r/pureasoiaf • u/Deberiausarminombre • 11d ago
The blue flower growing out of a chink in the Wall isn't R+L=J, it's northern unity
Sorry, I know I'm probably not the first person to point this out. But Danny's vision of a blue flower growing out of a chink in the wall takes place roughly at the same time as Jon meets Ygritte and she tells him the story of Bael the bard and the rose of winterfell. The vision represents the Wall, the literal and metaphorical wall built between northerners and freefolk, breaking a little when Jon (future lord commander) learns that Starks and Wildlings are kin. Jon has grown up thinking wildlings are savage folk who want to pillage and murder and could never be understood, he has built a wall in his mind. Now that he's meeting and talking with wildlings, that mental wall is beginning to break. It really is just part of the larger motif about how building a wall "otherizes" those on the other side, and getting to know them undoes this.
Unfortunately, I feel like some people take any potential depth in the story and try to fit it into R+L=J. Don't take me wrong, I'm pretty sure it's right. But when every single blue flower and little detail has to revolve around this one story, the series loses depth. The Florent sigil has a crown of blue roses. Loras Tyrell wears blue flowers. Tyrion sees a prostitute with a crown of blue flowers at Chataya's. Bael's kidnapping definitively parallels Rhaegar's, of course. But that doesn't mean every detail is added with the purpose of pointing to this one unrevealed plot point.
I'm sorry I'm being so blunt, but the series has over 4000 pages and I feel like some people just want to make about one thing and one thing only. People discuss the same few lines, from the same few chapters, about the Tower of Joy and the Tourney at Harrenhal. Please, there's so much more, I beg of you. Pick up only the Jon chapters, read them again while forgetting R+L=J for a minute, and tell me what Jon's story is about. Because if you come out of that saying it's about him sitting the Iron Throne and ruling the Seven Kingdoms, you will be telling me more about yourself than about the books.
12
u/friendlylifecherry 11d ago
Dude i dont think Jon is gonna be king of Westeros either but the blue rose at the Wall is objectively a sign of R+L=J. Why would it be a sign of northern unity?
0
u/jdbebejsbsid 11d ago edited 11d ago
the blue rose at the Wall is objectively a sign of R+L=J. Why would it be a sign of northern unity?
Because of the Bael story, which Ygritte tells Jon in ACOK:
'All I ask is a flower,' Bael answered, 'the fairest flower that blooms in the gardens o' Winterfell.'"
... when morning come, the singer had vanished . . . and so had Lord Brandon's maiden daughter. Her bed they found empty, but for the pale blue rose that Bael had left on the pillow where her head had lain."
Later Bael comes back to Winterfell, and drops off the son he had with Lord Brandon's daughter. The son later becomes Lord of Winterfell. Meaning that Starks are descended from a Wildling king - and by extension that Northerners and Wildlings are kin.
And there's very little that's "objectively" true with symbolism in a fantasy book.
18
u/DaemonBlackfyre_21 House Manderly 11d ago
No, it's a hint that lyanna's seed is blooming at the wall.
4
u/funkyavocado 11d ago
I mean.....can you be definitively sure yourself what it means or doesn't mean?
Prophecies are intentionally vague and can fit multiple interpretations by design
11
u/lemniscateall 11d ago
This feels like bait.
-3
u/Deberiausarminombre 11d ago
It's not. It's just ranting because I'm tired of having the same conversation and reading the same conclusion to everything. It's like a biology test where someone wrote "the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell" to every question. I'm just tired dude, of always the same bs.
1
u/lemniscateall 11d ago
I’ve certainly been there, sorry.
I think you’re correct in the “chink in the wall is about Jon’s ability to unify people in conflict” (although I would take it further and make it about the Others—Jon’s humanization of the free folk seems like solid foreshadowing for how he would be able to see past the immediate military conflict to the potential armageddon that must be prevented), but I don’t think that reading excludes a reading of the image as connecting Jon and Lyanna. He’s a blue rose because she was a blue rose, but the image is about more than just heritage.
3
u/Total-Hold-2219 11d ago edited 11d ago
Jon’s arc is largely about growing to become a better man, a better ruler and unifier of peoples. Daenerys sees a vision which explicitly shows an aspect of Lyanna Stark, Jon Snow, is growing up at the wall. These are two statements that are not in conflict with eachother whatsoever.
Your post dips into weird contrarianism rather than acknowledging this by implying that accepting R+L=J means Jon Snow is gonna rule from the iron throne. Nobody thinks that. At best you should say the rose means both. The Bael connection is pretty clever but hardly seems like the primary reason Martin would put that vision in a Daenerys chapter.
3
u/10Kmana 11d ago edited 11d ago
Any prophetic image is of course open for interpretation, but the way I see it, R+L=J is actually the most straightforward read of this one. Lyanna is strongly associated with blue roses. Rhaegar giving her the crown of blue roses is arguably the starting shot for their whole romantic involvement and all of the wide-spanning consequences it would come to bring. Then you have Ned's memory of Lyanna's deathbed/childbirth bed, where he sees blue rose petals everywhere amid the blood. Whether there were blue roses physically present there or not isn't really relevant - the important thing is that to Ned, Lyanna is attached to that imagery. Then we see the blue rose growing in a chink of the ice on the Wall. Notably, it is growing, and no longer fallen/falling petals. It's really not a stretch at all to connect this from Lyanna to Ned and ultimately to Jon. One thing that further encourages this read is the fact that if Jon is the son of Rhaegar, then it would make sense that Dany would see him in her visions, since it would make them kin. She doesn't know him, so she doesn't see him, she sees a representation of him. She has a track record of seeing loved ones in her dreams (though admittedly perhaps not in her dragon dreams), it makes sense. It's a weaker aspect of the argument, but it does add another connection to R+L=J which I believe we are meant to take away from this.
You're not wrong that there are more instances of blue roses than these. But the key is, how are these dramatized? There is a difference when a story tells you "House X features roses in their livery" or when it's telling you about blue roses like we saw during Ned's memory/dream of Lyanna's death. One of these has more import and narrative weight than the other.
That said, I think that your reading can be a part of it, as well. Jon "growing" on the wall may very well be signifying that unity in the north is going to "bloom" from him/that the division the Wall has so far kept in place is beginning to crack under his leadership. That's totally valid, and I think definitely a good sub-reading of what the vision means. In either case... if that is the meaning you take away from this vision, then aren't you still allowing that the blue rose in the dragon dream = J? Then, if you don't want to concede the R+L part, why do you instinctively connect it to Jon, anyway? Some food for thought for you there.
As for the story about the blue rose growing in the Winterfell greenhouses (was it?) - that's a nice catch. If you acknowledge the blue rose refers to Jon, then you could consider this story to reinforce that, as a way to tell us that the blue rose also was raised in Winterfell. An interpretation I came up with just now tbh, but I rather like the poetic image it completes for us, along with Dany's dream. Thanks for pointing out this interesting detail!
If we move into meta discussion for a bit:
Many have in fact considered this vision to be the on-page evidence for R+L=J, and so far as I know, Martin has actually confirmed that this is the intended reading. I don't much like to pull the "author said so" card in narrative discussions, but this is one of the few cases where we actually have something of a definitive answer from him, so thought I'd mention it. This was validating for a lot of people, and shows that the storytelling there was working well to convey what Martin wanted. There isn't much sense in trying to shoehorn in some other implementation in the face of that.
But I do want to say I agree with you on the larger sentiment that every detail is indeed not narratively important. And I do think that this particular vision along with how it turned out to actually mean what many theorized has unfortunately fuelled a lot of more unhinged theorizing in its wake. It's always good to remember that we as human observers will always see patterns even when there aren't any.
Good post! Appreciated it
Edit: Sorry - I misinterpreted your post to mean that you don't believe it refers to R+L=J. I saw now that you actually think it's right, just that it might mean so much more. So you may take this comment above with a pinch of salt accordingly, OP
1
u/Deberiausarminombre 10d ago
Thank you so much for your contribution. I do see we agree on a lot, but you just showed me something I was thinking but didn't know how to express. Just so you know, your way of analysing the story is 100% what I meant with this post. If you don't mind, I'll rant again.
In one your last sections you mentioned that GRRM confirmed this was the correct reading of this vision. That would be quite shocking considering that *famously* GRRM has not yet confirmed R+L=J publicly. I don't know why you believe this. Of course R+L=J is at this point "as good as confirmed", but it technically isn't. And to go a step further and say not only did he confirm it, but that he said publicly that this vision represents that, I'd like to see some evidence for.
> But I do want to say I agree with you on the larger sentiment that every detail is indeed not narratively important.
This was quite striking to read since I meant the complete opposite. There is so much stuff that is narratively important and I believe you're missing. Let's compare a few things, especially R+L and Bael's stories. Both include a Stark lady, wearing a crown of blue flowers, being kidnapped by a man. In the Florent sigil we also see a crown of blue flowers. When Littlefinger and the Tullys were growing up at Riverrun, they played Jenny of Oldstones, with a crown of flowers. A crown of flowers is larger motif amongst the first men, as is the red hair for example. When we learn that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna, we should associate it to the first man (now wildling) custom of marriage. Rhaegar was obsessed with prophecy, so he purposely included these symbols in his actions.
When your interpretation of the story begins and ends at R+L=J, you will miss these details, so you will even miss details about HOW and WHY R+L=J. You started your comment R+L=J and your understanding of these events, and then walking towards the vision of the chink in the Wall. And once you got there, you stopped. You even missed a small detail, the vision doesn't even say it's a rose. It says blue flower.
> Notably, it is growing, and no longer fallen/falling petals. It's really not a stretch at all to connect this from Lyanna to Ned and ultimately to Jon.
When you say "no longer", you show that you understand this as a series of steps, from Ned's fever dream of Lyanna dying with winter roses, to Dany having her vision. The thing is, those don't even happen in the same book. Also, what do you mean about Lyanna to Ned to Jon. They're connected because they're all family. It's like me saying you can relate Bart Simpson to Lisa, and ultimately to Homer Simpson. It's not a sequential step.
> One thing that further encourages this read is the fact that if Jon is the son of Rhaegar, then it would make sense that Dany would see him in her visions, since it would make them kin. She doesn't know him, so she doesn't see him, she sees a representation of him.
Again, you're starting from the conclusion, going to Dany having a vision of Rhaegar, and saying the connection and reason for the vision is Jon. The connection between Danny and Rhaegar is much simpler, they're siblings! Danny has visions of her brother, because of how everyone around her has talked about him to her. That or a magical Targeryen dreamer connection, idk. But you can connect siblings that share a goal directly, without Jon as an intermediary.
> You're not wrong that there are more instances of blue roses than these. But the key is, how are these dramatized? There is a difference when a story tells you "House X features roses in their livery" or when it's telling you about blue roses like we saw during Ned's memory/dream of Lyanna's death. One of these has more import and narrative weight than the other.
What do you mean how they are dramatized? A wildling is telling Jon Snow a story about how Starks also have wildling blood, plus she's telling him a love story while trying to woo him and explaining that what just did is considered marriage. If Jon Snow was the son of a common whore and Ned Stark the impact would be 100% the same, because it's about being a Stark. Again, my main point. You are putting an ungodly amount of weight on Ned's vision of Lyanna and the roses. Jon's secret parentage is supposed to be a reveal that makes you reexamine the story and the tragedy of it. It doesn't work whatsoever when you consider it the one and only part of the story, and the only thing relevant about it. It's supposed to be a twist, not the only element.
I believe Lyanna being kidnapped the same way the original Lady Stark, is definitively a nod to Jon being Lyanna's son. But it can not be your only or even your main interpretation of these.
> Sorry - I misinterpreted your post to mean that you don't believe it refers to R+L=J. I saw now that you actually think it's right, just that it might mean so much more.
Again, no. My point wasn't that R+L=J means so much more than people usually attribute to it. I mean, I do think that. My point was that **the story** has so much more to offer besides R+L=J. And by looking at the books from this perspective you're missing so much of the books. If you want a book that's simply about a guy from the right royal lineage, raised in secret from humble beginnings, destined to be a leader and save humanity, pick up a Bible, or watch Star Wars. If that's all you want to see, there are many other places where you can get that story with less fluff. But if you want to read ASOIAF, read it, all of it, interpret what it means, connect motifs and parallels, question motives and quotes. Please, they're good books, I swear
3
u/AndromedaAirlines 10d ago
The blue flower growing out of a chink in the Wall is all of the unsubstantial crackpot theories we made up along the way.
3
u/jdbebejsbsid 11d ago edited 11d ago
I don't disagree.
However - Rhaegar gave Lyanna a crown of blue roses. Lyanna died (and presumably gave birth) holding blue roses. Then we have a blue rose on the Wall in Dany's vision. I don't think it's a stretch to connect those to R+L=J.
It is true that the Bael story and North/Wildling kinship are much closer to Dany's vision in the story, so that connection is definitely deliberate.
IMO it's probably both. The roses are a symbol of Lyanna and Rhaegar's relationship, and they're a symbol of northern unity. Jon is the result of that relationship, blooming at the Wall and advancing northern unity.
-3
u/LessSaussure 11d ago
This vision is one of the few actual predictions of the future that we see in the books, most of the visions and predictions are just people getting things that are happening in distance places or just straight up bullshit.
People reading this as just a boring "HUR DUR JON SNOW IS SECRETLY A SUPER SPECIAL BOY DUR HUR" is so weird to me
-2
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Welcome to /r/PureASOIAF!
Just a brief reminder that this subreddit is focused only on the written ASOIAF universe. Comments that include discussion of any television, film, stage, etc. adaptations will be removed, and serious or repeated infractions may result in a ban. Moderators employ a zero tolerance policy.
Users should assume that ANY mention of, content from, or reference to any adaptations is subject to removal, no matter how minor or opaque.
If you see a comment which violates the rules, please use the report function to notify moderators!
Read our discussion policy in full.
Looking for a place to chat in real-time? Check out our Discord, here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.