing his post made me want to read his take on a subject I think is a bit far from the mainstream. No problem with that. A serious look at outside-the-box possibilities is, or can be, very good.Having said that, I'm a little surprised why the timeline problems aren't dealt with upfront, and with more urgency. It's a huge barrier to overcome if one wants this scenario not to be dismissed out of hand. If one thinks the timeline is wrong, then show how, please. Or please show how dead men father children, or Ned and/or Benjen can logically and realistically be brought together with Lyanna during the needed time period. A time period in which it looks very much like they are separated by hundreds, if not thousands of leagues, and on different sides of warring armies. Overlooking or dismissing these difficulties is what gets these Stark incest scenarios dismissed as crackpot, and rightly so.
I was also surprised by the assertion that it is significant that Tyrion is born from a marriage of two Lannisters - cousins - and the implication this is somehow considered incest. From where does this assertion come from? Perhaps the same place the percentages of likelihood for each Stark brother came? Please don't take that as criticism of your numbers. I like the humor, and in this kind of exploratory essay I think the tone is great.
kingmonkey, as always, it is an entertaining read when one goes through your posts. I'd encourage you to keep pushing the envelope, but this one I can't help but echo your sentiments concerning "not being sold" on this theory.
wolfmaid, I've never said "all that is needed to figure R+L=J out is simple math" nor is that an accurate depiction of my remarks on your part. Martin has gone to great lengths, in my opinion, to keep not only the possibility of R+L=J alive, but also the possibility Jon's mother was Ashara Dayne, or Wylla, or even a fisherman's daughter from the area of the Three Sisters. Not that I think all are equally likely, but they are supported in the text. Many of the more out-of-the-box possibilities for Jon's parents have no support in the text. It is not a "superficial perception" to note these facts. Lastly, the remark about Daenerys's "supposed birth" reads like Preston Jacobs territory. I don't think that what your shooting for here, but I could be wrong. Again, thanks for the welcome.
Welcome Sfdanny and nice to see you join the convo.I don't think GRRM lied or made a mistake i think we the fans screwed ourselves with that one.Its something i've brought up over and over again.If GRRM had said Jon was born 1 month or so of the sack there would be no out for him or any ambiguity.But his answer prompts us to question what Dany was told about her birth.Ambiguity favors Dany's supposed birth when he says "Jon was born 8-9 months before Dany."
It makes no sense to repeatedly act as if Jon's parantage is a mystery when all that is needed to figure R+L=J out is simple math and accepting the supeficial perception of a lot of characters.So i don't think its a matter of ignoring timelines,but a matter of recognizing that information provided by characters in several cases aren't objective.Also,critically thinking about what George said.
Thank you for the welcome, wolfmaid, and thanks to others who invited me to check out these forums as well. I've been very impressed with kingmonkey's contributions over at Westeros.org, especially his wonderful posts of the intersection between Martin's work and Celtic mythology. So, seeing his post made me want to read his take on a subject I think is a bit far from the mainstream. No problem with that. A serious look at outside-the-box possibilities is, or can be, very good.Having said that, I'm a little surprised why the timeline problems aren't dealt with upfront, and with more urgency. It's a huge barrier to overcome if one wants this scenario not to be dismissed out of hand. If one thinks the timeline is wrong, then show how, please. Or please show how dead men father children, or Ned and/or Benjen can logically and realistically be brought together with Lyanna during the needed time period. A time period in which it looks very much like they are separated by hundreds, if not thousands of leagues, and on different sides of warring armies. Overlooking or dismissing these difficulties is what gets these Stark incest scenarios dismissed as crackpot, and rightly so.
I was also surprised by the assertion that it is significant that Tyrion is born from a marriage of two Lannisters - cousins - and the implication this is somehow considered incest. From where does this assertion come from? Perhaps the same place the percentages of likelihood for each Stark brother came? Please don't take that as criticism of your numbers. I like the humor, and in this kind of exploratory essay I think the tone is great.
kingmonkey, as always, it is an entertaining read when one goes through your posts. I'd encourage you to keep pushing the envelope, but this one I can't help but echo your sentiments concerning "not being sold" on this theory.
wolfmaid, I've never said "all that is needed to figure R+L=J out is simple math" nor is that an accurate depiction of my remarks on your part. Martin has gone to great lengths, in my opinion, to keep not only the possibility of R+L=J alive, but also the possibility Jon's mother was Ashara Dayne, or Wylla, or even a fisherman's daughter from the area of the Three Sisters. Not that I think all are equally likely, but they are supported in the text. Many of the more out-of-the-box possibilities for Jon's parents have no support in the text. It is not a "superficial perception" to note these facts. Lastly, the remark about Daenerys's "supposed birth" reads like Preston Jacobs territory. I don't think that what your shooting for here, but I could be wrong. Again, thanks for the welcome.
I think a miscommunication occured i wasn't saying you were saying that,it was just something i was pointing out which went toward the wider conversation regarding the timelines.I haven't read too many out-of-the-box possibilites for Jon's parentage but there are some.As for Dany's birth Preston Jacobs and his beliefs have nothing to do with sound arguements,if he's making sound arguements and observations more power to him.And the introduction of him into this is a distraction, as it has no bearing again on the merit of the arguement in question which i'm sorry to say proponents of the assertion that Jon was born 1 month or so of the sack ignore.
"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes"--Sherlock Holmes"
Having said that, I'm a little surprised why the timeline problems aren't dealt with upfront, and with more urgency. It's a huge barrier to overcome if one wants this scenario not to be dismissed out of hand. If one thinks the timeline is wrong, then show how, please. Or please show how dead men father children, or Ned and/or Benjen can logically and realistically be brought together with Lyanna during the needed time period. A time period in which it looks very much like they are separated by hundreds, if not thousands of leagues, and on different sides of warring armies. Overlooking or dismissing these difficulties is what gets these Stark incest scenarios dismissed as crackpot, and rightly so.
Some people believe that GRRM has been playing shenanigans with the timeline, and that 8-9 months before Danny SSM hides an alternative birthdate for Dany than the one we've been given. I didn't cover that possibility in the essay (because I've seen no evidence for it), which leaves timeline as a major obstacle. If Jon's father is anyone but Rhaegar, it's got to be someone who could conceivably have had access to Lyanna some months after the abduction. I think I covered this in the essay. Brandon was too dead to be seriously in contention. Ned is an outside possibility -- let's remember, for example, that we don't know that Rhaegar took Lyanna straight to the ToJ. For all we know, she may have been in the Riverlands around the time of the Battle of the Bells. Benjen gets the highest likelihood in my essay largely for this timeline reason. We have no information about Benjen's movements during the war, only that he was the Stark in Winterfell by the end of the war. Where was he at the start? We don't know.
I was also surprised by the assertion that it is significant that Tyrion is born from a marriage of two Lannisters - cousins - and the implication this is somehow considered incest. From where does this assertion come from? Perhaps the same place the percentages of likelihood for each Stark brother came? Please don't take that as criticism of your numbers. I like the humor, and in this kind of exploratory essay I think the tone is great.
No assertion that it is incestuous at all. Nor was the marriage between Rickard and Lyarra Stark. Tyrion is of an older generation than Dany or Jon -- though at the younger end, he's of the generation of Cersei and Jaime, and of Brandon, Ned, Benjen and Lyanna. The suggestion here is that the three key families of the series have a significant parallel in they way they interbreed. The Targaryens have been pressing the incest button for generations, as a way of concentrating the unique Targaryen traits in their offspring. The Starks and the Lannisters have not. It's interesting then that within the same generation, both families intermarried, Tywin and Rickard both marrying a cousin. Thus, Rhaegar, Viserys and Dany have two Targaryen parents. Jaime, Cersei and Tyrion have two Lannister parents. Ned, Brandon, Benjen and Lyanna have two Stark parents.
Our three main characters are Jon, Dany and Tyrion. In each case, their mothers died giving birth to them, and in each case they are "Bastards and broken things". This parallel is unquestionable. In two cases, both their parents were of the same family. In one, brother and sister. In the other, cousins. There is no cousin option for the third case. There is a brother and sister option.
In the Targaryen case, the doubling up of Targ genes is stronger. Their parents were siblings, not cousins. What's more, Dany is second generation. Her grandparents were siblings too. If S+L=J, there's a doubling up in Jon's case too. In the Lannister case, that doubling up did occur, but it was Joffrey and his siblings, not Tyrion, who was the result. Thus Tyrion doesn't qualify as being an ultraLannister in the way that Dany could be considered an ultrTarg and Jon, if S+L=J, an UltraStark. But then this isn't the Song of Ice and Fire and Lions, is it? Strangely enough it might turn out that the death of Jaime & Cersei's children consigns the Lannisters to be also-rans.
kingmonkey, as always, it is an entertaining read when one goes through your posts. I'd encourage you to keep pushing the envelope, but this one I can't help but echo your sentiments concerning "not being sold" on this theory.
Indeed. I didn't think this essay was going to convert anyone, but I hope it has opened people's eyes that this normally quickly dismissed theory is worth a much closer look, and entertained people while doing it. The theory I'm closest to sold on is R+L=J but it's no certainty, and interesting to look at the alternatives. This is one that is thematically very credible, offers explanations for a couple of unknowns, and doesn't require us to reject things we already think we know. I think that makes it an interesting alternative.
I must have missed this where are they "repeatedly" contrasted against each other exclusively.Also, Joff's looks in relation is not consistent on page until Stannis/Arryn brings it up and until Ned figures it out.But that question never crosses anyone's mind.Not even Ned's.
I covered this somewhat in the essay. The opening section of the books, with the Royal family visiting Winterfell, is full of contrasts between Jon and Joff. The very first time we meet Joff, Arya highlights the contrast between them. The relevance of Joff's appearance to his parentage arises in an argument between Sansa and Arya, who have previously more than once discussed the relevance of Jon's appearance to his parentage.
This isn't a matter of thinking highly of her brother or defending her brother.Her tonal phrase place intamacy on Jamie and removes it from Robert.That's the point i'm trying to make and that's what IMO confirmed Ned's thought. Which i will add we never get in totality how he arrived at it. I'm paraphrasing her but Ned on thinking back on it when he decided to send the girls back to WF says "One day he will tell Sansa how her words revealed the truth." This to me doesn't involved i figured it out because its what happened in our family with your aunt and your uncle or me.His spontaneous outburst after Sansa's remark "out of the mouth of babes," again doesn't evoke this is from experiance.
Surely if Sansa's words revealed the truth, then it can't have been Cersei's words which revealed the truth?
Well is what Ned said,he was the one that says Bran must have found out some truth about it and they tried to kill him.So again,i think GRRM wrote Ned's process of finding out the way normal humans think.We don't need all the pieces of a puzzle to see that it makes a face.certain things will just click.
The process is a complete non-sequitur. Bran found out some truth that they tried to kill him for, but there's nothing in that fact that remotely hints at what that truth actually was. Only that it was something worth killing for. As soon as you get the fact that Cersei's children are not Roberts, it's already a reason worth killing for.
1.Proximity and access- Who was around her the most? Who had the most access to her and who was she close to?
Why would it have to be the person she was around the most? Why would it have to be the same father for the three kids?
Most importantly, why wouldn't you add a rider to such questions along the lines "Apart from people she'd be very unlikely to shag, such as her brother, who she could be expected to be close to and would have access to her for entirely other reasons"?
2.Secondly,her conversation in the garden and the intimate endearment of which she spoke about Jamie and distanced herself from Robert by tell Ned "his Robert" was the icing.
"Jaime would have killed him, even if it meant his own life." Cersei looked at him defiantly. "My brother is worth a hundred of your friend."
I just don't see how you think that's a term of endearment. Or why you think it gives even the faintest clue to an incestuous relationship. It's dismissive of Robert, certainly. Mostly though it's "My brother could beat up your brother." I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
kingmonkey, the best way to argue your point is to be able to debate from opposing POVs, so good for you, even if it was in part in jest. It's still entertaining to read.
“Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armour yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.” ― George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones
No assertion that it is incestuous at all. Nor was the marriage between Rickard and Lyarra Stark. Tyrion is of an older generation than Dany or Jon -- though at the younger end, he's of the generation of Cersei and Jaime, and of Brandon, Ned, Benjen and Lyanna.
Agreed! I am also a consummate follower of Strauss & Howe's generational theory, and have indeed spent some time breaking down the generations of Westeros. They list archetypal generations, which I consider to be one of four different types of Generations of approximately 20 years in length (some a little longer, some a little shorter).
0?? - 11? = Nomad (Rhaenyra, Aegon II, Daemon) 11? - 13? = Civic (Aegon III, Viserys II) 13? - 15? = Artist (Daeron II, Aemon, Daena, Naerys)
Prophet generations are born after a great war or other crisis, during a time of rejuvenated community life and consensus around a new societal order. Prophets grow up as the increasingly indulged children of this post-crisis era, come of age as narcissistic young crusaders of a spiritual awakening, cultivate principle as moralistic midlifers, and emerge as wise elders guiding another historical crisis. By virtue of this location in history, such generations tend to be remembered for their coming-of-age passion and their principled elder stewardship. Their principle endowments are often in the domain of vision, values, and religion. These were principled moralists, summoners of human sacrifice, and wagers of righteous wars. Positive reputations have revolved around them being thought of as principled, resolute, and creative. Negative reputations have revolved around them being thought of as narcissistic, presumptuous, and ruthless.
Nomad generations are born during a spiritual awakening, a time of social ideals and spiritual agendas when youth-fired attacks break out against the established institutional order. Nomads grow up as underprotected children during this awakening, come of age as alienated young adults in a post-awakening world, mellow into pragmatic midlife leaders during a historical crisis, and age into tough post-crisis elders. By virtue of this location in history, such generations tend to be remembered for their rising-adult years of hell-raising and for their midlife years of hands-on, get-it-done leadership. Their principle endowments are often in the domain of liberty, survival, and honor. These have been cunning, hard-to-fool realists—taciturn warriors who prefer to meet problems and adversaries one-on-one. Positive reputations have revolved around them being thought of as savvy, practical, and perceptive. Negative reputations have revolved around them being thought of as unfeeling, uncultured, and amoral.
Civic generations are born after a spiritual awakening, during a time of individual pragmatism, self-reliance, laissez faire, and national (or sectional or ethnic) chauvinism. Civics grow up as increasingly protected post-awakening children, come of age as the civic young team-workers of a historical crisis, demonstrate hubris as energetic midlifers, and emerge as powerful elders attacked by another awakening. By virtue of this location in history, such generations tend to be remembered for their collective coming-of-age triumphs and their hubristic elder achievements. Their principle endowments are often in the domain of community, affluence, and technology. These have been vigorous and rational institution builders. Positive reputations have revolved around them being thought of as selfless, rational, competent. Negative reputations have revolved around them being thought of as unreflective, mechanistic, and overbold.
Artist generations are born during a great war or other historical crisis, a time when great worldly perils boil off the complexity of life and public consensus, aggressive institutions, and personal sacrifice prevail. Artists grow up overprotected by adults preoccupied with the crisis, come of age as the sensitive young adults of a post-crisis world, break free as indecisive midlife leaders during a spiritual awakening, and age into empathic post-awakening elders. By virtue of this location in history, such generations tend to be remembered for their quiet years of rising adulthood and their midlife years of flexible, consensus-building leadership. Their principle endowments are often in the domain of pluralism, expertise and due process. These have been sensitive and complex social technicians, advocates of fair play and the politics of inclusion. Positive reputations have revolved around them being thought of as caring, open-minded, and an expert. Negative reputations have revolved around them being thought of as sentimental, complicating, indecisive.
There have been more than a few moments when my generational archetype meter went off. For instance in AGOT when Benjen is talking with Jon at the Wall before he leaves. What Benjen says is very typical of a Nomad archetype to a young Civic archetype:
Three days after their arrival, Jon had heard that Benjen Stark was to lead a half-dozen men on a ranging into the haunted forest. That night he sought out his uncle in the great timbered common hall and pleaded to go with him. Benjen refused him curtly. "This is not Winterfell," he told him as he cut his meat with fork and dagger. "On the Wall, a man gets only what he earns. You're no ranger, Jon, only a green boy with the smell of summer still on you."
Stupidly, Jon argued. "I'll be fifteen on my name day," he said. "Almost a man grown."
Benjen Stark frowned. "A boy you are, and a boy you'll remain until Ser Alliser says you are fit to be a man of the Night's Watch. If you thought your Stark blood would win you easy favors, you were wrong. We put aside our old families when we swear our vows. Your father will always have a place in my heart, but these are my brothers now." He gestured with his dagger at the men around them, all the hard cold men in black.
And also earlier in the quote you made earlier when Benjen and Jon first talk in Jon I.
"You are a boy of fourteen," Benjen said. "Not a man, not yet. Until you have known a woman, you cannot understand what you would be giving up."
...
He put a hand on Jon's shoulder. "Come back to me after you've fathered a few bastards of your own, and we'll see how you feel."
All of which are calls of an older Nomad asking for Civics to stop being so overbold, gain a little experience from life, before they go around making such grand pronouncements and large life choices.
There are other instances as well. Some are just so well drawn as their archetype they stick out. Ser Barristan, especially in his counciling to Dany in Meern really stands out as an Artist archetype.
Tywin for instance has a vision for his house and anything that fails to conform to said vision must be eliminated or put away so no one looks at it too often--typical of a Prophet.
Ned, while he lacks the perceptive qualities some might argue, definitely holds honor and practicality to a high enough degree to easily get him put into the Nomad generation. Meanwhile his buddy Robert is a living example of all the negative traits of this archetype.
I know this is a bit of a detour in terms of conversation--but I thought since that conversation between Jon & Benjen was being discussed earlier, why not bring another lens to view it through to the table?
I covered this somewhat in the essay. The opening section of the books, with the Royal family visiting Winterfell, is full of contrasts between Jon and Joff. The very first time we meet Joff, Arya highlights the contrast between them. The relevance of Joff's appearance to his parentage arises in an argument between Sansa and Arya, who have previously more than once discussed the relevance of Jon's appearance to his parentage.
When you say,Joff and Jon has been repeatedly contrasted against each other with regard to their parentage ,i'm looking for that.That isn't the case though.In the opening parts of the book when Joff is described as having the Lannister look..Am i wrong?
Surely if Sansa's words revealed the truth, then it can't have been Cersei's words which revealed the truth?
You miss the point with this.If Ned says one day he'll "explain" to Sansa how her words revealed the truth to him then your arguement has a problem and it is the underline issue wth this theory.Soooo if your saying that the underline truth is that the incest is a Stark family secret and based on that Ned arrived at the truth then this is what he was causally going to reveal to Sansa.
This was the spontaneous "out of the mouth of babes?" I don't see it. Ned entire reaction is is based off a series of clues and Sansa's words just bringing it together.Not from family experiance.
Why would it have to be the person she was around the most? Why would it have to be the same father for the three kids?
Most importantly, why wouldn't you add a rider to such questions along the lines "Apart from people she'd be very unlikely to shag, such as her brother, who she could be expected to be close to and would have access to her for entirely other reasons"?
KM you and i have the luxury of a wider view,therefore we can say its probably this Lannister or that Lannister....Ned just made a guess and Cersie confirmed it by NOT denying Ned's guess.It was the most obvious guess that anyone would guess. How do we propose LF and Varys figured this out,they already knew and had known for a while.How did Stannis know to name Jamie as father and not just some random Lannister? Did he have some incestuous secret in the family to draw upon? I doubt it,it's just process of elimination coming into play...Hence Jamie.
Ned on realizing the secret said "how could they all be so blind." This is a case of clues being infront of peoples faces and it just going over Ned's head .
"Jaime would have killed him, even if it meant his own life." Cersei looked at him defiantly. "My brother is worth a hundred of your friend."
I just don't see how you think that's a term of endearment. Or why you think it gives even the faintest clue to an incestuous relationship. It's dismissive of Robert, certainly. Mostly though it's "My brother could beat up your brother." I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
She didn't just dismiss Robert,she made Jamie her intimate the moment she chose "my" vs "your" singularly they mean nothing but the moment she chose those differentiation she made it seem Jamie was her intimate.And that was the end Ned needed to make his guess to which she confirmed.
"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes"--Sherlock Holmes"