Heresy 2

[Black Crow]

Although the original thread was locked because it was getting too big, I think it still has some mileage as it looked like we were getting somewhere, so here it is, Part 2 with a summary to start off:

The original thread started off by challenging the orthodoxy that the Wall was built to protect Westeros from the Others and manned by the Nights Watch for the same reason, suggesting instead that the Children and the other “Old Races” are the Others and that the Wall was built as a last bastion against the forces of the Lord of Light.

There were various problems with the traditional interpretation of the Wall but in a moment of genius Capon-breath posited that the Wall was indeed built by the Children but to halt Winter itself.

We’ve since gone on to look at the Nights Watch and the Nights King. We really don’t know what the story is, but there’s a shrewd suspicion, albeit not necessarily shared by all, that the Long Winter was unleashed by the Children as a weapon of last resort in the war with the First Men, and that the war ended when the Last Hero (now believed by many to be Brandon Stark) sought out the Children per Old Nan’s tale, and that the bit of the story she never finished told of the Pact between the Children and the First Men.

We, or at least some of us, think that as part of the Pact the Children threw up the Wall to absorb and contain the Winter and that in return the Watch patrolling the frontier between the lands of Men and the lands of the Children sacrificed their sons to become White Walkers, until the Night’s King, who had himself married a White Walker, was cast down. The practice appears however to have continued. Craster, who we know was giving up his sons to be White Walkers, looks as though he was really a Stark, perhaps the son of one of those Starks sent to the Wall, while the Stark family itself seems to be lacking in cadet branches, suggesting that once the succession was assured, one or more “spare” Starks in each generation went beyond the Wall to join the White Walkers, with a suggestion that this may be the fate of Benjen Stark.

There are other clues to this as well such as the belief that the dead Starks in Winterfell need to be bound in their graves by iron – perhaps to avoid their rising as White Walkers – and references such as that one in ADwD Davos 4 to a Brandon Stark known as “Ice Eyes”, and to the legends of Symeon Star Eyes.

Lots more too it of course, but this is just a reminder to start us off again.

[Eyron]

And some of us think that the Others and the Long Night are results of First Men running amok from wielding the powers of ice magic. Perhaps it was the Starks, or the pre-Starks since their previous name is no longer spoken of, and/or some of the Northmen (the Boltons have been mentioned).

One reflection on the discussion from the last thread, does anyone else find it funny that saying that the old Starks were/are the Others seems to be considered less of a heresy than saying that the Children are the Others?

It is interesting that so many of us seem to like the idea of some evil Starks and some terrible family history to be dug up. We want some shades to the Starks of course, and perhaps some background to contrast the present Starks, but thinking about it I realized that at least I was close to falling into the trap of easy solutions and vengeance. I no longer care much what happens to Westeros, apart from winter rooting out the rotten, cruel and greedy characters I have come to hate. Much like UnCat in fact :)

I feel like I maybe should rename myself UnEira.

[tze]

It is interesting that so many of us seem to like the idea of some evil Starks and some terrible family history to be dug up.

Ah, but that assumes that the Others are actually evil. :) They're probably actually responsible for fewer deaths among the wildlings than, say, Tywin Lannister caused in the Riverlands. The lands beyond the Wall can't be heavily populated, and Mance Rayder's host was massive.

And who knows---maybe the whole reason the wights are basically "zombies" is because true winter had not yet come when our characters were meeting them. If the Others weren't at full strength in the autumn, in the daylight, (which seems like a logical guess) then logically their wight-making skills were also not at full strength. Maybe the wights become more intelligent, retain more of their personal pre-death identity, the farther we get into winter? That would be an interesting twist. The Others would basically be killing humans and then fully resurrecting them, not as mindless zombies, but as themselves. Beric said that the reason he was losing parts of himself was because he was being raised by the forces of fire, and fire consumes. Well, ice preserves. It would certainly be harder to see the Others as a purely malevolent force if they're not so much "killing" people as, say, . . . making them immortal? (Maybe that's what happened to Coldhands when he was killed "long ago", and that's why he isn't a mindless wight?)

[RevengeOfTheStarks]

I'm actually very much looking forward to finding out that the creepy COTF and creepy evil Others and our favorite loveable Starks have a lot more in common than previously known. The idea that Starks are related to the others and that old alliances going back to the creation of the Wall are still at play now, makes a lot of sense. There are too many seeming contradictions at the moment, with the stories of the Wall, Night's Watch, Night's King, and all the rest that can be explained by the Starks and Others actually once being allies, or even related, or bonded by marriage (Night's King)

[Black Crow]

We may not be getting it quite right, but if this isn't heading in the right direction why are we being fed so many stories and clues which point that way. What's the point of the Night's King story otherwise?

[Ibbison from Ibben]

Going back to the end of the last thread, I really like the ideas everyone was discussing about bones vs. flesh. Whether you fully subscribe to all the ideas in the OP or not, the the process of examining it in this thread has turned up lots of great stuff.

[Black Crow]

One reflection on the discussion from the last thread, does anyone else find it funny that saying that the old Starks were/are the Others seems to be considered less of a heresy than saying that the Children are the Others?

It is interesting that so many of us seem to like the idea of some evil Starks and some terrible family history to be dug up. We want some shades to the Starks of course, and perhaps some background to contrast the present Starks, but thinking about it I realized that at least I was close to falling into the trap of easy solutions and vengeance.

I'm still very much of the belief that the White Walkers are not the one and only original true and authentic "Others", but that ultimately the term encompasses the Children and all the other "Old Races" as well, and perhaps includes some of the First Men, including the Starks.

As to the cruelty business I agree. Back on the old thread I suggested a parallel with the European settlement of North America and suggested that originally the Black Crows and their "Other" counterparts, the White Walkers patrolled the frontier to prevent men moving in to settle in the reservation. While it may not be an exact comparison its worth reflecting on the underlying philosophy of Native American warfare, at least amongst the Woodlanders of the East. They were unquestionably cruel; and at best took slaves, who might however be adopted into their clans, but also murdered and tortured prisoners in what was quite literally a frightful fashion. As explained to me this was not because they enjoyed being evil but because it ensured that real war was not a game to be embarked upon lightly - it had horrible consequences. Europeans saw it differently of course and proclaimed them to be evil incarnate and that therefore their extermination was a good thing.

Now I don't want to get too deeply into this, but it does provide a good example of how perceptions work and how in this case the "Others", whether the White Walkers or anybody else, are not necessarily the threat to all mankind that we were lead to believe at the outset.

[kissdbyfire]

Ah, but that assumes that the Others are actually evil. They're probably actually responsible for fewer deaths among the wildlings than, say, Tywin Lannister caused in the Riverlands. The lands beyond the Wall can't be heavily populated, and Mance Rayder's host was massive.

Very true.

And who knows---maybe the whole reason the wights are basically "zombies" is because true winter had not yet come when our characters were meeting them. If the Others weren't at full strength in the autumn, in the daylight, (which seems like a logical guess) then logically their wight-making skills were also not at full strength. Maybe the wights become more intelligent, retain more of their personal pre-death identity, the farther we get into winter? That would be an interesting twist. The Others would basically be killing humans and then fully resurrecting them, not as mindless zombies, but as themselves. Beric said that the reason he was losing parts of himself was because he was being raised by the forces of fire, and fire consumes. Well, ice preserves. It would certainly be harder to see the Others as a purely malevolent force if they're not so much "killing" people as, say, . . . making them immortal? (Maybe that's what happened to Coldhands when he was killed "long ago", and that's why he isn't a mindless wight?)

Well, I have a problem of sorts with this theory... I understand the point about the WW’s wightification being ‘weakened’ by the fact it’s still Autumn and that it may become much more ‘thorough’ in Winter, and I think it makes sense. BUT, let’s consider for a moment how the basics of wightification works, for argument’s sake: a WW kills a living being (not even going into when it happens by proxy) and said living being becomes a wight. Let’s say if this happens in the dead of winter, the living being in question is resurrected rather than becoming a zombie. Cool. Now, let’s consider how this living being got ‘killed’. Say, one gets literally gutted by a WW; his bowels and internal organs are hanging out, this person is kinda tripping on his own guts. Then he is ‘resurrected’, and we have a person (or animal) that has full memories and is alive. Now think of how this ‘person’ will look, walking around, acting all normal, with his bowels being dragged on the ground. I cannot, try as I might, envision this as anything but ‘evil’, for lack of a better word, and unnatural. Of course, same goes for those brought back through fire as Beric, UnCat etc.

:eek:

[Black Crow]

BUT, let’s consider for a moment how the basics of wightification works, for argument’s sake: a WW kills a living being (not even going into when it happens by proxy) and said living being becomes a wight. Let’s say if this happens in the dead of winter, the living being in question is resurrected rather than becoming a zombie. Cool. Now, let’s consider how this living being got ‘killed’. Say, one gets literally gutted by a WW; his bowels and internal organs are hanging out, this person is kinda tripping on his own guts. Then he is ‘resurrected’, and we have a person (or animal) that has full memories and is alive. Now think of how this ‘person’ will look, walking around, acting all normal, with his bowels being dragged on the ground. I cannot, try as I might, envision this as anything but ‘evil’, for lack of a better word, and unnatural. Of course, same goes for those brought back through fire as Beric, UnCat etc.

:eek:

:agree:

Up to a point. On the physical side of things we've repeatedly seen just that; the dead horse ridden by the Walker who killed Small Paul had its guts hanging out, the bear was rotted to the point of falling apart, Ser Waymar Royce still had a shard of his own sword sticking out of his eye, so even if it does get infinitely colder I really don't see Wights being anything other than dead.

Its certainly unnatural, but however as to whether its evil, they're already dead...

[kissdbyfire]

:agree:

Up to a point. On the physical side of things we've repeatedly seen just that; the dead horse ridden by the Walker who killed Small Paul had its guts hanging out, the bear was rotted to the point of falling apart, Ser Waymar Royce still had a shard of his own sword sticking out of his eye, so even if it does get infinitely colder I really don't see Wights being anything other than dead.

Its certainly unnatural, but however as to whether its evil, they're already dead...

I didn't mean the wights were/are evil, but rather that the process of bringing back the dead is, regardless of their consciousness status (zombies vs fully resurrected).

[Ibbison from Ibben]

And who knows---maybe the whole reason the wights are basically "zombies" is because true winter had not yet come when our characters were meeting them.

Our information on wightification is very limited. It may be that the degree of personality in the wight is a matter of choice by the wightifier. The reason the northern wights are so zombie-like may be that that is all their makers needed. (Assuming making a wight is a conscious act, and not automatic.) Perhaps Thoros, instead of giving Beric Dondarrion the "Last Kiss", could have given twenty dead bodies the "Last Peck on the Cheek" and made twenty zombies. Thoros admits he really doesn't understand what he is doing.

[Black Crow]

Alright I'll re-phrase it, the process of raising up dead people may be immoral but unless they're conscious of having been raised up it isn't evil.

[Lummel]

Back on the old thread I suggested a parallel with the European settlement of North America and suggested that originally the Black Crows and their "Other" counterparts, the White Walkers patrolled the frontier to prevent men moving in to settle in the reservation.

It's a good notion, it certainly explains how a Wildling population is able to survive, although within limits, north of the Wall without being wiped out.

Off on a tangent the problem with human and non-human interaction is human technology (and I suppose related to that more elaborate forms of social organisation like kingdoms and the whole kneeling business) that changes the environments the non-humans need to survive. So the idea of the wall as a barrier between a free technology zone to the south and a restricted technology zone to the north where iron axes, land clearances and large scale arable agriculture are rare might explain the relative primativeness of Wildling life.

[Black Crow]

Getting back to the main issue of identity, I think its significant that on the one hand the Free Folk never refer to the Others, but know them as the White Walkers, while conversely the old legends from south of the Wall speak of the war between the First Men and the Children, and, in the context of the Long Winter, the Children and the Others, but not the Giants and the Hornfoots and the other "old races".

Given that the Children refer to the Giants as their brothers - which they clearly aren't in a biological sense - it would therefore be logical to assume (yes I know this is a fantasy...) the the Giants and other old races were allied to the Children in the War against the First Men, and that the term "Others" was originally used in its plural sense. Alternatively, if, as is likely, the First Men were familiar with the Children, the Giants and their "brothers" as foes then on the appearance of the unfamiliar White Walkers it would be equally logical to refer to them as the Others.

The point I'm trying to make is that in this context the First Men would be speaking of the Children, the Giants, the Hornfoots and the Others.

[GumpBrave]

It's a good notion, it certainly explains how a Wildling population is able to survive, although within limits, north of the Wall without being wiped out.

Off on a tangent the problem with human and non-human interaction is human technology (and I suppose related to that more elaborate forms of social organisation like kingdoms and the whole kneeling business) that changes the environments the non-humans need to survive. So the idea of the wall as a barrier between a free technology zone to the south and a restricted technology zone to the north where iron axes, land clearances and large scale arable agriculture are rare might explain the relative primativeness of Wildling life.

On a bit of a tangent, this is an interesting point because people wonder how the wildling population will survive on the gift without any sort of stored resources. But after surviving what is basically winter all year round north of the wall they should be expect survivalists.

Also, perhaps a repost of the original thread would be warranted for the original post of this one because I for one missed this entire discussion and it sounds very interesting.

[GumpBrave]

Getting back to the main issue of identity, I think its significant that on the one hand the Free Folk never refer to the Others, but know them as the White Walkers, while conversely the old legends from south of the Wall speak of the war between the First Men and the Children, and, in the context of the Long Winter, the Children and the Others, but not the Giants and the Hornfoots and the other "old races".

Given that the Children refer to the Giants as their brothers - which they clearly aren't in a biological sense - it would therefore be logical to assume (yes I know this is a fantasy...) the the Giants and other old races were allied to the Children in the War against the First Men, and that the term "Others" was originally used in its plural sense. Alternatively, if, as is likely, the First Men were familiar with the Children, the Giants and their "brothers" as foes then on the appearance of the unfamiliar White Walkers it would be equally logical to refer to them as the Others.

The point I'm trying to make is that in this context the First Men would be speaking of the Children, the Giants, the Hornfoots and the Others.

The difference in southern and Northern mythology can easily be explained by the matter of necessity. The Southern culture had much more interaction with the children versus the others, and this is represented in their individual mythology. Not sure that this suggests that they are considered the same in the grand mythological scheme of things, because it seems to indicate that each region is influenced by different "otherization," whether it be the CoTF or the Others.

[Black Crow]

perhaps a repost of the original thread would be warranted for the original post of this one because I for one missed this entire discussion and it sounds very interesting.

And here it is, being locked just means you can't post on it, its still available to read

[Free Northman]

Sigh.

My conclusion is that Maester Luwin's history lesson to Bran in AGoT is completely accurate and just needs to be beefed up with information that has since been lost.

In other words, the First men came to Westeros 12 000 years ago.

The Pact was signed 10 000 years ago, and endured THROUGH the Long Night, as stated by Maester Luwin.

The Long Night occured 8 000 years ago.

The Andals arrived 6000 years ago.

The Others are evil - or at least, dedicated to the destruction of mankind, which is evil enough in my book.

The Children are on the side of the First Men, who are represented by the Starks.

Craster a Stark? Well, I guess on this thread anything goes, but in my view? Not a chance.

In other words, I don't agree with the premise of this thread at all. But as I've said before, that's just me.

[Black Crow]

That's fair enough; if in real world terms you expect a 14th century scholar to be able to speak with complete authority on events which may or may not have occurred up to 12,000 years before - about 1,000 years before the start of the Neolithic Period.

Given what we do know of Mediaeval scholarship and the way that historical events which occurred only as far back as the first millenium AD were transformed into legends such as the Mabinogion, which features a High King of Britain called Bran the Blessed and significantly Bran translates as Raven or Crow. I prefer therefore to work with the clues we're given.

As for Bran the Blessed: http://en.wikipedia....ran_the_Blessed

(although I think its GRRM's little joke rather than anything significant, Bran also appears in some versions as Bron)

[Bava]

Sigh.

My conclusion is that Maester Luwin's history lesson to Bran in AGoT is completely accurate and just needs to be beefed up with information that has since been lost.

In other words, the First men came to Westeros 12 000 years ago.

The Pact was signed 10 000 years ago, and endured THROUGH the Long Night, as stated by Maester Luwin.

The Long Night occured 8 000 years ago.

The Andals arrived 6000 years ago.

The Others are evil - or at least, dedicated to the destruction of mankind, which is evil enough in my book.

The Children are on the side of the First Men, who are represented by the Starks.

Craster a Stark? Well, I guess on this thread anything goes, but in my view? Not a chance.

In other words, I don't agree with the premise of this thread at all. But as I've said before, that's just me.

It's not just you. ;)

One could add, that the wall was built after the long night before the arrival of the Andals.

Speculations now:

At that time the cotf and first men still lived in peace and it makes complete sense, that they built the wall together to ward off the white walkers. Luwin also said that the cotf used Obsidian weapons for hunting which seem to be the easiest way to kill a white walker. So I suppose that the children of the forest already fought the white walkers before the arrival of the first men. (Some seem to think that cotf and white walkers are actually one and the same, don't know the reasoning behind this, so if someone could give me a link, ty).

I am pretty sure, the wall was built to protect the South from the white walkers and keep them out. Still it is plausbile, that the wall is also meant to prevent humans from going north as protection for themselves. Maybe the white walkers are too powerful in the cold and the cotf and first men just had too many problems in the snow to extinguish them. Even in Summer it's freaking cold north of the wall. Perfect refuge for the WW, out of reach of their enemies. In the winter when the cold spreads the possible living area for the WW get's bigger. To prevent them from going south the wall was built.

That's fair enough; if in real world terms you expect a 14th century scholar to be able to speak with complete authority on events which may or may not have occurred up to 12,000 years before - about 1,000 years before the start of the Neolithic Period.

Given what we do know of Mediaeval scholarship and the way that historical events which occurred only as far back as the first millenium AD were transformed into legends such as the Mabinogion, which features a High King of Britain called Bran the Blessed and significantly Bran translates as Raven or Crow. I prefer therefore to work with the clues we're given.

As for Bran the Blessed: http://en.wikipedia....ran_the_Blessed

(although I think its GRRM's little joke rather than anything significant, Bran also appears in some versions as Bron)

Luwin gives a rough framework about what has happened. He doesn't give any names or exact dates. The Stories old Nan and other characters tell or refer to are the clues we are given and with which you work and fantasize (nicely and creatively). Sorry but a story about a Night's King who was exactly the 13th (?) Commander of the NW, who married a white walker and was thrown down by the famous Joramun and a Stark seems more like Bran the Blessed to me than the rough chronology Luwin gives us. A clue that makes Luwins timeline credible is the fact that Osha doesn't contradict, him like she does when he says that the cotf are also extinct north of the wall.