A Song of Ice and Fire: GRRM announces A Dance With Dragons publication date.

[Halfcentaur]

I don't see any reason for Jon to suspect a thing, or anyone really for that matter. There may be some people from the past who were involved, but I can't think of any of the characters who may know offhand.

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

I don't see any reason for Jon to suspect a thing, or anyone really for that matter. There may be some people from the past who were involved, but I can't think of any of the characters who may know offhand.

Wasn't there a wet-nurse mentioned? She's the only likely living person to know.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by Madalch

Wasn't there a wet-nurse mentioned? She's the only likely living person to know.

I think there was actually. I don't recall, wasn't the peasant woman Ned claimed was the mother involved and still alive?

[Halfcentaur]

Also, was Ben Stark implicated in perhaps knowing?

[Dunstan]

With the help of the almighty Google and the Westeros Wiki, I think I've found another: Howland Reed.

(We don't know for sure that he knows; of course, we don't know for sure that Jon is Lyanna's son. But Reed was at the Tower of Joy, and was the only survivor other than Ned (and baby Jon?))

Reed has not, to the best of my knowledge, actually appeared in the books yet, but he is presumably still alive. And I guess it's possible he might have told his children, though they seem awfully young to be trusted with such a secret.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Speaking of which, as someone who hasn't reread the books multiple times (though I'm working on a re-read now in anticipation), which characters still alive are likely to know the truth of Jon's heritage? I've sort of forgotten.

I was talking about the books with my sister, and she pointed out that Howland Reed is the only person left who knows everything about whatever-it-was that happened with Lyanna and Eddard and company. So eventually somebody's going to have to talk to him. Or maybe he told his kids everything and they'll tell Bran who will tell Jon.

Or maybe Barristan the old Kingsguard guy knows because three of his gang were there. What happened to the rest of the Kingsguard? There were those three, Barristan, Jaime, the one who took Daeny and Viserys into exile and died, and then there's one more. It's been a while since I read them.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

With the help of the almighty Google and the Westeros Wiki, I think I've found another: Howland Reed.

(We don't know for sure that he knows; of course, we don't know for sure that Jon is Lyanna's son. But Reed was at the Tower of Joy, and was the only survivor other than Ned (and baby Jon?))

Reed has not, to the best of my knowledge, actually appeared in the books yet, but he is presumably still alive. And I guess it's possible he might have told his children, though they seem awfully young to be trusted with such a secret.

Damn, I replied to page 1 and you'd already gotten the answer.

But he might have told his kids, they're kind of mature for their age. Also, they're creepy magical kids. Less creepy than Agent Cooper's little sister in "Dune", but still, I would feel awkward taking them to Chuck E. Cheese. They'd probably stand there solemnly and relate dreams they had that all the animatronic animals were drowned corpses covered in seaweed. Which they totally are, but you're not supposed to make the Cthulhu-Chuck E. Cheese connection. It's a secret.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

What happened to the rest of the Kingsguard? There were those three, Barristan, Jaime, the one who took Daeny and Viserys into exile and died, and then there's one more. It's been a while since I read them.

Lewyn Martell died at the Battle of the Trident.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Speaking of which, as someone who hasn't reread the books multiple times (though I'm working on a re-read now in anticipation), which characters still alive are likely to know the truth of Jon's heritage? I've sort of forgotten.

Came here to say Howland Reed, but was beaten to it.

Varys might know something. In Ned's last chapter, where he's in the black cell, there's the following exchange:

Quote:

“Would you at least consent to carry a message out for me?”
“That would depend on the message. I will gladly provide you with paper and ink, if you like. And when you have written what you will, I will take the letter and read it, and deliver it or not, as best serves my own ends.”

Earlier in the chapter, Ned is reminiscing sadly on the Harrenhal tourney where Rhaegar gave the prize to Lyanna, and a bit after this exchange he thinks of Jon:

Quote:

The thought of Jon filled Ned with a sense of shame, and a sorrow too deep for words. If only he could see the boy again, sit and talk with him...

We never know if he did write a letter, and whether or not Varys delivered it if he did. But I was thinking that maybe he wrote a letter for Howland Reed about Jon, like, "if I die, go tell him" or something. Of course that IS pure speculation on my part. But what would any letter Ned writes be about?

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Came here to say Howland Reed, but was beaten to it.

Varys might know something. In Ned's last chapter, where he's in the black cell, there's the following exchange:



Earlier in the chapter, Ned is reminiscing sadly on the Harrenhal tourney where Rhaegar gave the prize to Lyanna, and a bit after this exchange he thinks of Jon:



We never know if he did write a letter, and whether or not Varys delivered it if he did. But I was thinking that maybe he wrote a letter for Howland Reed about Jon, like, "if I die, go tell him" or something. Of course that IS pure speculation on my part. But what would any letter Ned writes be about?

Ah, the warmth of recognition, it's coming back to me now. Thank you. This scene, and the scene with the Crannogman at the tourney with Ned and his sister and all the others involved. The way the chess pieces are all moving, I love the sense of impending revalation, slowly culminating on course as things converge.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

Ah, the warmth of recognition, it's coming back to me now. Thank you. This scene, and the scene with the Crannogman at the tourney with Ned and his sister and all the others involved. The way the chess pieces are all moving, I love the sense of impending revalation, slowly culminating on course as things converge.

Which leads to my next question: what difference will it make?

I suppose it will matter to Jon somewhat, but it wouldn't change the fact that he's a bastard, a Stark by blood, was raised by Ned Stark, etc.

In terms of a claim to the throne, well, he's still a bastard, Rhaegar isn't around to legitimize him, and it's not likely any other king would. (I'm assuming he'd have to be a bastard: Rhaegar was married to Elia at the time, so a "secret marriage" with Lyanna is unlikely and/or invalid if it happened.) That's on top of the fact that members of the Night's Watch are supposed to put aside any such claims when they take their oaths, as Maester Aemon did.

I guess the real significance is that Melisandre, with her obsession for "king's blood," might cast her eyes in Jon's direction....

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

We never know if he did write a letter, and whether or not Varys delivered it if he did. But I was thinking that maybe he wrote a letter for Howland Reed about Jon, like, "if I die, go tell him" or something. Of course that IS pure speculation on my part. But what would any letter Ned writes be about?

"Dear Jon:

Good news and bad.

Good news: you're not actually my bastard.

Bad news: you're somebody else's bastard. Also, if people find out who your father was, they'd totally kill you.

Sorry to turn your 50% parentage mystery into a 100% parentage mystery. I suggest you simply forget about it entirely, and put the mysterious secret enigma of your perplexing birth mystery firmly out of your head and don't think about how it has vast significance to thousands of other people and the fate of realms depends on this knowledge that you will never, ever know about your own parentage.

Love,
Ned"

[Dunstan]

Have we been given an explanation, from Jaime's point of view or otherwise, for why the worst of Mad King Aerys's misdeeds and attempted misdeeds were hushed up? I mean, even if Jaime is enough of a martyr to silently bear the shame of being the "Kingslayer," why on earth would Tywin and Cersei let the Lannister name be tarnished without a fight? Why not explain that, yes, Jaime killed the king he had sworn to protect, but he had damned good reasons, including saving the lives of everyone in King's Landing?

It would also have helped legitimize Robert's Rebellion and further tarnish the reputation of the Targaryens. Sure, not everyone would believe the story; some would dismiss it as Lannister and Baratheon propaganda, but isn't it better than the alternative?

I can't think of a reason not to do it, except that it might have led to violence against the pyromancers' guild, but that seems like something that could be handled.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Have we been given an explanation, from Jaime's point of view or otherwise, for why the worst of Mad King Aerys's misdeeds and attempted misdeeds were hushed up? I mean, even if Jaime is enough of a martyr to silently bear the shame of being the "Kingslayer," why on earth would Tywin and Cersei let the Lannister name be tarnished without a fight? Why not explain that, yes, Jaime killed the king he had sworn to protect, but he had damned good reasons, including saving the lives of everyone in King's Landing?

It would also have helped legitimize Robert's Rebellion and further tarnish the reputation of the Targaryens. Sure, not everyone would believe the story; some would dismiss it as Lannister and Baratheon propaganda, but isn't it better than the alternative?

I can't think of a reason not to do it, except that it might have led to violence against the pyromancers' guild, but that seems like something that could be handled.

I got the feeling that Jaime was too damn proud to want to excuse himself: "Oh Ned, please understand that I slew the King for the greater good and only ever meant to sit upon the throne for a moment as I gathered my breath"... can't see [the old] Jaime eating humble pie.

As for Tywin, perhaps he wanted to avoid panic... and after everything had calmed down then claiming that Jaime had actually been a big hero and saved the day would have looked a bit desperate. It might have also strained relations with his new son-in-law: "You see Robert, what my Lannister minstrels are saying is that it is OK, heroic even, for a Kingsguard to kill a King... if a he feels it is necessary. Sleep well!"

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by Giz

I got the feeling that Jaime was too damn proud to want to excuse himself: "Oh Ned, please understand that I slew the King for the greater good and only ever meant to sit upon the throne for a moment as I gathered my breath"... can't see [the old] Jaime eating humble pie.

I think that one conversation with Ned is kind of a different issue from the question of what to say in the aftermath. And it's not as though Jamie needed to eat any humble pie or beg Ned's forgiveness, or anyone else's. He could have said something like "yes, I killed the king, because he was going to burn the entire city down, and there was no one else around to stop him. Anyone got a problem with that? Hands up if you would have preferred to have died horribly just so I could keep my vows to a lunatic. Anyone? No? I thought not. Yeah, I'm the Kingslayer. You're welcome." Instead, it appears he let everyone think that he killed the king just because he was taking sides in a civil war and/or following his father's orders.

Quote:

As for Tywin, perhaps he wanted to avoid panic... and after everything had calmed down then claiming that Jaime had actually been a big hero and saved the day would have looked a bit desperate. It might have also strained relations with his new son-in-law: "You see Robert, what my Lannister minstrels are saying is that it is OK, heroic even, for a Kingsguard to kill a King... if a he feels it is necessary. Sleep well!"

It's not like Robert could claim that a king is somehow inviolate: he put together a rebellion that he had to know could only end with his death or Aerys's, and personally killed the heir apparent. And Robert had many flaws, but I don't think he was particularly a hypocrite.

I also find it hard to believe that they couldn't all put their heads together and come up with some other honorable position for Jaime. I guess they were somewhat hampered by Jaime and Cersei's insistence that he be, uh, readily available to her, but there could have been something.

[Morrigan]

Doesn't Brienne ask him the same thing in AFFC? IIRC, Jaime replies that despite being the Kingslayer, he's still the Kingsguard, and that it's part of his oath to protect the king's secrets, or something like that. I forgot how the conversation went, exactly, and I don't have the ebook on hand for a quick ctrl + f.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Which leads to my next question: what difference will it make?

Perhaps none, that's the most ironic part of all. Though it will probably matter to Daenerys if she does learn of it.

Quote:

(I'm assuming he'd have to be a bastard: Rhaegar was married to Elia at the time, so a "secret marriage" with Lyanna is unlikely and/or invalid if it happened.)

Ah, not necessarily, there's the rub... there is precedent of polygamic Targaryen marriages, as Aegon the Conqueror was married to both his sisters. So a secret marriage to Lyanna isn't out of the question. If Rhaegar thought that "the dragon has three heads", and he fathered Jon to fulfill that prophecy, he might have decided to marry Lyanna to make him "legitimate". Of course, that's assuming he did all that for those reasons and not just because he was blindly in love with her, but we can hope he wasn't so stupid as to start a war just for one woman's sake. Then again... men...

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Have we been given an explanation, from Jaime's point of view or otherwise, for why the worst of Mad King Aerys's misdeeds and attempted misdeeds were hushed up? I mean, even if Jaime is enough of a martyr to silently bear the shame of being the "Kingslayer," why on earth would Tywin and Cersei let the Lannister name be tarnished without a fight? Why not explain that, yes, Jaime killed the king he had sworn to protect, but he had damned good reasons, including saving the lives of everyone in King's Landing?

My impression is everyone knows perfectly well that Aerys was psychotic and evil, and doing horrendous things. But that doesn't matter. He was the King and Jaime was his sworn Kingsguard.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

It would also have helped legitimize Robert's Rebellion and further tarnish the reputation of the Targaryens. Sure, not everyone would believe the story; some would dismiss it as Lannister and Baratheon propaganda, but isn't it better than the alternative?

This is one thing that probably doesn't feel believable to me. We only need peruse the annuals of English royalty to see ample examples of kings besmirching the good name of their predecessors. The obvious glaring example is Henry Tudor's treatment of Richard III. There's evidence that the "historians" went as far as modifying portraits of Richard III to make it look like he had a hunchback.

When it comes to Aerys we have a king who was genuinely evil, and yet the usurper camp seems to have made very little effort to propagate those facts to legitimise the claim.

Really, the first book, at least, should be filled with folk songs about the depravity of Mad Aerys, stories about how he was so insane even his own Kingsguard had no choice but to kill him, etc.

There's lots of niggly little holes in the story like that, IMHO. For example it was standard practise for the Targs to wed brother and sister, and presumably the plebians put up with this for the duration of the Targ dynasty so it clearly wasn't seen as an abomination in the way we'd perceive it (a medieval English king who was caught porking his sister could probably expect to lose his sister, his crown, and his head in short order), and yet the Lannister siblings doing the wild thing together is still meant to be perceived as an abomination.

Now maybe the Targs are so reviled now anything they did is bad news - sort of guilt by association thing - but again we come back to the issue which is throughout the stories there's never really any sense that the Targs are truly reviled and despised. At best people seem indifferent, and if not indifferent, vaguely fond of the "old ways".

Doesn't make sense.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by gumboot

This is one thing that probably doesn't feel believable to me. We only need peruse the annuals of English royalty to see ample examples of kings besmirching the good name of their predecessors. The obvious glaring example is Henry Tudor's treatment of Richard III. There's evidence that the "historians" went as far as modifying portraits of Richard III to make it look like he had a hunchback.

When it comes to Aerys we have a king who was genuinely evil, and yet the usurper camp seems to have made very little effort to propagate those facts to legitimise the claim.

Really, the first book, at least, should be filled with folk songs about the depravity of Mad Aerys, stories about how he was so insane even his own Kingsguard had no choice but to kill him, etc.

There's lots of niggly little holes in the story like that, IMHO. For example it was standard practise for the Targs to wed brother and sister, and presumably the plebians put up with this for the duration of the Targ dynasty so it clearly wasn't seen as an abomination in the way we'd perceive it (a medieval English king who was caught porking his sister could probably expect to lose his sister, his crown, and his head in short order), and yet the Lannister siblings doing the wild thing together is still meant to be perceived as an abomination.

Now maybe the Targs are so reviled now anything they did is bad news - sort of guilt by association thing - but again we come back to the issue which is throughout the stories there's never really any sense that the Targs are truly reviled and despised. At best people seem indifferent, and if not indifferent, vaguely fond of the "old ways".

Doesn't make sense.

Maybe, because Rhaegar seemed to have garnered some good will? "Mad King Aerys" is acknowledged as, well, mad, but Westeros has a long history of Targaryen monarchs, some of which were bad monarchs, but others who were thought to be quite good. There seems to be an acceptance that sometimes they get unlucky with a bad king. So, they might hold a low opinion of certain monarchs, but not think that reflects on Targaryens as a whole.

And, I wonder if the issue with Jaime & Cersei is not the incest so much, as the fact that her children are therefore not Robert's heirs. That is, they might be tolerated as a married couple, but not as illicit affair.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Which leads to my next question: what difference will it make?

I suppose it will matter to Jon somewhat, but it wouldn't change the fact that he's a bastard, a Stark by blood, was raised by Ned Stark, etc.

In terms of a claim to the throne, well, he's still a bastard, Rhaegar isn't around to legitimize him, and it's not likely any other king would. (I'm assuming he'd have to be a bastard: Rhaegar was married to Elia at the time, so a "secret marriage" with Lyanna is unlikely and/or invalid if it happened.) That's on top of the fact that members of the Night's Watch are supposed to put aside any such claims when they take their oaths, as Maester Aemon did.

I guess the real significance is that Melisandre, with her obsession for "king's blood," might cast her eyes in Jon's direction....

The difference it makes? For me, it's all in the drama. The moment of revelation and the emotional power of that moment is the pay off.
Story wise, it just means Jon will finally come into his own, even more so than his appointment to lord commander. I enjoy this sort of thing for the character development, and seeing how it plays out. Even though a lot of it is able to be predicted, the fun for me is in the execution and how it's handled.

But I'd have to think a long while about what this effect would have on the story itself.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by gumboot

My impression is everyone knows perfectly well that Aerys was psychotic and evil, and doing horrendous things. But that doesn't matter. He was the King and Jaime was his sworn Kingsguard.





This is one thing that probably doesn't feel believable to me. We only need peruse the annuals of English royalty to see ample examples of kings besmirching the good name of their predecessors. The obvious glaring example is Henry Tudor's treatment of Richard III. There's evidence that the "historians" went as far as modifying portraits of Richard III to make it look like he had a hunchback.

When it comes to Aerys we have a king who was genuinely evil, and yet the usurper camp seems to have made very little effort to propagate those facts to legitimise the claim.

Really, the first book, at least, should be filled with folk songs about the depravity of Mad Aerys, stories about how he was so insane even his own Kingsguard had no choice but to kill him, etc.

There's lots of niggly little holes in the story like that, IMHO. For example it was standard practise for the Targs to wed brother and sister, and presumably the plebians put up with this for the duration of the Targ dynasty so it clearly wasn't seen as an abomination in the way we'd perceive it (a medieval English king who was caught porking his sister could probably expect to lose his sister, his crown, and his head in short order), and yet the Lannister siblings doing the wild thing together is still meant to be perceived as an abomination.

Now maybe the Targs are so reviled now anything they did is bad news - sort of guilt by association thing - but again we come back to the issue which is throughout the stories there's never really any sense that the Targs are truly reviled and despised. At best people seem indifferent, and if not indifferent, vaguely fond of the "old ways".

Doesn't make sense.

I always felt the Targaryens were escalated in the minds of people as being above them, almost god like, more so than usual in monarchy. More like the emperor of Japan, especially with their strange hair and eye color. I never really found this part hard to swallow, but you make me think of it differently now. I see precedent in cultures for people accepting gods in a pantheon to breed with their sisters and brothers, while still making it an abomination in common folk.

[armageddonman]

Wouldn't anyone else have noticed that Lyanna was pregnant? She probably wasn't secluded from the rest of the world for months.

There must have been servants, a midwife etc.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

I always felt the Targaryens were escalated in the minds of people as being above them, almost god like, more so than usual in monarchy. More like the emperor of Japan, especially with their strange hair and eye color. I never really found this part hard to swallow, but you make me think of it differently now. I see precedent in cultures for people accepting gods in a pantheon to breed with their sisters and brothers, while still making it an abomination in common folk.

Even if not revered, the Targaryens were seen as being culturally different from their subjects. They didn't follow either of the mainstream religions of the First Men and the Andals. They were of a different ethnic group with a distinctive appearance, and historical connections to dragons and what seems to have been a classical era superpower. The populace of Westeros might have tolerated their oddities like banging their siblings and burning people alive because they were different and exotic. Some people don't want their kings to be like regular people.

Which is the inverse of Robert, really. He was the man of the people sort of king, boozing it up with them, living large, sleeping with wenches, good time guy. Which made him popular with some of the people, but not the ones who prefer the exotically different, elevated kind of king. Cersei, for example, would have gotten along a lot better as Rhaegar's wife, because she believes in the refinement of noble blood. She despised Robert because he didn't act like she thought he ought to. He was crude. She, and people like her, didn't respect him as a king.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Even if not revered, the Targaryens were seen as being culturally different from their subjects. They didn't follow either of the mainstream religions of the First Men and the Andals. They were of a different ethnic group with a distinctive appearance, and historical connections to dragons and what seems to have been a classical era superpower. The populace of Westeros might have tolerated their oddities like banging their siblings and burning people alive because they were different and exotic. Some people don't want their kings to be like regular people.

Which is the inverse of Robert, really. He was the man of the people sort of king, boozing it up with them, living large, sleeping with wenches, good time guy. Which made him popular with some of the people, but not the ones who prefer the exotically different, elevated kind of king. Cersei, for example, would have gotten along a lot better as Rhaegar's wife, because she believes in the refinement of noble blood. She despised Robert because he didn't act like she thought he ought to. He was crude. She, and people like her, didn't respect him as a king.

Indeed, their exotic line seems enough in my mind to have the people see their incest as acceptable, in the same way the ancient Greeks found their own gods to be acceptable. But they still appreciated the epic tragedy of accidental incest and abomination in their every day lives. Being the keepers of dragons, with strange features and ancient origins, they are enough removed from the mundane to have their strange ways accepted I think.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

Maybe, because Rhaegar seemed to have garnered some good will? "Mad King Aerys" is acknowledged as, well, mad, but Westeros has a long history of Targaryen monarchs, some of which were bad monarchs, but others who were thought to be quite good. There seems to be an acceptance that sometimes they get unlucky with a bad king. So, they might hold a low opinion of certain monarchs, but not think that reflects on Targaryens as a whole.

Certainly, that makes sense, but again, if this were true the populace should be vastly outraged at Robert's usurping of the throne and the murder of the child heirs.

Either the Targs were hideously unpopular, and the unwashed masses are glad Robert gave them the boot, or the Targs were accepted as the rightful rulers in which case there should be barely-contained antagonism against Robert.

The reality is there's neither. The general populace are almost universally portrayed as totally indifferent to who rules. In fact it's even spelled out repeatedly when they come across villages and the people see no difference between "Wolves and Lions". That's a very modern perspective, based mostly on our modern rejection of absolute monarchy as a fair system of government. It's totally unrealistic for that time period. The general population were enormously concerned with who ruled and who was rightful king.

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

And, I wonder if the issue with Jaime & Cersei is not the incest so much, as the fact that her children are therefore not Robert's heirs. That is, they might be tolerated as a married couple, but not as illicit affair.

It's pretty clearly spelled out by multiple characters that sleeping with your sibling is an abomination that would result immediately in execution. The fact that she's the Queen and her children are not the King's certainly makes it worse from a political issue, but I think the moral position of such behaviour is pretty clearly stated in the books as well.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

I always felt the Targaryens were escalated in the minds of people as being above them, almost god like, more so than usual in monarchy. More like the emperor of Japan, especially with their strange hair and eye color. I never really found this part hard to swallow, but you make me think of it differently now. I see precedent in cultures for people accepting gods in a pantheon to breed with their sisters and brothers, while still making it an abomination in common folk.

But again, the Targs are viewed really as "just another ruler". If they were perceived as almost god-like Robert's rebellion would have outraged them to the core of their being, and he would have found a hard job convincing the populace (and the Lords) that he had a right to rule. Instead, as soon as the actual wars were done everyone just seemed to blindly accept that this common mortal Lord had topped the ruling dynasty of god-like beings and continue on as if nothing was amiss.

The issue is further complicated by the speed and eagerness with which the old Kingdoms declared their independence. This firmly suggests that in reality the lords and people of these kingdoms resented their time under the Targ throne, and acted at the first opportunity to throw off the rule of King's Landing and return to independence.

Essentially, in his eagerness to make for a complex "War of the Roses" style multi-faction conflict, Martin hasn't really thought it through properly.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by gumboot

The reality is there's neither. The general populace are almost universally portrayed as totally indifferent to who rules. In fact it's even spelled out repeatedly when they come across villages and the people see no difference between "Wolves and Lions". That's a very modern perspective, based mostly on our modern rejection of absolute monarchy as a fair system of government. It's totally unrealistic for that time period. The general population were enormously concerned with who ruled and who was rightful king.

First, these aren't historical novels. This is a different world with a different culture.

Second, I have doubts about your claim regarding our world. During the War of the Roses, for example, how much did the average person care about who was "rightfully" king? If you're a peasant in the countryside, you probably care a lot about who your local lord is, because he's the one collecting the taxes and hearing court cases and the other things that actually affect your life. Given how blatantly some nobles switched sides for sheer personal gain, it would be hard to explain how they kept their followers if things really were as you suggest.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

First, these aren't historical novels. This is a different world with a different culture.

Quite true, and a fair point. But in my opinion, what sets Martin's work apart from most fantasy, what is truly praise-worthy about it, is how realistic it is.

And despite my points of criticism I just want to reiterate that in my eyes the level of realism and believability in the work, overall, sets it well above 99% of work in the genre.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Second, I have doubts about your claim regarding our world. During the War of the Roses, for example, how much did the average person care about who was "rightfully" king?

Quite a bit, actually. But related to my point is the observation that in the War of the Roses the combatants all had legitimate claims to the throne. It was a question of order of succession.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

If you're a peasant in the countryside, you probably care a lot about who your local lord is, because he's the one collecting the taxes and hearing court cases and the other things that actually affect your life. Given how blatantly some nobles switched sides for sheer personal gain, it would be hard to explain how they kept their followers if things really were as you suggest.

It's a difference between open rebellion and simmering resentment. I'm not saying the peasants should have been rising in revolt against Robert or anything. I'm just questioning the apparent apathy of peasants. As if it makes no difference.

The reality in a feudal society is it did make a difference and our own history is punctuated by instances where Kings and Lords went to far and their peasants rebelled against them. The Peasants' Revolt of 1381 in England was very sophisticated and the rebels had clear objectives in mind that showed a pretty good understanding of the political system they were in. It wasn't a mindless rampage by angry masses.

The idea that peasants were an ignorant mass whose lives remained one of total misery regardless of who ruled is a myth. And it's a myth that Martin perpetuates in his books. Which is fine, except that it's a minor bit of colour that's missing from an otherwise complex and detailed tableaux.

I personally think it's fine to admire a work, yet at the same time discuss small detailed ways in which it could be refined.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by gumboot

But again, the Targs are viewed really as "just another ruler". If they were perceived as almost god-like Robert's rebellion would have outraged them to the core of their being, and he would have found a hard job convincing the populace (and the Lords) that he had a right to rule. Instead, as soon as the actual wars were done everyone just seemed to blindly accept that this common mortal Lord had topped the ruling dynasty of god-like beings and continue on as if nothing was amiss.

The issue is further complicated by the speed and eagerness with which the old Kingdoms declared their independence. This firmly suggests that in reality the lords and people of these kingdoms resented their time under the Targ throne, and acted at the first opportunity to throw off the rule of King's Landing and return to independence.

Essentially, in his eagerness to make for a complex "War of the Roses" style multi-faction conflict, Martin hasn't really thought it through properly.

You make me think about it more, definitely. But I always felt there were many people who see Robert as a usurper, but due to the cruelty of the Mad King he was tolerated. But you're right, it's not really as defined as it could or should be. But looking at the unique history of this world, I see room to believe the smallfolk would be quite indifferent to the rule considering how cruel this feudal system is.

In medieval Europe, the Church and the Saints were a good way to reign in the behavior of the knights, and this degree of control seems lacking in the world of Westeros. But the knights of Europe and the rulers could be just as cruel to the smallfolk at times, true. But I never got the sense that the peoples were as blindly loyal to the king and queen until ideals of rights and equality were at least discussed, around the time of Henry the 8th for instance. But I am not as knowledgeable about this as I'd like to be, so I have to defer here.



I think the people's reaction when Daenerys returns will really be a good indicator.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Quite a bit, actually. But related to my point is the observation that in the War of the Roses the combatants all had legitimate claims to the throne. It was a question of order of succession.

But it's pretty hard to justify, for example, Lord Warwick's changing of sides as anything other than power politics. A ... game of thrones, if you will. Ditto for George's scheming. And Richard's disinheriting his nephews. And anyone who supported any of the above must have realized the disingenuousness of it unless they were very thick.

Quote:

It's a difference between open rebellion and simmering resentment. I'm not saying the peasants should have been rising in revolt against Robert or anything. I'm just questioning the apparent apathy of peasants. As if it makes no difference.

The reality in a feudal society is it did make a difference and our own history is punctuated by instances where Kings and Lords went to far and their peasants rebelled against them. The Peasants' Revolt of 1381 in England was very sophisticated and the rebels had clear objectives in mind that showed a pretty good understanding of the political system they were in. It wasn't a mindless rampage by angry masses.

The idea that peasants were an ignorant mass whose lives remained one of total misery regardless of who ruled is a myth. And it's a myth that Martin perpetuates in his books. Which is fine, except that it's a minor bit of colour that's missing from an otherwise complex and detailed tableaux.

I'm not so sure about that.

You're combining several points here: that peasants were (1) ignorant; (2) miserable; and (3) indifferent to who ruled.

I'd agree that the peasants are shown as more ignorant than the nobility, but that's ignorant in the non-pejorative sense of simply lacking information. The highborn characters are often put in situations where they hear five different stories of how Renly died, or what happened in a particular battle, etc. Usually the highborn characters piece together the truth eventually, because they have direct access to people who were there, or messages sent by raven.

How is the average citizen of King's Landing supposed to evaluate the claims about Joffrey's parentage? Most of them probably never saw either Robert or Joffrey or Jaime or Cersei up close.

As to miserable, I'm not so sure they're portrayed that way. I think we're mostly told that the commoners were miserable in King's Landing after the War of Five Kings breaks out and food supplies are disrupted and refugees are pouring into the city. Characters like Gendry and Hot Pie (when they were in King's Landing or Harrenhal) work hard and don't get much luxury or leisure, but I wouldn't call them miserable.

Indifferent I would agree with; that was my original point.

Quote:

I personally think it's fine to admire a work, yet at the same time discuss small detailed ways in which it could be refined.

I agree. Did anyone suggest otherwise? I'm not some fanboy who's livid that you've criticized the great GRRM. I just question your interpretation of the novels and your historical assertions.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

But it's pretty hard to justify, for example, Lord Warwick's changing of sides as anything other than power politics. A ... game of thrones, if you will.

Of course. But that doesn't change my point, really. He still supported people with legitimate claims to the throne.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Ditto for George's scheming. And Richard's disinheriting his nephews. And anyone who supported any of the above must have realized the disingenuousness of it unless they were very thick.

Again, the crucial point is that the claimants had legitimate grounds for claiming the throne.

When the claimants became obscure enough that their direct claim was questionable (such as Henry Tudor), they make extensive efforts to portray the overthrown king as an evil tyrant.

Rebellion was nothing new in England, and was just about always for political reasons, but in almost every instance a legitimate claimant to the throne headed the rebellion (often as a puppet).

In the very rare instances where there was no new claimant (such as the rebellion of the Barons against King John) a serious effort was made to justify the rebellion through the immoral cruelty of the previous king.

There was always great effort made to justify legitimacy of the new ruler, and the reason it was done was primarily so the populace would support them. From the outset, the general mass population had political power.

Henry I, for example, made it absolutely clear his daughter Empress Mathilda was to rule, and his barons swore allegiance to her on two occasions. Yet when he died, the barons didn't like the idea of putting a woman on the throne, and so were preparing to back Theobald, Count of Blois. It was only when Stephen of Blois (Theobald's younger brother) arrived in London and was acclaimed by the common folk that the Barons switched their allegiance to his claim.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

I'm not so sure about that.

You're combining several points here: that peasants were (1) ignorant; (2) miserable; and (3) indifferent to who ruled.

More or less.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

I'd agree that the peasants are shown as more ignorant than the nobility, but that's ignorant in the non-pejorative sense of simply lacking information. The highborn characters are often put in situations where they hear five different stories of how Renly died, or what happened in a particular battle, etc. Usually the highborn characters piece together the truth eventually, because they have direct access to people who were there, or messages sent by raven.

I don't mean ignorant of specific events. I mean ignorant of the political system within which they live and their place in it. They're portrayed as politically ignorant.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

How is the average citizen of King's Landing supposed to evaluate the claims about Joffrey's parentage? Most of them probably never saw either Robert or Joffrey or Jaime or Cersei up close.

See above.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

As to miserable, I'm not so sure they're portrayed that way. I think we're mostly told that the commoners were miserable in King's Landing after the War of Five Kings breaks out and food supplies are disrupted and refugees are pouring into the city. Characters like Gendry and Hot Pie (when they were in King's Landing or Harrenhal) work hard and don't get much luxury or leisure, but I wouldn't call them miserable.

This is true. But the overwhelming majority of peasantry are portrayed as miserable wretches throughout. For what it's worth, I think this is a direct and inevitable result of the unbalance of portraying the absolute power of the nobility without the balancing influence of a powerful religion. Really, as far as how repressive the society is, the problem lies in the imbalance of power at the top. The unrealistic misery at the bottom is a direct and logical result of that upper imbalance.

I'm saying humans don't actually endure that extreme sort of imbalance very long, and so when it arises unrest makes its way through society from the bottom to the top, where the power imbalance is corrected.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Indifferent I would agree with; that was my original point.

Their indifference to who is ruling is a logical end result of being ignorant and miserable, though.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

I agree. Did anyone suggest otherwise? I'm not some fanboy who's livid that you've criticized the great GRRM. I just question your interpretation of the novels and your historical assertions.

That wasn't really directed at you as such. I was just saying it to the thread in general.

[Mister Earl]

Sounds like a really interesting book. What is the title of the first, so I could get caught up?

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

You make me think about it more, definitely. But I always felt there were many people who see Robert as a usurper, but due to the cruelty of the Mad King he was tolerated. But you're right, it's not really as defined as it could or should be.

I see no problem with the idea in principle. I just feel it would have been more believable if we'd seen some evidence of Robert and his supporters making a concerted effort to highlight the moral legitimacy of their actions. Instead it's spoken of like some legendary event that happened centuries ago.

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

But looking at the unique history of this world, I see room to believe the smallfolk would be quite indifferent to the rule considering how cruel this feudal system is.

I think the more cruel a system is, the less indifferent the smallfolk are to who rules. I suspect if you'd held a "vote" in Medieval England the turn out would have been vastly higher than in a modern liberal democracy. Here a change in political party makes little real difference to our lives. In Medieval times a change of King could spell the difference between life and death, quite literally.

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

In medieval Europe, the Church and the Saints were a good way to reign in the behavior of the knights, and this degree of control seems lacking in the world of Westeros.

This really hits the nail on the head, and is probably the real origin of the flaw in Westeros. All of the issues I've discussed are a natural flow-on from this one imbalance.

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

I think the people's reaction when Daenerys returns will really be a good indicator.

Absolutely. This will be the true test. You could argue that until now the story has run from the POV almost exclusively of Robert's allies, and as such they were unlikely to be too critical of his reign. If Daenerys is hailed as the true ruler of Westeros by the popular masses, that would do much to satisfy my issues with the story thus far.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Sounds like a really interesting book. What is the title of the first, so I could get caught up?

A Game of Thrones.

[Halfcentaur]

I think you're right about the downtrodden smallfolk being more prone to rebel in the face of severe cruelty when you put it like that. But it makes me then think it's not been bad enough quite yet since Robert died and the chaos really has gotten out of hand. I think before the people would erupt, there will be a period of bitter resignation and hopelessness, and we're really seeing that period explored before the spark hits the haystack.

In that way, I see Roberts early years as a period of adjustment, with the doubt of his people and a nostalgia for the Targaryens growing that's going to be perfect for the arrival of a dragon mounted queen. But you're right, it would be an improvement to see the smallfolk's behavior a bit less generalized.

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Sounds like a really interesting book. What is the title of the first, so I could get caught up?

I envy a first time reader. You must avoid spoilers!

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Of course. But that doesn't change my point, really. He still supported people with legitimate claims to the throne.

Again, the crucial point is that the claimants had legitimate grounds for claiming the throne.

When the claimants became obscure enough that their direct claim was questionable (such as Henry Tudor), they make extensive efforts to portray the overthrown king as an evil tyrant.

Rebellion was nothing new in England, and was just about always for political reasons, but in almost every instance a legitimate claimant to the throne headed the rebellion (often as a puppet).

In the very rare instances where there was no new claimant (such as the rebellion of the Barons against King John) a serious effort was made to justify the rebellion through the immoral cruelty of the previous king.

There was always great effort made to justify legitimacy of the new ruler, and the reason it was done was primarily so the populace would support them. From the outset, the general mass population had political power.

Henry I, for example, made it absolutely clear his daughter Empress Mathilda was to rule, and his barons swore allegiance to her on two occasions. Yet when he died, the barons didn't like the idea of putting a woman on the throne, and so were preparing to back Theobald, Count of Blois. It was only when Stephen of Blois (Theobald's younger brother) arrived in London and was acclaimed by the common folk that the Barons switched their allegiance to his claim.

I agree with all of that; I just don't see Westeros as being that different. There were efforts to justify Robert's Rebellion and show that Robert wasn't just some power-hungry schemer. I don't think the (alleged) kidnapping of Lyanna Stark and the beheadings of Brandon Stark et al were kept secret. There was even an attempted justification for why Robert (as opposed to any other candidates) was put on the throne; Renly alludes to some pretext about House Baratheon having claims through daughters and marriages, etc.

I do think that the specific reasons for Jaime killing Aerys were inexplicably hushed up; I think that's how this conversation got started. I guess it has to be chalked up to Jaime's pride and refusal to justify himself to anyone. Varys and Littlefinger had their own reasons for not wanting to de-legitimize the Targaryens or legitimize Robert, and I'm not sure how much of that story was known to Robert (or, since Robert couldn't be bothered with petty politicking, Jon Arryn). Which I still find unsatisfying as an explanation.

Quote:

I don't mean ignorant of specific events. I mean ignorant of the political system within which they live and their place in it. They're portrayed as politically ignorant.

How so?

Quote:

This is true. But the overwhelming majority of peasantry are portrayed as miserable wretches throughout.

I think I need to see some examples of this.

Quote:

For what it's worth, I think this is a direct and inevitable result of the unbalance of portraying the absolute power of the nobility without the balancing influence of a powerful religion. Really, as far as how repressive the society is, the problem lies in the imbalance of power at the top. The unrealistic misery at the bottom is a direct and logical result of that upper imbalance.

How would religion have re-balanced things to the benefit of those at the bottom, as opposed to just creating a separate faction at the top?

Quote:

I'm saying humans don't actually endure that extreme sort of imbalance very long, and so when it arises unrest makes its way through society from the bottom to the top, where the power imbalance is corrected.

Well, there's certainly some odd things going on in this world, with the incredible stagnation of technology. The political system seems strangely stable pre-Rebellion; Aegon's conquest was over two centuries ago, and we're told that the Starks have ruled in Winterfell for thousands (?) of years -- I think similar claims are made about some of the other houses. I wonder how much of that kind be ascribed to the long and unpredictable winters: would that make the commoners more dependent on their lords, more focused on their own survival, and less likely to rock the boat?

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

How would religion have re-balanced things to the benefit of those at the bottom, as opposed to just creating a separate faction at the top?

I think by asking that you're underestimating the power the church had in reigning in the behavior of the knights in feudal Europe. The fear of hell and sin was a very immediate means of keeping the warriors from merely killing and taking whatever they wanted. The saints and the relics of saints were important tools in this.

Quote:

Well, there's certainly some odd things going on in this world, with the incredible stagnation of technology. The political system seems strangely stable pre-Rebellion; Aegon's conquest was over two centuries ago, and we're told that the Starks have ruled in Winterfell for thousands (?) of years -- I think similar claims are made about some of the other houses. I wonder how much of that kind be ascribed to the long and unpredictable winters: would that make the commoners more dependent on their lords, more focused on their own survival, and less likely to rock the boat?

I also wonder at the supernatural elements. At this time in the story they are all but forgotten and thought of as myths, but the battle with these forces is something their entire society was constantly occupied with. The engineering of the Wall is a testament to that.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

I think by asking that you're underestimating the power the church had in reigning in the behavior of the knights in feudal Europe. The fear of hell and sin was a very immediate means of keeping the warriors from merely killing and taking whatever they wanted. The saints and the relics of saints were important tools in this.

Would this be the same church that sold indulgences?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Sounds like a really interesting book. What is the title of the first, so I could get caught up?

Here it is...

http://home.ustc.edu.cn/~wujxin/down...%20Thrones.pdf

And here's a map of Westeros for reference when reading...

http://gameofthrones.net/images/West..._Political.gif

And another of the eastern continent where Danaerys is...

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1...orld01ans2.gif

It's not the same as having the book in your hands, but it's searchable. Enjoy.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Would this be the same church that sold indulgences?

What would that change?

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

What would that change?

It seems to me that a church that does that is hardly one that is going to protect the poor from the wealthy and privileged.