Jump to content

Heresy 87


Black Crow

Recommended Posts

Vaguely, I've wondered whether there might be some tradition or agreement between the Starks and the women of, say, Whitetree to exchange genetic material every generation or so. One way or another, you'd think the Starks would need access to wildling blood/rootstock to maintain the strength and health of the family tree. Maybe this is related to Martin's refusal (so far) to identify Ned's mother? It might also have something to do with how Old Nan got to Winterfell. She's definitely got a 'rootstock' vibe to her....

Skaagos... it's why Martin had Rickon go there and why we haven't learned of Ned's mother... because she's Skaagosi, of true, long-lasting First Men blood... and she's possibly still alive...

:commie: :commie: :commie:

:dunno: As to "Blood of the Dragon": Cylon-human hybrid type of thing? (Battlestar Galactica 2004 Re-imagining) :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two relevant phrases are" the blood of the dragon" and "the wolf blood", linking the Targaryens to Fire and the Starks to Ice respectively.



There are two further points which follow on from this. The dragons were gone from Westeros and the Stark tombs no longer have direwolves sitting by the dead lords.



Then the dragons hatch for Dany and the direwolves come from dark Narnia beyond the Wall to bond with the Starks


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two relevant phrases are" the blood of the dragon" and "the wolf blood", linking the Targaryens to Fire and the Starks to Ice respectively.

There are two further points which follow on from this. The dragons were gone from Westeros and the Stark tombs no longer have direwolves sitting by the dead lords.

Then the direwolves come from dark Narnia beyond the Wall to bond with the Starks and the dragons hatch for Dany

Switched around the order

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old Nan the rootstock....that make me guffaw!

Would it be necessary to cross the Wall now and then? I wonder if Ned was "offered" Old Ned. ew. How did they explain the bastard children?

So, it dawned on me last night that I was mixing up (conflating, really) the "grafting" metaphor with the larger and more inclusive metaphor of "cultivation," of which grafting is just a part. So here's the correction: The women who "Keep" Craster are strategically cultivating fruit, and likely use grafting to speed the growth of select seedlings. But for the most part, they are using a less predictable, less controlled method: they are propagating by seed. This distinction is important, because it sets up the central contrast and conflict between the feudal lords of Westeros and the free folk north of the Wall.

One primary definition of the word wildling is "A plant that grows wild or has escaped from cultivation, especially a wild apple tree or its fruit." We know that the free folk practice "marriage by kidnapping"... in other words, there is no institutional recognition or ceremony as would be expected south of the Wall, where children are cultivated through marriage. Thus by Seven Kingdoms standards, all wildlings are bastards. Likewise, all bastards are wildlings: bastards are second rate citizens - unable to inherit, unfit for marriage. They are "traitorous," and notoriously susceptible to passion and lust. They are the children of nature ("my natural daughter"), uncultivated ("Lord Rickon's southron ambitions"), born from seed ("dragonseed") - and so they are given surnames of the land rather than surnames of their fathers.

Through the wide angle lens, this is a framework Martin uses to incorporate the old literary tradition of "Art vs. Nature," and to explore the question of what it means to be human. But taking a narrower view, this metaphor helps to bring some other things into focus.

For example, Craster's sons and the Others. If Craster's keepers (the wives) are attempting to propagate from seed - then I think we have one relatively safe interpretation for what it means that Craster "gives [his sons] to the trees." He's throwing the bad apples/seeds into the woods. Consider that apples are notoriously difficult to cultivate from seed - and you can imagine that a grower aiming to develop the "perfect" fruit will end up with bushels of apples she neither wants nor needs. Many will be sour or bitter. Some will be too small. Others might be entirely inedible :o . For whatever reason, many fruit just get thrown away - tossed into the woods. At the same time... she will also end up with apples that are edible, tasteful and nutritious - but which don't fit the desired type (wrong size, color, etc.). These don't get thrown out. These might be kept in the cellar, among the winter stores... because the grower has mouths to feed. (Yes. I am once again suggesting my crackpot idea that some of Craster's children end up in the secret larder. I won't take it any further here, I'll simply await confirmation from Martin's text. ;) )

Grafting would come into play at the Keep, but I don't think Craster was "grafted" into the family. Craster was "planted" as the pollinator crab apple, and then fenced into the orchard. (Why does Craster not join Mance's host up in the Frostfangs? In terms of this metaphor, one might say he was unable to leave his Keep - because he is not there by his own choosing.) Grafting, I think, would be a useful technique for Craster's women when they've identified a promising young seedling - so "grafting" in this context could be a specific metaphor for the raising of children.

(Sidebar: If Craster is a "planted" crab apple, instead of a "graft," then the allegory also has to answer the question as to how pollination takes place, since apple trees require assistance getting pollen from one tree to another. Martin may have built this into the arrangement at the Keep as well. I'm wondering if the name Dyah could be a subtle reference to a wasp.)

What "ideal fruit" do the crones have in mind as their goal? How about a woman attractive enough to catch the eye of those "kneelers?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting post by Brashcandy on the Sansa thread from the main board, which is currently enjoying its second birthday:

Posted Today, 10:23 AM

@ Black Crow - Very interesting thoughts concerning Narnia. I haven't read the books, but I do remember us having a brief discussion on it where tze made some provocative arguments. How have the heretics been developing the parallels, because for Sansa's role it might have value in considering her as a Winter Queen candidate, something which you have alluded to in the past as complimentary to Jon's station. I'm reposting tze's thoughts below:

Quote

The Stark/Lannister conflict always reminded me of an inverted Narnia---in Narnia, forces aligned with the lion Aslan opposed forces aligned with the winter-associated (and wolf-associated, via the talking wolf Maugrim) White Witch, the former serving as the "heroes" and the latter serving as the "villains". In ASOIAF, forces aligned with the lion (Lannister) opposed forces aligned with the winter-and-wolf-associated House of Stark, with the former serving as "villains" and the latter serving as the "heroes" (yes, I realize the heroes/villains divide is far clearer in Narnia than in Westeros, but I think we can safely say that the Starks are far more sympathetic to readers than the White Witch and the Lannisters are far more sinister to readers than Aslan). In Narnia, the White Witch was a single figure, a single "Queen of Winter"---but I think it's worth noting that we have multiple "lions" in Westeros, and multiple "sorcerer/sorceress" figures among the House of Stark.

In the crypt incident I quoted upthread, there were five Stark siblings present (Rickon apparently not yet having been born). Robb is now dead, which leaves four "living" (or resurrected, depending) Starks present in that scene: Jon, Sansa, Bran, and Arya. There are certain parallels between these four Starks and the four Pevensie siblings---Jon as Peter, Sansa as Susan, Bran as Edmund, and Arya as Lucy. And the interesting thing about Narnia was that the four Pevensie siblings all became Kings and Queens of Narnia (two Kings, one of them the High King, and two Queens---not one King with one prince/two princesses). Thus far, we've had Jon associated with a King, and both Sansa and Arya associated with Queenship. Bran is still associated with being a prince, but that could change. So perhaps we won't have a "single" King or Queen of Winter, but rather, multiple Kings/Queens?

And with Sansa, the Narnia parallels are interesting because, again, of the inversion factor. Susan Pevensie started out as a Queen of Narnia, but then "cast off" Narnia because she became interested in romance, material wealth, etc. This transformation meant that, when her three siblings eventually returned to Narnia, she could not come with them. (I know C.S. Lewis stated that he always thought she made it to Narnia eventually, but come on. The whole Susan issue always rather pissed me off.) Sansa's plot arc has basically been the inverse of Susan---Sansa starts out obsessed with romance and material things, then she progresses into a more mature figure more heavily associated with her siblings and more wholly associated with the aspects of a 'true' Queen. So Sansa's plot arc could be structured to have her join her siblings as Queen of Winter in the end, embracing a Queenship role where Susan Pevensie cast hers off.

With respect to Sansa/Susan, and as tze suggested above, there's the problematic handling of her maturity and separation from Narnia, which many have seen as an indictment of sorts on adult femininity. This seems very relevant to a discussion on how Martin has developed Sansa's character in ASOIAF, where I would argue we're seeing a much more positive exploration of female sexuality and agency, one that is integral to considerations of the power she will hold in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snowfyre, how does grafting affect appearance? Jon Snow, for instance looks like a Stark. Either Targaryen genes are recessive or Rhaegar isn't the father after all.

I've kinda gone back and forth on Jon, but I think his appearance fits with the rule for fruit horticulture - which is that the tree always bears it's own fruit. So the Stark apple tree bears Stark apples, and the children take after their mother in appearance. (Just don't ask me to explain how Arya fits into this reading - haven't figured that out yet!) But we've already seen Martin use embryological metaphors to signal moments in which his characters become fully grown into their identity/calling. In Mystery Knight (as many other threads have discussed), Daemon II dreams that a dragon will hatch from an egg at Whitewalls - and in the end, Bloodraven confirms that the dream was true: Egg reveals his identity as Aegon Targaryen, and assumes his full authority and status as a Dragon.

In Jon's case, I'm wondering if the "daggers in the dark" finale to ADWD ends up signaling his status as "fallen fruit" - transitioning to the next stage in the life cycle. The word "metamorphosis" comes to mind, but I'm not sure how Martin plans to segue between the fruit and the dragon metaphors for Jon. One of my hesitations about Jon is that I'm not entirely sure he works as an apple, and that's the reason. Two ideas I've had are:

1. Jon functions as a sort of "Wyrm in the Apple" (i.e., the wyrm will emerge from the fallen fruit); or

2. Jon is not an apple at all, but some other fruit.

Oh, man! Just did a quick google search to check see if anyone referred to apple seeds as "stones" (trying to connect the apple metaphor with Mel's "dragon from stone")... and check this out:

Bael

Bael - (Aegle marmelos), also known as Bengal quince, golden apple, stone apple, wood apple, bili, is a species of tree native to India. It is present throughout Southeast Asia as a naturalized species. The tree is considered to be sacred by Hindus. Its fruits are used in traditional medicine and as a food throughout its range.

...Bael is the only member of the monotypic genus Aegle.[3] It is a mid-sized, slender, aromatic, armed, gum-bearing tree growing up to 18 meters tall. It has a leaf with three leaflets.

...The bael fruit has a smooth, woody shell with a green, gray, or yellow peel. It takes about 11 months to ripen on the tree and can reach the size of a large grapefruit or pomelo, and some are even larger. The shell is so hard it must be cracked with a hammer or machete. The fibrous yellow pulp is very aromatic. It has been described as tasting of marmalade and smelling of roses. Boning (2006) indicates that the flavor is "sweet, aromatic and pleasant, although tangy and slightly astringent in some varieties. It resembles a marmalade made, in part, with citrus and, in part, with tamarind."

The fruit is also used in religious rituals. In Hinduism the tree is sacred. It is used in the worship of Shiva, who is said to favor the leaves. The tri-foliate form of leaves symbolize the trident that Shiva holds in his right hand. The fruits were used in place of coconuts before large-scale rail transportation became available. The fruit is said to resemble a skull with a white, bone-like outer shell and a soft inner part, and is sometimes called seer phael (head-fruit). However, it is quite likely that, the term 'Seer Phal' has coined from the Sanskrit term 'ShreePhal, which again is a common name for this fruit. Many Hindus have bael trees in their gardens.

In the traditional Newari culture of Nepal, the bael tree is part of a fertility ritual for girls known as the Bel baha. Girls are "married" to the bael fruit and as long as the fruit is kept safe and never cracks the girl can never become widowed, even if her human husband dies. This was seen to be protection against the social disdain suffered by widows in the Newari community.

Wow. I did NOT see that coming. Jon is the Bael Fruit.

---

Anyway, to answer your question - I would not be surprised if Jon looks more "Targaryen" when he appears again among the living. Think of Fionn mac Cumhaill, the Irish hero whose hair turned prematurely white...

(ETA - Additional cut 'n paste from the wikipedia article)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, I'll try to be brief, I just wanted to respond before i go to sleep.

We have that story about Craster doing just this sort of thing. How many other Rangers have taken advantage of more than just Mole's Town? It seems like there's often at least one Stark joining the Watch down the generations.

So you are taking a literal (rather than Snowfyre's symbolic) approach to the meaning of "blood of the dragon." Seems pretty sound to me; the test will be if the magical link works for the Starks/direwolves, does it also work for the Targs/dragons? It may not be exactly the same, or it might. We have lots of evidence for the first; I am pretty sure if it's there, we'll be able to find it for the second (and it sounds like Wolfmaid has already started).

Some of us will prefer the literal or the symbolic take. Personally, I think both can exist simultaneously as valid possibilities and readings.

While I'm not familiar with everyone on this list, I'd say you're in pretty good company if you're interested in analogies, allusions, themes and symbolism (especially when it comes to teasing out GRRM's, since Yeats is seriously enamoured of symbols (second only to Maud Gonne) and relies heavily on them in his writing).

As for GRRM's deception, I think he wants us to be able to spend time trying to figure out the possibilities. I'm really intrigued by the idea of grafting. It seems metaphorical for how the history of the Andals and First Men and Starks and COTF and Others has grown together as time has passed. The idea that we might be able to get glimpses of it -- that things exist outside time and Bran can momentarily recover them is really important. The link that makes this possible (magic/Bran) is a vital thing. It seems crucial to the COTF's survival, and other races as well.

I'm not going to say that GRRM deceives his readers that's a strong word,misdirection yeah. I agree with you though on the endless possibilities and just going through the process with others is what makes this experience pretty good.

He didn't say dimension, he said universe, no?

JNR is using it interchangeably with dimension as BC never even mentioned the word "universe" nor was there a mention of "parallel" added before dimension.

I understand your reticence to post an idea/theory/conjecture. Thanks for sharing some of your thoughts with us and I again wish you would do some sort of blog and link it here if you don't want to post it in the general boards. (And I don't blame for not wanting to, it is exhausting judging by what wolfmaid had to go through.)

As to the 'blood of the dragon' if you could expand on what you mean a little more that would be great. I don't know if I grasped what you meant correctly, and to be honest I never gave it much thought, but it seems you are talking about an actual, physical connection between the Targs and their dragons that is rooted in magic.

While this is not concrete proof of a connection and it is more on the speculative side I wonder if you have read this post by Ragnarok:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/78181-the-old-gods-and-mirri-maz-duur/#entry3911765

The ritual he suggests might be something that made the Targs blood of the dragon literally. I am taking a stab in the dark here but if the principle you allude to with magic is something which has ramifications that are generational, then this might well be it. If the first Targ to do this or something like it ended up carrying the magic in his or her blood, then it could be past down to their children. It also fits with why the Targs inter married to keep the blood magic strong.

I hope JNR will weigh in further on his thinking is .For me researching the "Blood of the Dragon" has led me to several Japanese Myths that i think work very well as a real world association.In this series i consider Dragons an Old Race and adding the cultural depiction of the Valyrian Sphinx and the real world knowledge of what the Sphinx signifies in Egyptian Mythology ( Shapeshifing and metamorphosis) i feel it safe to say that the Myth of the Dragonking (Dragon that shifted into a man) is very relevant.Enough so that i believe that a Dragon made a blood oath/pact with the Targs.Hence the phrase which i see parallels the Starks 'we have the Wolfblood"

The two relevant phrases are" the blood of the dragon" and "the wolf blood", linking the Targaryens to Fire and the Starks to Ice respectively.

There are two further points which follow on from this. The dragons were gone from Westeros and the Stark tombs no longer have direwolves sitting by the dead lords.

Then the dragons hatch for Dany and the direwolves come from dark Narnia beyond the Wall to bond with the Starks

I think and this is a gut feeling only that was the point,not for the Starks or Targs to make contact but for these two creatures not to be able to make contact with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...JNR is using it interchangeably with dimension as BC never even mentioned the word "universe" nor was there a mention of "parallel" added before dimension....

Well, I guess it would be up to JNR whether he was using "universe" as interchangeable with "dimension." On their face they are two very different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, those of us who are suggesting that beyond the Wall is a different realm; the Otherlands or a Dark Narnia where a different set of rules apply, where magic is worked and direwolves, white walkers, wargs, skinchangers "and worse" roam, are not the ones using either term, and its precisely because I don't believe it is another dimension or a parallel universe that I use the term realm. It is not part of the realms of men which the Watch is pledged to defend, but another, different realm.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, those of us who are suggesting that beyond the Wall is a different realm; the Otherlands or a Dark Narnia where a different set of rules apply, where magic is worked and direwolves, white walkers, wargs, skinchangers "and worse" roam, are not the ones using either term, and its precisely because I don't believe it is another dimension or a parallel universe that I use the term realm. It is not part of the realms of men which the Watch is pledged to defend, but another, different realm.

Fair enough. But I don't see that the Black Gate is a special portal to some special different realm. It takes you from the realm on one side of the Wall to the realm on the other just as the NW's more conventional tunnels do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone annotated all the sacred taboos of Westeros?



Two are especially prominent, violating Guest Right, and Kinslaying. As we can see, people can get away with murder, rape, and robbery but they tend not to escape the consequences of breaking the great taboos.



Violating Guest Right:



1) Jaime, loses his hand


2) The Freys have suffered more deaths after the Red Wedding than in the fighting before


2) Coldhands kills the mutineers



Kinslaying is a little more problematic; I might speculate that the consequences move more slowly.



1) Robb Stark, dies at the Red Wedding


2) Gregor Clegane "dies" in agony


3) It's unclear whether Craster's sacrifices count as kinslaying. I think not, but if so, he dies when the mutineers violate guest right.


4) If we agree with Bran Vras's theory that Theon Greyjoy fathered one of the miller's wife's children, which I happen to do, then he pays for the killing of his seed by his castration and degradation.



Presumably Tyrion will pay the price later on. Euron Greyjoy and Stannis seem to bear responsibility for their brothers' deaths; whether or not they are truly kinslayers remains to be seen.



---


Certainly these taboos are very ancient. Their original provenance is unknown. They seem to be connected to the old Gods.



Now to wrap the tinfoil around my head:



Are guest right and kinslaying applicable to the Others, or in their manifestation as White Walkers? Are they perhaps "guests" of Craster (or the other way around) and this is why he and his daughter/wives remain unharmed?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) It's unclear whether Craster's sacrifices count as kinslaying. I think not, but if so, he dies when the mutineers violate guest right.

That rather depends on what's really going on and why.

If the women are right and the white walkers are Craster's sons then he is clearly not slaying them.

If on the other hand they do wind up dead then we have to consider the nature of sacrifice. Mel for example offers up living people to the flames, but she isn't making a sacrifice, it doesn't cost her anything. Craster on the other hand is giving up his sons, the most precious thing he has, and that genuine sacrifice to the gods presumably overrides the crime of kinslaying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've kinda gone back and forth on Jon, but I think his appearance fits with the rule for fruit horticulture - which is that the tree always bears it's own fruit. So the Stark apple tree bears Stark apples, and the children take after their mother in appearance. (Just don't ask me to explain how Arya fits into this reading - haven't figured that out yet!) But we've already seen Martin use embryological metaphors to signal moments in which his characters become fully grown into their identity/calling. In Mystery Knight (as many other threads have discussed), Daemon II dreams that a dragon will hatch from an egg at Whitewalls - and in the end, Bloodraven confirms that the dream was true: Egg reveals his identity as Aegon Targaryen, and assumes his full authority and status as a Dragon.

In Jon's case, I'm wondering if the "daggers in the dark" finale to ADWD ends up signaling his status as "fallen fruit" - transitioning to the next stage in the life cycle. The word "metamorphosis" comes to mind, but I'm not sure how Martin plans to segue between the fruit and the dragon metaphors for Jon. One of my hesitations about Jon is that I'm not entirely sure he works as an apple, and that's the reason. Two ideas I've had are:

1. Jon functions as a sort of "Wyrm in the Apple" (i.e., the wyrm will emerge from the fallen fruit); or

2. Jon is not an apple at all, but some other fruit.

Oh, man! Just did a quick google search to check see if anyone referred to apple seeds as "stones" (trying to connect the apple metaphor with Mel's "dragon from stone")... and check this out:

Bael

Wow. I did NOT see that coming. Jon is the Bael Fruit.

---

Anyway, to answer your question - I would not be surprised if Jon looks more "Targaryen" when he appears again among the living. Think of Fionn mac Cumhaill, the Irish hero whose hair turned prematurely white...

(ETA - Additional cut 'n paste from the wikipedia article)

Snowfyre: Wow. That Bael fruit stuff just blew my mind, and I've been lurking since heresy 6.

Yes mindblowing, nostragaamus and welcome! And a here's a little more on the Bael fruit spiritual application, Snowfyre, from here:

http://www.astrogle.com/ayurveda/wood-apple-bael-fruit-health-benefits.html

...Medicinal and Spiritual values : The bael fruit is more popular as medicine than as food. The Yajur Veda mentions the bael tree, but the Charaka Samhita, an Ayurveda treatise from the 1st millennium BC, was the first book to describe its medicinal properties. Hindu scriptures abound in references to the bael tree and its leaves. The devotees of Lord Shiva commonly offer bael leaves to the deity, especially on Shivaratri; this probably explains why bael trees are so common near temples. Hindus also believe that ghosts live on bael trees....

Leaves also used as an offering and an association with ghosts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To begin with, if I remember correctly, guest right only attaches when the guest has partaken of the host's bread and salt.

That was very heavily emphasised prior to the Red Wedding when Robb, at his mother's urging was very careful to ask for refreshment and Lord Frey equally knowingly granted it.

There are other variants on the theme in history and folklore. Campbell of Inverawe granted it to the murderer of a kinsman after he touched the hearth and equally well known is the business of a fugitive claiming sanctuary in a church by siezing hold of the knocker on the door. However, detail aside generally speaking that protection has to be requested and knowingly given. Surreptitiously creeping in and nibbling a morsel of cheese doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And pardon my lack of attention to detail, but have we given some thought to Craster's "original" wife?

Oh yes indeedy although I can't recall which heresies it may have been discussed in. There has even been a suggestion that his first wife may have been his mother although I suspect that Ygriite might have mentioned this as its hardly the sort of scandal to be overlooked. All we really know of his antecedants is her story that he was the son of a man of the Nights watch and a woman from Whitetree. The reference to Whitetree might well turn out to be significant but I can't help wondering about the truth of the claim his father was a ranger - it may be that his mother was trying to do a Gilly and escape with him by pretending it was so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...