Jump to content

Daggers in the Dark: What Did Melisandre Really See?


Recommended Posts

I thought "curtain" = "curtain of smoke," which would also explain why he disappears and reappears from sight.

I don't favor the "Jon dies, goes into Ghost, comes back to a body" because of what we learn of death and warging in Varamyr's Prologue, which maintains that once the body has died one is stuck in the animal. I suppose this could be mitigated by something like the Kiss of Life, but I dislike Mel's resurrection as an issue of becoming beholden to her brand of magic that he so actively as fought against. I dislike it, but I suppose it could happen that way.

My best guess is that Jon is unconscious, awakens his warging abilities as Bran did (I think Bran spent time in Summer in his coma) and rises as himself. The passage is tricky, in that the flames that limn his face and the curtain of smoke are not part of the vision but the medium of the fire. For what it's worth, it's just his face she sees. If the limning flames and smoke are in fact part of the vision, he could simply be holding a torch somewhere dark-- CotF's caves, the Winterfell crypts, etc. It doesn't necessarily have to point to his burning-- especially that the flames are said to reflect against his face liminally suggests distance.

Varamyr's prologue could well be an indication that Jon won't die, at least in the physical sense. For those wondering how he can fulfill the AA prophecy if he doesn't die, perhaps the key lies with Maester Aemon's saying of letting the boy die so the man can be born (paraphrasing). After the stabbing, Jon essentially wargs into Ghost (dies) as a boy, but later returns (is born) to his body a man...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think even Tommen in KL could probably take a pretty good guess as to who these "dagger wielders" might be, since they really didn't seem to hide their contempt. She could have probably given him a list of conspirators and it certainly would not have required a vision in the fire; one would have to be blind not to see it. And then Mance tells her of King Scum's conspiracy session, so she as good as had a confirmed laundry list at that point.

I mean, the funny thing is that Jon knows all this anyway. He's not blind to the danger he's in and the thin ice he's walking on when it comes to Bowen marsh and Othell Yarwyck. Which sort of adds to the strangeness of it all- Tough to be daggers in the dark when Count Scum (c'mon BB, isn't calling him King of anything an insult to both kings and scums? I mean, just at the Wall clearly Axell the Saddler has him outgunned in the scum department.) isn't even bothering to hide his contempt.

Which might again lead back to the question of who in fact is responsible for his assassination, who's pulling the strings behind all this? I still tend to be suspicious of both Mully and Clydas at this point lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't favor the "Jon dies, goes into Ghost, comes back to a body" because of what we learn of death and warging in Varamyr's Prologue, which maintains that once the body has died one is stuck in the animal. I suppose this could be mitigated by something like the Kiss of Life, but I dislike Mel's resurrection as an issue of becoming beholden to her brand of magic that he so actively as fought against. I dislike it, but I suppose it could happen that way.

Another possibility, besides the Kiss of Life, is that green magic will call Jon's soul/consciousness from Ghost and back into his own body. This could potentially involve yet another form of blood magic, as in the blood and innards of a sacrifice being offered to a weirwood. If Jon actually died, the maxim that "death pays for life" could easily come into play again.

However as you suggest, if Jon has not technically "perished" and did not have to transfer the focal point of his consciousness to Ghost, such a course of action would be unnecessary. Another form of healing would possibly still be important, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Varamyr's prologue could well be an indication that Jon won't die, at least in the physical sense. For those wondering how he can fulfill the AA prophecy if he doesn't die, perhaps the key lies with Maester Aemon's saying of letting the boy die so the man can be born (paraphrasing). After the stabbing, Jon essentially wargs into Ghost (dies) as a boy, but later returns (is born) to his body a man...

As I hold the belief that AA is a villain and reanimation to be a kind of "sin," I sincerely hope he's not fated for AA, lol. Apple created a thread a while back that discusses the more figurative possibilities for rebirth that might not necessarily pertain to being AA, but in terms of transformation.

I like what you're saying about the boy dying and enabling the man to be born. This is pretty much how I see it as well, and I think that the suggestion of magic and a literal rebirth as part of this process cheapens the beauty of such a development. It would take the focus from psychological to something outside of Jon's control, and is therefore less palatable to me.

There's some really interesting possibilities to this end (much of which is discussed in Apple's thread). From a character-analysis standpoint (rather than from the framework of prophesy), I think the inhabitation of Ghost is letting the man be born. Like Dany who did this in the fire pit when looking in Drogon's eyes, Jon needs to embrace and face his own "monster," and make this part of his identity. He's already been building toward an identification of King Beyond the Wall, LC of the Watchmen and a kind of leader in the North; rather than "AA," I really think Jon- the warg- is heading toward being King of Winter (which I think basically means he accepts the fact that he needs to transcend all those other titular boundaries and start getting shit done; I don't think KoW= "ice side").

I think his decision to "get shit done" and his thoughts in the Shieldhall right before the meeting is when he killed the boy (that's been compared to the "belly of the whale" as per Campbell's Hero's Journey in some other threads); I think his acceptance of himself as a warg is the proverbial "boon" he receives from the darkest moment-- not as a necessary requisite for magical survival but as a character evolution that he consciously chooses (i.e. by not literally dying).

I mean, the funny thing is that Jon knows all this anyway. He's not blind to the danger he's in and the thin ice he's walking on when it comes to Bowen marsh and Othell Yarwyck. Which sort of adds to the strangeness of it all- Tough to be daggers in the dark when Count Scum (c'mon BB, isn't calling him King of anything an insult to both kings and scums? I mean, just at the Wall clearly Axell the Saddler has him outgunned in the scum department.) isn't even bothering to hide his contempt.

Which might again lead back to the question of who in fact is responsible for his assassination, who's pulling the strings behind all this? I still tend to be suspicious of both Mully and Clydas at this point lol.

Oh Tag, lol. That makes way more sense, since I variously call him Count von Count (I would like that idiot a lot better if he also wore a monocle and fangs). I also agree with the serious point you're making-- there isn't much to "prophesy" here, as Bowen might has well have been wearing a neon sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ETA: I don't think Mel's seeing the ash and snowflakes while she's seeing the vision (as something outside her vision but literally occurring) because she's reading the fires from inside her chambers.

I always assumed that the snowflakes were apart of her vision, while the ashes were apart of the fire used to see her vision. I guess in can be interpreted different ways.

Varamyr's prologue could well be an indication that Jon won't die, at least in the physical sense. For those wondering how he can fulfill the AA prophecy if he doesn't die, perhaps the key lies with Maester Aemon's saying of letting the boy die so the man can be born (paraphrasing). After the stabbing, Jon essentially wargs into Ghost (dies) as a boy, but later returns (is born) to his body a man...

I never saw Jon as needing to fulfill the AA prophecy in order to become the prophesied hero to fight the Others. The AA prophecy is just the another re-telling of the prophesied hero used by the followers of Rhllor, IMO.

As I hold the belief that AA is a villain and reanimation to be a kind of "sin," I sincerely hope he's not fated for AA, lol. Apple created a thread a while back that discusses the more figurative possibilities for rebirth that might not necessarily pertain to being AA, but in terms of transformation.

He's already been building toward an identification of King Beyond the Wall, LC of the Watchmen and a kind of leader in the North; rather than "AA," I really think Jon- the warg- is heading toward being King of Winter (which I think basically means he accepts the fact that he needs to transcend all those other titular boundaries and start getting shit done; I don't think KoW= "ice side").

If the King of Winter isn't related to the "ice side", why does Azor Ahai Reborn need to be related to the "fire side"? In my view, the KoW and AAR are tiles given to the same prophesied hero by different fractions of people. It makes things much less complicated and there's no need for a double standard. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the King of Winter isn't related to the "ice side", why does Azor Ahai Reborn need to be related to the "fire side"? In my view, the KoW and AAR are tiles given to the same prophesied hero by different fractions of people. It makes things much less complicated and there's no need for a double standard. :)

I kind of disagree about having a double standard. We don't know that the King of Winter is a champion of Ice, but we do know that AA is a champion of fire. Given what we know of this AA guy from his legends, compounded with who is looking foward to his return, I think it's fair to say that he seems like a figure of terrible imbalance. The "eschatology" associated with AA-- that when he comes the dead will rise, thereby conquering death-- sounds really, really close to what the Others are doing, doesn't it?

I don't think the KoW is usually wrapped into the myth-- usually it's the Last Hero versus AA. I also don't think those are the same people given the blatant omission of winter, Others and CotF from all of the AA retellings we've seen, or at the very least, I think their respective cultures have changed the purposes behind their legends.

If I had to guess, I think the Starks are called Kings of Winter not because they champion human destruction but because they subjugated said destruction. That they built their castle on warmth kind of points to an attitude of balance than a proponent of one side. I don't think there's a double standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting to compare Mel's visions with Jojen's greendreams. Mel sees literal events, as through a camera... though her interpretation leads to errors (as well as a bias as to what she sees i.e., she saw "Renly" in the Blackwater, but didn't see Garlan getting into "Renly's" armor so couldn't have known it wasn't him). Jojen however seems to see metaphorical interpretations like the "sea" "rising" to take Winterfell, without seeing that it was actually the Greyjoys.

I wonder what this means. I know that essentially Melisandre *is* a greenseer, because Brynden explains to Bran that greenseers are born every once in a while with green *or* red eyes, and Mel has red eyes. So maybe the green sees mystically while the red sees literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting to compare Mel's visions with Jojen's greendreams. Mel sees literal events, as through a camera... though her interpretation leads to errors (as well as a bias as to what she sees i.e., she saw "Renly" in the Blackwater, but didn't see Garlan getting into "Renly's" armor so couldn't have known it wasn't him). Jojen however seems to see metaphorical interpretations like the "sea" "rising" to take Winterfell, without seeing that it was actually the Greyjoys.

I wonder what this means. I know that essentially Melisandre *is* a greenseer, because Brynden explains to Bran that greenseers are born every once in a while with green *or* red eyes, and Mel has red eyes. So maybe the green sees mystically while the red sees literally.

I'm not sure that Melisandre actually qualifies as a greenseer. Rather, I think the actual First Men greenseers are different from the red priests, but they use similar methods and have similar outcomes (e.g. prophetic visions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been very clear on what the distinction is between Wargs and Greenseers. They both control animals, and I don't see why a normal warg couldn't get into a tree too. Maybe Greenseers are just super-powerful wargs, like they can skin change into multiple creatures at once or something.

As far as Mel goes, she is clearly no warg/greenseer. There is also strong evidence that her appearance is a glamour. Which means her red eyes are as fake as the rest of her, so I don't think they mark her as anything special. She is probably a very, very old looking woman underneath those shifting shadows....poor Stannis. I'm so glad Jon kept his mouth off that particular fire crotch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just doing a bit of thinking aloud here. Might be nothing but a bunch of nonsense.

First, one of Mel's visions seems a tad bit similar to Summer/Bran's visions while he was hiding in the crypts when Winterfell was destroyed by Ramsay and his men. The language isn't exactly the same, but there are some descriptors that correspond (grey cliffs). In Bran's chapter, he describes a 'winged snake' which is very similar to the flaming arrow arcing above wooden walls Mel describes. When Bran comes back to himself in the crypt (remember, he was presumed dead before this moment, he and Rickon are the daggers in the dark to Bolton plans), Osha lights a fire and the statues of the tombs seen to come alive in the shadows, sort of like the shadows Mel sees. To note, Mel sees what is presumably Bran and Bloodraven right before her vision of the 'skulls'.

Now to her daggers in the dark comment.

Ice, I see, and daggers in the dark. Blood frozen red and hard, and naked steel. It was very cold.”

Immediately after Mel says this to Jon, Bran's chapter comes up where he tells us that it's so cold.

The wording is interesting. Why not just say "I see ice and daggers"? What does ice have to do with daggers anyway? This similarity and relation with Bran makes me wonder what happened to the original Ice, the one that dates back to the Age of Heroes. What sort of sword was it? The logical assumption is that it was made of bronze since the first men didn't work steel until the Andals arrived. Does one of the tombs in the crypts have a sword across his lap that isn't the same as the others? She sees skulls and assumes it means death. Perhaps it does. Maybe she sees statues atop tombs and assumes it's frozen blood.

The whole 'daggers in the dark' is also interesting. Hidden daggers and daggers in the dark are typically terms used to describe dangers that are hidden in some way, tools that one has acquired that another does not know about. Littlefinger educates Sansa on how dangerous hidden daggers are (Sansa's own hidden dagger is the bond she shared with Sandor). Melisandre also gives a lesson to Jon on what daggers in the dark are (those that sharpen their knives behind your back).

Jon knows who his detractors are, so they aren't hidden daggers. He knows King Scum and co want to undermine him. He even fetched a block for one of them and sent another off on a ranging. Obviously, it's possible to be blindsided by these dangers (evidenced by the knives in his neck and belly and one in his back *hint hint*), but even being blindsided doesn't mean that they were hidden daggers.

Makes me wonder more about what Melisandre thinks of Jon. She does think that 'unbelievers' do not listen until it's too late. But she also thinks a lot that is untrue. Such as, she thinks Jon purposely ignores her when she requests an audience, but that doesn't even cross Jon's mind during his own POVs. She thinks she has to show Jon she has powers, but he already knows she has powers. During her fire reading session, she's desperate to find a vision she can take to Jon to show that she is of use to him. She's terribly misguided about him in general, so I wonder if she thinks he's totally unaware of those who do not support his rule at the wall. If so, her own misguided analysis of Jon would naturally lead to her misinterpreting a vision of skulls as one about daggers in the dark.

Anyway, just some mumbled thoughts that I haven't fully explored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the KoW is usually wrapped into the myth-- usually it's the Last Hero versus AA. I also don't think those are the same people given the blatant omission of winter, Others and CotF from all of the AA retellings we've seen, or at the very least, I think their respective cultures have changed the purposes behind their legends.

AA is a champion of fire, I'd say AAR's going to be Dany and Jon a King of Winter/Last Hero... but whatever the combo, not the same person, I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of disagree about having a double standard. We don't know that the King of Winter is a champion of Ice, but we do know that AA is a champion of fire. Given what we know of this AA guy from his legends, compounded with who is looking foward to his return, I think it's fair to say that he seems like a figure of terrible imbalance. The "eschatology" associated with AA-- that when he comes the dead will rise, thereby conquering death-- sounds really, really close to what the Others are doing, doesn't it?

We know that the legend of Azor Ahai Reborn, which is one story of the prophesied hero, is a champion of fire. This is not surprising considering those looking forward to his return serve a god that is associated with fire. Different religions always have different stories for the return of the same figures, and they always tell the story in a way that relates to their religion.

How do we know that when the prophesied hero finally comes that the former Kings of Winter won't rise from their graves to help him. If the dead can rise on the "bad" side why can't they rise on the "good" side? The same way the dead army rose and came to the aid of Aragorn in Lord of the Rings.

I don't think the KoW is usually wrapped into the myth-- usually it's the Last Hero versus AA. I also don't think those are the same people given the blatant omission of winter, Others and CotF from all of the AA retellings we've seen, or at the very least, I think their respective cultures have changed the purposes behind their legends.

I used the title King of Winter because that was the title you used. The Last Hero and Azor Ahai have always been different stories referring to the same person in my view. I don't see why there would be a blatant statement regarding winter, the Others, or the Children of the Forest in the re-telling of the story made by the followers of Rhllor. Yet, we have direct parallels. Mel refers to a fight against the dark (a long night associated with winter coming), and the gathering dark (the recurrence of the Others). She believes that Stannis will lead the fight against the dark as AAR/the prophesied hero What is this great darkness that is gathering? This great darkness that AAR must stand against? This foe that is in the North according to Stannis? This foe who's name cannot be spoken according to Mel? Where did they get the name the Great Other?

It just seems to me that Jon is AAR/TPTWP/prophesied hero...which I believe are all the same. It's just my opinion.

If I had to guess, I think the Starks are called Kings of Winter not because they champion human destruction but because they subjugated said destruction. That they built their castle on warmth kind of points to an attitude of balance than a proponent of one side. I don't think there's a double standard.

The difference is that I don't believe the prophesied hero will be an agent of fire (that's just a misconception made by the followers of Rhllor in their AAR legend) or human destruction. Therefore he will be in balance. He will be in balance symbolically as a Stark/Targaryren, and he will be in balance as a mortal/non supernatural being that will subjugate the Others.

That they built their castle on warmth kind of points to the fact that they were smart and wanted to be warm. I don't believe it had anything to do with creating a balance. That's just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the prophesied hero of legends is the one who defeated another - you just hear a lot more about the winner than the loser, so to say. It's not like AAR or whomever is going to fight himself/herself... so there's always the legend of the hero, but everyone seems to forget what/who the hero defeated...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that the legend of Azor Ahai Reborn, which is one story of the prophesied hero, is a champion of fire. This is not surprising considering those looking forward to his return serve a god that is associated with fire. Different religions always have different stories for the return of the same figures, and they always tell the story in a way that relates to their religion.

Yes, but I think I'm taking what you're saying a step further in the translation. I think that the myth of AA has borrowed linguistic terms from the Last Hero story, but that it has taken on a very different meaning and purpose as its own myth, even though some of the terms are derivative. I posit that even if AA has derivation from the Last Hero, that they are now two very separate things with very separate purposes. I personally suspect that AA has to do with conquest and domination through fire, while our best information points to the Last Hero as a bridge between ice and fire, given the CotF influences and the types of weaponry (obsidian is in itself a balance of ice and fire).

How do we know that when the prophesied hero finally comes that the former Kings of Winter won't rise from their graves to help him. If the dead can rise on the "bad" side why can't they rise on the "good" side? The same way the dead army rose and came to the aid of Aragorn in Lord of the Rings.

I don't reject the notion of the dead kings rising, and I think there is some foreshadowing that can point to this. However, it feels inconsistent that resurrection is something that can be positive in this since death is presented such that toying with it is "unholy" in that it goes against natural and natural balance. Conceptually, resurrection as a positive seems wrong in terms of restoring balance since death is a critical aspect of life.

I used the title King of Winter because that was the title you used. The Last Hero and Azor Ahai have always been different stories referring to the same person in my view. I don't see why there would be a blatant statement regarding winter, the Others, or the Children of the Forest in the re-telling of the story made by the followers of Rhllor. Yet, we have direct parallels. Mel refers to a fight against the dark (a long night associated with winter coming), and the gathering dark (the recurrence of the Others). She believes that Stannis will lead the fight against the dark as AAR/the prophesied hero What is this great darkness that is gathering? This great darkness that AAR must stand against? This foe that is in the North according to Stannis? This foe who's name cannot be spoken according to Mel? Where did they get the name the Great Other?

I used the KoW title because I am not sure how this title relates to "the Last Hero," or whether Bran might actually take up the mantle to that end rather than Jon.

WRT the parallels you bring up, I would just as easily argue that the "darkness" AA delivered his people from pertained to founding an empire through the binding of dragons, and not the winter at all. The "Great Other" has an actual name, but Mel refuses to speak it's name. So the "Great Other" simply means the one who is not R'hllor.

It just seems to me that Jon is AAR/TPTWP/prophesied hero...which I believe are all the same. It's just my opinion.

It's my opinion that Jon is a hero. He's probably the PtwP, i.e. "Promise me Ned, " and "There will be one more." His character has developed such that he accepts the fact that he must rise and take a stand to get things done. I guess what's more interesting to me than figuring out who he's scripted to be via prophesy is the identity he's consciously choosing for himself-- not because someone in the HotU or Dosh Khaleen or Mel has told him is his destiny-- but who and what he's been evolving toward by his own motivation. And who he has been choosing to become is not what is described by the Reds as AA, but something else.

The difference is that I don't believe the prophesied hero will be an agent of fire (that's just a misconception made by the followers of Rhllor in their AAR legend) or human destruction. Therefore he will be in balance. He will be in balance symbolically as a Stark/Targaryren, and he will be in balance as a mortal/non supernatural being that will subjugate the Others.

That they built their castle on warmth kind of points to the fact that they were smart and wanted to be warm. I don't believe it had anything to do with creating a balance. That's just my opinion.

But AA is not presented as a figure of balance. If Jon is the ultimate hero (which is not a given that there will even be an "ultimate hero") it does not mean that he embodies what this AA figure stands for, which is, imo, kind of an incredible jerk and an agent of fire. There's no reason he must or should follow that script.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At issue here is, of course, the vision(s) that Melisandre has of Jon surrounded by skulls and the references to "daggers in the dark." Many people, probably even most people, assume that this is a vision of Jon's impending death, to the point where several commenters give Jon grief for not believing in Melisandre's visions and heeding her warning.

But what did she actually see?

It is an interesting theory but I see solid reasons to think otherwise....

4 reasons actually, I am sure number #1 has been brought up many times by now:

1- she is very good at interpreting visions on someone dying. it is interesting you mention the times she messed up when something vague occured (like she couldnt tell who arya was because she had never met her before, or couldnt tell if renly was in his armor because it was very hard to tell even for folks on the ground fighting). But her death visions have been SPOT ON: She correctly identifies threats to herself multiple times as well as deaths of renly, joff, rob, Balon, the NW rangers, The old bear party at the fist and might be others I am forgetting.

2- Mellisanda comments to Jon about his wolf and its absence in silent alarm, she also comments about her being his only hope. She says he should come to him after he gets the message from WF but Jon doesn't do that. This is all right before he gets stabbed.

3- She knows the names of the betrayers (she mentions to Jon if he wants their names at one point before he dismisses her), she knows that they are close to Jon as well (his lieutenants in this case). So that means her visions must have happened before with more specifics than what she see's in her POV chapters. Infact she mentions getting too many visions of Jon and too many of them with skulls at different times. So we cant judge her read on one vision, others might have been more specific with specific people in them.

4- In one of his interviews on DWD GRRM is asked if Jon's death was something he came up as the coarse of the story went. He said: no this was planned, I actually had the phrase "Daggers in the dark" written 10 years ago. This here stabs at the heart of this theory since George is linking mely's visions with this specific phrase and his death.

Taken as a whole I am 99.9% confidant that mely did see Jon's death as she usually does when it comes to death. Maybe its just the simplicity of the interpretation .. see skulls in the fire and someone's on the chopping block :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that Melisandre actually qualifies as a greenseer. Rather, I think the actual First Men greenseers are different from the red priests, but they use similar methods and have similar outcomes (e.g. prophetic visions).

A difference though, at least possibly, is that Jojen says future seen by his green dreams can't be changed while Mel believes the futures she sees does. Maybe Jojen is wrong, we haven't seen Bloodraven talk about green sight so far really. Maybe Mel is wrong.

Another possible difference is Leaf warning Bran not to try and bring Ned back. Let the dead stay dead. Something neither extreme of ice and fire is willing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but I think I'm taking what you're saying a step further in the translation. I think that the myth of AA has borrowed linguistic terms from the Last Hero story, but that it has taken on a very different meaning and purpose as its own myth, even though some of the terms are derivative.

No, because I totally agree with this statement. The difference is that I believe the entire notion of "Azor Ahai" and "Azor Ahai Reborn" are the misguided re-tellings of a religious group obsessed with fire.

I posit that even if AA has derivation from the Last Hero, that they are now two very separate things with very separate purposes. I personally suspect that AA has to do with conquest and domination through fire, while our best information points to the Last Hero as a bridge between ice and fire, given the CotF influences and the types of weaponry (obsidian is in itself a balance of ice and fire).

I disagree. If the "Azor Ahai" legend is a derivation from "The Last Hero" legend they are referencing the same person that fought the Others during the Long Night. The 'prophesied hero' will be the reincarnation (for lack of a better word) of this person regardless of what title is given to him. We can agree to disagree, because I will always believe that what we have heard of the 'prophesied hero', as far as the title "Azor Ahai Reborn" is concerned, is just the biased view of the followers of Rhllor. And this is why Mel is wrong in her assumption that Stannis is "Azor Ahai Reborn".

I don't reject the notion of the dead kings rising, and I think there is some foreshadowing that can point to this. However, it feels inconsistent that resurrection is something that can be positive in this since death is presented such that toying with it is "unholy" in that it goes against natural and natural balance. Conceptually, resurrection as a positive seems wrong in terms of restoring balance since death is a critical aspect of life.

I disagree on this as well. My idea of balance and your idea of balance seem to be two totally different things. I don't see resurrection as "unholy" or going against the natural balance depending on the reasoning behind the resurrection.

I used the KoW title because I am not sure how this title relates to "the Last Hero," or whether Bran might actually take up the mantle to that end rather than Jon.

I feel that Bran is like Frodo (on a journey to defeat a great evil) and Jon is like Aragorn (hidden king destined to win a great fight). You can't have one without the other.

WRT the parallels you bring up, I would just as easily argue that the "darkness" AA delivered his people from pertained to founding an empire through the binding of dragons, and not the winter at all. The "Great Other" has an actual name, but Mel refuses to speak it's name. So the "Great Other" simply means the one who is not R'hllor.

Why does it need to be that complicated? Where is there any evidence that this occurred? You missed my point, I fully understand Mel's view of the "Great Other".

It's my opinion that Jon is a hero. He's probably the PtwP, i.e. "Promise me Ned, " and "There will be one more." His character has developed such that he accepts the fact that he must rise and take a stand to get things done. I guess what's more interesting to me than figuring out who he's scripted to be via prophesy is the identity he's consciously choosing for himself-- not because someone in the HotU or Dosh Khaleen or Mel has told him is his destiny-- but who and what he's been evolving toward by his own motivation. And who he has been choosing to become is not what is described by the Reds as AA, but something else.

I agree about Jon and always have.

The 'bolded' part is my point! The followers of Rhllor have twisted the "The Prince That Was Promised" prophecy to fit their religion Their title (Azor Ahai Reborn) given to the 'prophesied hero', and their Azor Ahai legend (based on the Last Hero) used to describe the 'prophesied hero' are their own.

Mel herself considers "Azor Ahai Reborn" and " The Prince That Was Promised" to be the same.

But AA is not presented as a figure of balance. If Jon is the ultimate hero (which is not a given that there will even be an "ultimate hero") it does not mean that he embodies what this AA figure stands for, which is, imo, kind of an incredible jerk and an agent of fire. There's no reason he must or should follow that script.

I totally agree. Once again, the problem here is that I feel the followers of Rhllor have misrepresented the 'prophesied hero' as an agent of fire to fit into their religion.

In my view:

1. "Azor Ahai" and "The Last Hero" are different stories referring to the same person.

2. "Azor Ahai Reborn" and "The Prince That Was Promised" are titles referring to a 'prophesied hero' that will be this person come again.

3. The followers of Rhllor have turned this 'prophesied hero' into an agent of fire through their retelling of his story to fit their religion, but that does not make it true.

Maybe I'm not communicating my thoughts effectively.

ETA: If "Azor Ahai Reborn" turns out to be a separate person from "The Prince That Was Promised" I agree that he/she would be bad news due to the need for balance. I just doubt they will be separate people, because I feel the followers of Rhllor have it wrong with all this fire business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...