Black Crow

Members
  • Content count

    18,910
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Black Crow

  1. I'm not sure either. I think that primarily the bonding is just that; establishing a bond which will allow the transference at death. In the case of Danaerys' children that transfer may have been early due to the death of her unborn Rhaego, whether Drogon and Rhaegal have been snaffled by the souls of Drogo and Mirri mar whatzerface is questionable unless they were secret Targaryens. The problem I see with infusing the eggs with the the souls of unborn children [as opposed to simply bonding] is that it requires an awful lot of dead children. As to Jon and Ghost we may have to consider that to be the purpose of Ghost and all the other Stark direwolves all along.
  2. Welcome to Heresy 203, the latest version of the quirky thread where we take an in-depth look at the story and in particular what GRRM has referred to as the real conflict, not the Game of Thrones, but the apparent threat which lies in the North, in those magical Otherlands beyond the Wall. The thread is called Heresy because we miserable heretics were the first to challenge the orthodoxy that the Wall is the last best hope of mankind; to question whether the three-fingered tree-huggers really are kindly elves and question too whether the Starks might have a dark secret in their past, which we’re beginning to suspect may be gaunt, with characteristic long Stark face and very very cold. We don’t all agree on this, or anything else for that matter, but we can safely claim to have been around for a while now and discussed an awful lot of stuff over the years since the threads started in 2011. Some of it has been overtaken by events and some of it seemingly confirmed by the earlier stages of mummers’ version before it firmly moved into weird fan-fiction. So dig in, enjoy yourself and if it comes to a fight just remember the local house rules; stick to the text, have respect for the ideas of others and above all conduct the debate with great good humour.
  3. I agree, its been a great ride and I appreciate all the discussions we've had on this thread over the years, but there's a limit to what we can squeeze out out, even though I think, especially lately, that we have got close to figuring out what's going on. But hey, goodbye, and thanks for all the fish...
  4. I think its pretty much a constant of this kind of thing in mythology, where everything has its price. It could certainly be the case with the Sword of the Morning, which doesn't pass from father to son but only to someone worthy of it. Although its not spelled out in the text is it possible that such a bestowal also comes with a price and that there was no blood feud between Starfall and Winterfell because the wielder of the sword will always die with it in his hand rather than tucked up in bed?
  5. Me too, though again although I can see that GRRM is taking situations from the Marvel version, I'm confident he's putting his own spin on it rather than using it as a script, just as he's also done with Heart of Darkness. Nevertheless I still think it can give us insights into where he may be going. Loki may be the son of the Ice King, but he still regards Odin as his father and wants to be king of Asgard not of the Jotun. Jon may [or may not] be the son of Rhaegar but still yearns for Winterfell.
  6. What its worth is that affirmation by Maester Aemon [who has often been conjectured to know the truth of R+L=J] that bastard or not, Jon is fundamentally a son of Winterfell
  7. "You are a son of Winterfell, a nephew of Benjen Stark. It must be you or no one."
  8. It's not a question of one trumping the other but rather of Jon deciding which mouldy bit of parchment gets waved at the world and which one tossed on the fire. As to that choice who knows, after all it was Aemon Targaryen who proclaimed him a son of Winterfell
  9. I agree, but my point is that I think GRRM may have mentioned the possible [probable?] Marvel connection and the mummers ran with that and the film version rather than the sidhe for practical reasons and in so doing appear to stuck far more closely to the Marvel story-line than GRRM is doing
  10. Yes, I can see GRRM picking up a lot from this Marvel version, especially the birth of Loki sequence, although obviously what we know and love is GRRM's interpretation and his own twists [and turns], that comment about Fafnr hiding in reptilian form also sounds a bit like the Targaryen dragon stuff we've been discussing.
  11. Its Jon's get out of jail free card. Robb cannot simply say Jon Snow is legitimate; he has to declare that Jon is the true-born son of Lord Eddard Stark. Jon then gets to choose. He cannot be Jon Stark and Jon [Targaryen?] at one and the same time.
  12. Ultimately, you see I think that may be the problem in that the walkers [and the Nights King] in the mummers version may owe too much to Thor and too little to GRRM. They really are telling a different story.
  13. I've never read the original Marvel comics so don't know how true to them the film might be, but there's an interesting plot twist in the latter when Loki, son of Odin Allfather turns out to really be the son of the Ice King, taken from his ruined fortress, which in a lot of ways parallels Theon - and of course some might argue Jon although Theon fits much better.
  14. Returning to the Walkers, Thor Ragnarok will be released shortly and in preparation for it, both Junior and Junior-Junior sat me down to watch Thor [bear with me...]. This largely centres around a conflict with the Jotun or Ice Giants - who look and behave remarkably like the blue-eyed lot in the mummers version. They are not really the same, but the inspiration is clearly there. Now I know we're not supposed to discuss the mummers version and I don't propose to, but we do know that GRRM is using a lot of the Thor source stuff and the Wall has previously been compared to the Bifrost Bridge, so the question is: Are the Walkers based on the Jotun [and their king] or have the mummers been deceived by the usual vague direction from GRRM?
  15. I don't have a problem [so far as this theory is concerned] with Danaerys the Dragonlord still coming to Westeros. GRRM has denied a return to Valyria as it is - although hinted at seeing it as it was which may mean we may learn the story of the Targaryens getting out of Dodge and why, just as we may find the truth about Winterfell. Volantis, I similarly see as a side issue in that having finally won clear of Meereen [we hope] GRRM probably has more sense than to get embroiled in another foreign entanglement. Although I think the Trident dream has been interpreted too hopefully I stii suspect that GRRM is still following the original synopsis and will come to Westeros, but I also think that rather than finish up with a climactic battle on the Trident the true nature of the conflict with Ice may force Danaerys to confront her family's own version of the Musgrave ritual and the true nature of their relationship with Fire.
  16. I don't think that there's a significant difference between slavery in the old Ghiscari empire and slavery in the Valyrian, but something interesting is Master Benero's assertion that Danaerys the Dragonlord is Azor Ahai and that she will destroy the Old Blood of Valyria forted up behind the black walls of Volantis. There are various seeming contradictions tied up in this which need resolving. The Azor Ahai story/prophecy comes from out east. The "ancient books of Asshai" cited by Melisandre were written at the very time the Valyrians were dishing the Ghiscari Empire - which for the Ghiscari was certainly a "dark time". The story of of Azor Ahai slaying a monster, as I've pointed out before is far more consistent with slaying a dragon than a white walker. It therefore makes perfect sense for Azor Ahai to have been a defender of Ghis against the Valyrians and their dragons. But Danaerys the Dragonlord is Valyrian and possesses dragons. So she does, but she is also descended of Aegon [the conqueror] and back in the day when he was still only lord of Dragonstone he joined a coalition to fight [and defeat] the Old Blood of Valyria when they came busting out of Volantis intent on re-establishing the Empire. There's therefore good precedent for Benero's expectations, but what about the dragons - and why don't the Old Blood have any? A suggestion: We're pretty sure that there's a very close link between the Starks and Ice, seen in the business of the Nights King and the current theory that the white walkers are the old Stark Lords. I've suggested that both walkers and dragons are mirrored in that they are a "different form of life" created by magic; Ice made Flesh and Fire made Flesh respectively. The answer to the Targaryen mystery may therefore be another mirror to the Starks, ie; the dragons have always been Targaryens, hence the need for whips, chains etc to allow other Valyrians to ride them. The Valyrian Empire was a perversion of the power of Fire and the Targaryen flight to Dragonstone represents a breach with that power in the same way that the Starks broke with Ice through the overthrow of the Nights King. And that brings us back to the old theory that if there is to be a resolution of the conflict between Ice and Fire it is down to the Starks and to the Targaryens, each to fix their own rather than proclaim that R+L=J will do it.
  17. I think that one of the over-arching themes which is emerging is that the magic is the same and centres around the migration of the soul; its just that Ice and Fire magic are using it in different ways. When I questioned describing the Faceless Men as using Valyrian magic, I was looking at the [mainstream] latter as representing Fire, I'm happy to go with disciples of Boash, but as they are dissidents they clearly stand outwith that mainstream and perhaps see themselves as a middle way between Ice and Fire.
  18. I'd say that the Stark children are important because they are children of Winterfell. Its the connection of Winterfell and its guardians to Ice that is important, not those others. Bael the Bard certainly had had some input into the bloodline, but in the context the daughters of the Warg King and the Marsh King sound like Salt wives rather than Rock wives. And then of course where does Bael come from? Whose son was he? Unless we know anything of his lineage its difficult to gauge his importance in the bloodline. Where he is more likely to be important in the end is in the parallel he provides for Lyanna, or rather how the Stark line continued through the bastard son of that un-named daughter; providing a precedent for Lyanna's bastard son Jon becoming Lord of Winterfell - assuming he lives.
  19. While I agree about the relevance of those POVs, I'm not sure that the Faceless Men represent Valyrian magic. The Faceless Men may represent the balance between Ice and Fire - same basic magic, same ruthlessness, but [perhaps paradoxically] the death of individuals rather than mass extinction
  20. Such is life, but all we can do here is discuss the text and the clues which he has given us thus far.
  21. All things are possible and we can't rule out that lot in Lorath, but on balance I think that they are probably intended as a warning not to take Old Nan's stories too seriously, ie; just as Jon finds that giants don't live in castles or wear seven-league boots, so we'll find other things don't match up to expectations either, prophecies especially
  22. What we reckoned back in the day was that the chronology may be slightly off. As told the First Men and the Tree-huggers fought, and then made peace, then a totally random event occurred in the shape of the Long Night. This poses a couple of questions; as told the tree-huggers were losing the war and the Men may not have needed a peace treaty. Years of peace and amity followed, but come the Long Night they were nowhere to be found. Hence quite an old heresy that the tree huggers were losing the war and brought down the Long Night, just as they had brought down the Hammer - or the Night was a consequence of their creating the Wall [with blood] and then the Last Hero went looking for them to cry pax. This worked to a degree, we still have dodgy seasons, but the blue-eyed lot may have been cut adrift by the Tree-huggers, hence their being all bitter and twisted
  23. Probably, though I'm curious about the giants - not Wun Wun but the ones in seven-league boots who live in castles
  24. The problem is that there is no emphasis on the Nights King in the books and GRRM has warned against attaching significance to him. I entirely agree that "the existence of NK does not negate the centrality of Winterfell's children to the plot". That was the point I made from the beginning when it was suggested [not by Matthew] that the Nights King wanted Jon; because he is far more important than a shadowy figure out of legend.