While I agree that Relentless was wrong in the way he posted his theory, no book information was given...none. I personally think he should have kept his theory to himself because the second I read it I knew it would get blown way out of proportion.
Of course it has been teased. Even the example that you just provided in the 1st paragraph teases it. Ned also said to Jon something to the effect of "one day I will sit you down and tell you who your mother was".
It's just a TV show and a pretty lowbrow one at that. BFD either way. *spoiler* People are greedy bastards, they are all going to die and the world as they know it will come to an end. If the "crushing beetles" part didn't clue you in to the authors real intentions a couple of plot spoilers won't ruin it.
That's not a tease though. It's barely been discussed, but when it was between two life long friends it was discussed as if it is a fact that the woman was the one Robert asked about and that it made Ned uncomfortable to discuss cheating on Cat. He bristles at the discussion and Robert reminds him that they were at war and nobody knew if they would make it back. It's only a teaser to people who read the books (or online, or a spoiler) and so are watching it with a teased mind already.
It is hinted in the TV Show as much as it is hinted in the books so what you are saying is simply not true. All of the information that is needed to make the Jon Snow theory/assumption has been shown in the TV Show. The difference is that it goes so fast that many of you do not know what to look for. As someone that read the books (3 times) and researched the characters and events thoroughly it is easier for me to pick up on these subtleties. What TV watchers do not realize is that the books explain back story as thoroughly and clearly as the TV show. Small nuggets of information is dropped here and there, typically in conversation and usually out of order. The material has to be read and reread from start to finish to really get a whole picture. Websites that are dedicated to the books also help tremendously because they put the story in order. What I will grant everyone is that I think that the delivery of his "theory" was bull****. It was delivered in the fashion of a spoiler instead of "here is a theory that many subscribe too".
I didn't say I didn't watch it or that it wasn't interesting, but it is just a repetitious nightmare of the worst behaviour of men. I do fast forward through most of the hacking and chopping of body parts.
You don't really know what you're saying. It's pretty much the definition of a tease. I only watch the shows (and read this fun thread), and I've expected his mother to be revealed at some point. I'm sure most people have.
I'm sure this is true, but no sane show watcher would even know what those things you listed below even means or think it of any significance. I've heard of Elia because Oberyn kept yapping about it before he had his head squashed. Don't know about Rhaegar or Lyanna. And most show watchers probably don't need to know or care to know until it happens on the show.
At least show watchers can take solace in the fact that 80% of the next book is pure and utter crap that could have been told in 1/10 of the time. Nobody will recommend others to read it and fewer will remember anything to spoil.
How the gore in Game of Thrones is added in post production http://sploid.gizmodo.com/how-the-gruesome-gore-in-game-of-thrones-is-added-in-po-1591861267
Exactly my point. Just because you don't "know or care" doesn't mean that it hasn't been shown and it surely doesn't mean that it is not relevant. Quite the opposite in my opinion. All of these events are why what we have seen to date has taken place. Additionally, it is the reasoning that certain characters position themselves a certain way. If anything, you would think that understanding these events would make the story better. What is funny is that this is exactly how a first time book reader feels! You know the basic characters and story lines but you don't know how they inter-relate or their (or their family's) backstories. For me, this is why the material is so genius!
Yes it is. The book details moments that have not been detailed on the show that give rise to the theory.
I think this is a good post because it points out good circumstantial evidence that supports Ned as Jon's father: - season 1 episode 2 at the 15 minute mark Ned tells Jon exactly what justtxyank claims: Ned, "The Starks have maned the wall for thousands of years, and you are a Stark. You might not have my name but you have my blood." Jon, "Is my mother alive? Does she know about me where I am? Where I'm going? Does she care?" Ned, "The next time we see each other, we'll talk about your mother, I promise." Ned does not say to Jon, "You have Stark blood" he says, "You have my blood". Same episode at the 22 minute mark Robert, "There was that one, what was her name, that common girl of yours? Back there with the great big t*** you could burry your face in." Ned, "Betsy, and she was one of yours" Robert, "Betsy!, Thank the gods for Betsy and the t***! Yours was Elina? No, you told me once, uh...Marril? You know your bastards mother?" Ned, "Wyla" Robert, "Thats it. It must have been a rare wench to make Lord Eddard Stark forget his honor. You never told me what she looked like." Ned, "Nor will I" Robert, "We were at war, none of us knew if we were going to go back home, you are too hard on yourself. You always have been. I swear if I weren't your king you'd have hit me already." Ned, "The worst thing about your coronation, I'll never get to hit you again." So, for what it's worth, Ned told Jon Snow he was "his" son and named his mother in season 1 episode 2. Jon Snow's mother is someone named "Wyla". By the way, going back and reviewing that made me miss the character Robert Baratheon. He was probably the most interesting character in the series. He was certainly the funnest character.
You've got to understand, getting into anything show related on the internet, there's going to be land mines.
The TV Show will never has as much detail as the books but that doesn't change the fact that the framework for the Jon Snow theory has been delivered. The rest of the material from the book that supports the theory is as much conjecture as the rest. I'd be happy to discuss this in the other thread if you like.
