Heresy 119

[JNR]

Perfectly acceptable as a theory, so are you volunteering to work it up, addressing the inconsistencies that have spawned heresy?

:cool4: I'm just suggesting ideas for an alternative.

I think the guiding principle should be to try to account for the Wall, the Popsicles, the timeline, etc., with the least possible deviation from the established canon and GRRM's published remarks.

Really not at all a Heretical thing to do... but surprisingly difficult, because certain canonical facts just don't, on the surface, make any sense. So if such a grand and unified theory exists, it's going to have introduce a lot of novelty anyway.

In fact, that might be a good starting point too. Someone could sit down and write a list of various bits we've been given that we're sure of, but that just.. don't... make sense.

[Black Crow]

:cool4: I'm just suggesting ideas for an alternative.

I think the guiding principle should be to try to account for the Wall, the Popsicles, the timeline, etc., with the least possible deviation from the established canon and GRRM's published remarks.

Really not at all a Heretical thing to do... but surprisingly difficult, because certain canonical facts just don't, on the surface, make any sense. So if such a grand and unified theory exists, it's going to have introduce a lot of novelty anyway.

In fact, that might be a good starting point too. Someone could sit down and write a list of various bits we've been given that we're sure of, but that just.. don't... make sense.

This is what I have in mind; but take it a little further and see if you can come up with a unified theory that may make sense of it.

[wolfmaid7]

It's asking a little much that the hypothesized magic that created the Wall did so in the form of blocks at all, and that said magic took thousands of years to create these blocks.

This is particularly true given the repeated statements in the text that the Wall was built by the First Men.

In Heresy, of course, we have frequently been assured that if an idea is spoken by characters, that idea is canon. So, if this principle is to be applied consistently, then it is canon that the Wall was built by the First Men.

This is where i disagree with most on this board ,i accept one truth ; everyone of these stories have some embelishment,halve truths,misinterpretations,ethnocentricism etc.That's the beauty of it and for me its figuring out where the line is.I don't accept that the Wall was built by man,not because the text (which is retelling a legend) says so but because,the Wall ,its surroundings the fact that there are spells woven in it and GRRM's statement tells me magic.Characters can BS a bit and bend the truth because they gain in someway.That's the human condition,but sense and a certain degree of logic will highlight the flaws.As i've recently stated with the so call battle for the Dawn which couldn't have gone down magic or not as it was said to have.It sounded good though,was an emotional viagra to the warriors of man that they came they say and they kicked ass.

I'm saying if I was living in a village in the north during the Long Night & I saw some indistinct figures WALKING through the woods and I could make out that they were WHITE (or at least looked that way in the snow), then I would say to my friends, " I saw some white figures walking through the woods". Other people start seeing these "white walkers" and that's the name they get BEFORE people realise there are actually two types, Wights (a common enough term for a reanimated corpse) and THE OTHERS.

True a person may be reasonable,people are irrational and dumb at times because given that fact how many thousand years later a blanketed term is being used to represent as i said above two things that may not have the relationship thought.

[Melifeather]

Not necessarily. Its certainly got to be of human origin rather than coming from the three-fingered lot, who work no metal, let alone something like this.

I'm wary of the Valyrian connection. It could quite easily be one of those things that is now known as Valyrian steel by association, rather than origin, but we have a possible conundrum here in that both "dragonglass" and "dragonsteel" do imply a connection to dragons and by extension [so far as we know] to Valyrians and if that's so it seriously screws the accepted timeline for the Long Night and the Wall.

GRRM has said that dragons existed in all areas at one time, which means that dragons would predate Valyrians and Targaryens in Westeros. However, that would also imply that the Children/Singers were aware that obsidian was related to fire and passed that knowledge on when they provided the blades. The condundrum is dragonsteel. Dragonsteel impies an amalgam of steel and obsidian. The First Men had bronze at the time of the Long Night, so how would they know about dragonsteel and whether or not it worked on White Walkers? This does lend some credence to the theory that the forging of Lightbringer may have happened during the Long Night.

I'm saying if I was living in a village in the north during the Long Night & I saw some indistinct figures WALKING through the woods and I could make out that they were WHITE (or at least looked that way in the snow), then I would say to my friends, " I saw some white figures walking through the woods". Other people start seeing these "white walkers" and that's the name they get BEFORE people realise there are actually two types, Wights (a common enough term for a reanimated corpse) and THE OTHERS.

The wights still wear the clothing they died in and don't look white. They still appear human and the only change would be any open wounds, and the blue eyes. I just cannot go along with White Walkers being the collective term. I believe the text supports that the word "Others" is the collective term for both White Walkers, which are made of ice, and wights with are the undead.

[Voice]

Nah, if anything they emphasise the difference between them - unless you're really trying to argue that "the Others" collectively comprise white walkers and wights.

That's a lot of quotes with conflicting information as to what is a wight and what is a white walker... we should compile one of all the uses of "the Others" as well.

I am reminded of your post in 118 BC when we were, again, lol, talking about the Bran/Old Nan exchange, and you said, "...the reason why this exchange was written in was to explain Mormont's earlier reference to white walkers."

I really don't see the need to explain Mormont's reference in the first place, considering we are introduced to a deadly white walker in the prologue. Now we are reminded that other characters reference them as white walkers as well throughout the series. When Mormont said it, it's not like a first time reader wouldn't know what he was referring to.

This is one 'reveal' that didn't follow GRRM's rule of 3. It was the climax of the prologue after all.

Hey, Heresy should be a place for sacrilege, should it not? In that vein, I'd like to rewrite Martin (my edit in italics). Bear in mind that to speak something querulously is the same as complaining...

Old Nan:

"Fear is for the Long Night, when the sun hides its face for years at a time, and little children are born and live and die all in darkness while the direwolves grow gaunt and hungry, and the white walkers move through the woods.”

Bran:

“You mean the Others,” Bran complained.

Old Nan:

“The Others,” Old Nan agreed.

I think this makes it easier to understand in a more everyday sort of speech. Now Bran could have complained, and Old nan agreed because...

1. Old Nan was wrong about using the term white walkers, and Bran corrected her
2. he was just trying to clarify for himself
3. the terms have lost their specificity

And really, it doesn't matter. In any case, this exchange shows that there is ambiguity in the terms for the things that creep about north of the Wall, as do others (i.e. Grenn confusing methods of killing wights vs. WW).

[MaesterSam]

Would we be opposed to the Last Hero of the Long Night having a Valyrian mother?

Re: Dragonsteel

It smells of Valyrian influence, doesn't it? And to be honest, it may be the only non-religious evidence revealed in the books that tPtwP ever existed.

Dragonsteel cannot be a Singer's weapon, or product. That means it came from Men. Which men? The FM used Bronze. The Andals used Iron. I suppose Essos or Asshai is possible, some part thereof that follows R'llhor, but they are so tangential to the plot I don't see it having such an origin.

It seems like it would have to be of Valyrian origin. Though this would be long before Aegon's conquest, the presence of Valyrians in Westeros before then has already been revealed in the Targaryen excerpt from TWOIAF.

I understand if you interpret it differently but their exchange can easily be taken to reveal the opposite. As it does for me. Obviously a querulous protest from the young nobleman, in my opinion.

Unless of course, long long ago, dragons lived in Westeros. Before men got there. Assuming they really are needed for making obsidian, which may only require volcanic activity.

As for the Valyrian steel, I agree it's very unlikely it came from the singers. I personally don't think AA and the LH are the same person, so this isn't a discrepancy for me, but if they are one and the same then yes, it seems quite likely that AA came from Essos. Nobody in Westeros was advanced enough to make those types of weapons back then (or now, for that matter). Maybe his descendants even kept some Valyrian names in their family? It would explain why she's tall and pretty, unlike many other wildling women... ;)

Oh, and I just have to point out, something mentioned earlier supports my 'cyclical emergence of the Others' theory: let's assume the LH really enlisted the help of the CotF to defeat the WW. How would the CotF know how to defeat them if the long night was the first time they ever showed up? It seems an unlikely coincidence that the obsidian weapons they use just so happen to be the only thing that kills WWs...

TheTowerOfJoy, on 09 Jun 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

"I think you're confused here. The Last Hero set out to find the children, so he couldn't have had any obsidian from the children already.

My guess is that the Last Hero found the Children, somehow convinced them to help him defeat the Others, and was told about Obsidian, and also told that he'd need a new sword to defeat them (ie Lightbringer), thus I think the Last Hero BECOMES Azor Ahai once he meets the children and later forges the sword."

Maybe I am confused, it's entirely possible. But I thought, once the Pact was signed, the CotF gave 100 pieces of obsidian to the FM every year during the Age of Heroes? And this was before the Long Night, which was the event that ended the Age of Heroes (hence the "last" hero). So the obsidian "gifts" were being given before the Long Night, correct? Unless I have my timelines mixed up. I've read these books 3 times but there are so many little details, it might be time for re-read #4 ...

As far as the LH becoming AA... I thought it took him years just to find the CotF. So now he has to leave their cave, find Nissa Nissa (where is she throughout all this?), make 3 attempts to forge a sword and then go back up North, arm the NW with obsidian and defeat the Others? If the Children don't work metal, how can they give him instructions on making dragonsteel?

If LH and AA are one and the same, it would be a lot simpler if he brought Lightbringer with him in the first place. Since the legend says "one time he slew a monster..." so he must have had the sword before the long night (unless he was also fighting random other monsters beside the WWs. ) But we are specifically told that his sword shattered when he tried to use it...

As to Black Crow's challenge, I will certainly try to come up with something. If this thread moves at a leisurely pace, it might even be in time for H120. :)

[Black Crow]

OK rattling good episode - and nope Jon Snow definitely didn't shoot Ygritte

Seriously though, rather like the rest of this particular series, there seems to be a very concerted effort to wrench the show back in line with the books. OK we're still getting differences in detail, but they are trying very hard to get there.

[Black Crow]

That's a lot of quotes with conflicting information as to what is a wight and what is a white walker... we should compile one of all the uses of "the Others" as well.

I am reminded of your post in 118 BC when we were, again, lol, talking about the Bran/Old Nan exchange, and you said, "...the reason why this exchange was written in was to explain Mormont's earlier reference to white walkers."

I really don't see the need to explain Mormont's reference in the first place, considering we are introduced to a deadly white walker in the prologue. Now we are reminded that other characters reference them as white walkers as well throughout the series. When Mormont said it, it's not like a first time reader wouldn't know what he was referring to.

This is one 'reveal' that didn't follow GRRM's rule of 3. It was the climax of the prologue after all.

Ah, no. Mormont's reference is the first time white walkers are mentioned. In the prologue they were "Others"

A shadow emerged from the dark of the wood. It stood in front of Royce. Tall, it was, and gaunt and hard as old bones, with flesh pale as milk. Its armor seemed to change color as it moved; here it was white as new-fallen snow, there black as shadow, everywhere dappled with the deep grey-green of the trees. The patterns ran like moonlight on the water with every step it took.

The Other slid forward on silent feet. In its hand was a longsword like none Will had ever seen. No human metal had gone into the forging of that blade. It was alive with moonlight, translucent, a shard of crystal so thin that it seemed almost to vanish when seen edge-on. There was a faint blue shimmer to the thing, a ghost-light that played around its edges, and somehow Will knew it was sharper than any razor.

The Other halted. Will saw its eyes; blue, deeper and bluer than any human eyes, a blue that burned like ice.

Behind him, to right, to left, all around him the watchers stood patient, faceless, silent, the shifting patterns of their delicate armor making them all but invisible in the wood. Yet they made no move to interfere.

The Other said something in a language that Will did not know, his voice was like the cracking of ice on a winter lake, and the words were mocking.

[Urrax2]

... it's clear as day in the series that his characters do.

That's a mighty dark and cloudy day.

[TheButcherCrow]

The wights still wear the clothing they died in and don't look white. They still appear human and the only change would be any open wounds, and the blue eyes. I just cannot go along with White Walkers being the collective term. I believe the text supports that the word "Others" is the collective term for both White Walkers, which are made of ice, and wights with are the undead.

Srsly?!? I'm talking about a half-glimpsed figure in the dark (it was the long NIGHT after all) of a blizzard. What makes you think the first humans to get close enough to an Other & a Wight to be able to see that there is a difference, actually lived to tell that tale? The first time anyone saw these things they were "shadows in the wood". The text supports the exact opposite conclusion you have come to about "Others" being the blanket term. This is Sam remembering the massacre on the fist: (bolding is mine, italics is the text)

Maslyn screamed for mercy. Why had he suddenly remembered that? It was nothing he wanted to remember. The man had stumbled backward, dropping his sword, pleading, yielding, even yanking off his thick black glove and thrusting it up before him as if it were a gauntlet. He was still shrieking for quarter as the wight lifted him in the air by the throat and near ripped the head off him. The dead have no mercy left in them, and the Others… no, I mustn’t think of that, don’t think, don’t remember, just walk, just walk, just walk.

In this passage Sam uses the term "wight" to refer to the undead and then uses the term "Others" to refer to... well, the others :) Literally, "the other ones who where there who were not wights and who I could only imagine were the "Others" from the old stories". I think the quotes I supplied earlier show pretty well that the characters in the books use the term "white walker" to describe anything with glowing blue eyes that skulks about the woods. I cannot see any evidence that a third, distinct creature exists that is known as a white walker.

That Sam quote is pretty interesting, what were the Others doing that was so horrible Sam wouldn't allow himself to remember it? I'm guessing it was too spoilery for him to handle :)

[Black Crow]

I think its actually pretty straightforward if we go back to those references. South of the Wall they are the Others, but north of the Wall they are white walkers.

[Melifeather]

That's a lot of quotes with conflicting information as to what is a wight and what is a white walker... we should compile one of all the uses of "the Others" as well.

I am reminded of your post in 118 BC when we were, again, lol, talking about the Bran/Old Nan exchange, and you said, "...the reason why this exchange was written in was to explain Mormont's earlier reference to white walkers."

I really don't see the need to explain Mormont's reference in the first place, considering we are introduced to a deadly white walker in the prologue. Now we are reminded that other characters reference them as white walkers as well throughout the series. When Mormont said it, it's not like a first time reader wouldn't know what he was referring to.

This is one 'reveal' that didn't follow GRRM's rule of 3. It was the climax of the prologue after all.

Hey, Heresy should be a place for sacrilege, should it not? In that vein, I'd like to rewrite Martin (my edit in italics). Bear in mind that to speak something querulously is the same as complaining...

Old Nan:

"Fear is for the Long Night, when the sun hides its face for years at a time, and little children are born and live and die all in darkness while the direwolves grow gaunt and hungry, and the white walkers move through the woods.”

Bran:

“You mean the Others,” Bran complained.

Old Nan:

“The Others,” Old Nan agreed.

I think this makes it easier to understand in a more everyday sort of speech. Now Bran could have complained, and Old nan agreed because...

1. Old Nan was wrong about using the term white walkers, and Bran corrected her
2. he was just trying to clarify for himself
3. the terms have lost their specificity

And really, it doesn't matter. In any case, this exchange shows that there is ambiguity in the terms for the things that creep about north of the Wall, as do others (i.e. Grenn confusing methods of killing wights vs. WW).

Unless Bran's objection was that the White Walkers weren't the only ones that came?

I think its actually pretty straightforward if we go back to those references. South of the Wall they are the Others, but north of the Wall they are white walkers.

Oh dear. I think this is getting overly complicated. We have discussed in the past that the Others included, not just White Walkers and wights, but other races, like the Children/Singers and giants.

After reconsideration, if there is a distinction, the Others are the White Walkers. That much I can agree with.

[wolfmaid7]

Srsly?!? I'm talking about a half-glimpsed figure in the dark (it was the long NIGHT after all) of a blizzard. What makes you think the first humans to get close enough to an Other & a Wight to be able to see that there is a difference, actually lived to tell that tale? The first time anyone saw these things they were "shadows in the wood". The text supports the exact opposite conclusion you have come to about "Others" being the blanket term. This is Sam remembering the massacre on the fist: (bolding is mine, italics is the text)

In this passage Sam uses the term "wight" to refer to the undead and then uses the term "Others" to refer to... well, the others :) Literally, "the other ones who where there who were not wights and who I could only imagine were the "Others" from the old stories". I think the quotes I supplied earlier show pretty well that the characters in the books use the term "white walker" to describe anything with glowing blue eyes that skulks about the woods. I cannot see any evidence that a third, distinct creature exists that is known as a white walker.

That Sam quote is pretty interesting, what were the Others doing that was so horrible Sam wouldn't allow himself to remember it? I'm guessing it was too spoilery for him to handle :)

Conversations after, proove Sam didn't see any WW on the Fist,he was doing the same thing that others have done...Seen Wights, assume and think WWs.Note Sam's reaction and mental thoughts while he encountered Ser Puddles.Ser Puddles was the first WW he saw this, is validated by this conversation with him and Grenn.

"They only come when it's cold."

"Yes," said Sam, "but is it the cold that brings the wights, or the wights

that bring the cold?"

"Who cares?" Grenn's axe sent wood chips flying. "They come together, that's

what matters. Hey, now that we know that dragonglass kills them, maybe they

won't come at all. Maybe they're frightened of us now!" (Wait what? who is Grenn talking about?)

Sam wished he could believe that, but it seemed to him that when you were

dead, fear had no more meaning than pain or love or duty. He wrapped his hands

around his legs, sweating under his layers of wool and leather and fur.The

dragonglass dagger had melted the pale thing in the woods, true ... but Grenn

was talking like it would do the same to the wights. We don't know that, he

thought. We don't know anything, really.

1.He calls the WW "the pale thing in the forest"which is very odd at first and did not associate it as an Other until he got back at CB and read about them riding the dead horses.My issue remerges.

2.He and Grenn are both either suffering from amnesia or the Wights were the worst thing on the Fist.

3. His letter to CB nor his conversation told of WWS on the Fist, only of what happened with Ser Puddles and what he read.

[Black Crow]

Oh dear. I think this is getting overly complicated. We have discussed in the past that the Others included, not just White Walkers and wights, but other races, like the Children/Singers and giants.

After reconsideration, if there is a distinction, the Others are the White Walkers. That much I can agree with.

Others and white walkers are interchangeable in both books and SSMs.

What does complicate things is a suspicion that there is more to the Others than just the white walkers.

And with that, after a flying start to the thread and a rattling good episode - so far as I know the only single POV one - I'm to bed. Good night all.

[TheButcherCrow]

I think its actually pretty straightforward if we go back to those references. South of the Wall they are the Others, but north of the Wall they are white walkers.

I just read them again and I think you're right. *does rapid u-turn* But definitely no "third party".

[Black Crow]

If you mean "old" white walkers and "new" white walkers, I agree, absolutely.

To bed, to bed...

[wolfmaid7]

I think its actually pretty straightforward if we go back to those references. South of the Wall they are the Others, but north of the Wall they are white walkers.

:D :D,you made my day with this statement,but i agree there is a proclivity by characters to use the term collectivly unconciously and subconciously.

[TheButcherCrow]

<snip>.

Sam use the pronoun, "Others" to describe something he saw on the Fist. He has literally just finished remembering what, something he clearly identifies as a "wight", did to one of his brothers. What Sam is saying is, "I saw the wights do unspeakable things to people and the Others, no I can't even think about them." Why does he stop himself remembering? My guess is he saw them raising wights and it ain't pretty.

[Melifeather]

Srsly?!? I'm talking about a half-glimpsed figure in the dark (it was the long NIGHT after all) of a blizzard. What makes you think the first humans to get close enough to an Other & a Wight to be able to see that there is a difference, actually lived to tell that tale? The first time anyone saw these things they were "shadows in the wood". The text supports the exact opposite conclusion you have come to about "Others" being the blanket term. This is Sam remembering the massacre on the fist: (bolding is mine, italics is the text)

In this passage Sam uses the term "wight" to refer to the undead and then uses the term "Others" to refer to... well, the others :) Literally, "the other ones who where there who were not wights and who I could only imagine were the "Others" from the old stories". I think the quotes I supplied earlier show pretty well that the characters in the books use the term "white walker" to describe anything with glowing blue eyes that skulks about the woods. I cannot see any evidence that a third, distinct creature exists that is known as a white walker.

That Sam quote is pretty interesting, what were the Others doing that was so horrible Sam wouldn't allow himself to remember it? I'm guessing it was too spoilery for him to handle :)

I do agree that the White Walkers are the Others. I thought you had posted earlier that the term "White Walker" included Others and wights? If I am mistaken, chalk it up all the confusion that I think this discussion has caused.

Sam use the pronoun, "Others" to describe something he saw on the Fist. He has literally just finished remembering what, something he clearly identifies as a "wight", did to one of his brothers. What Sam is saying is, "I saw the wights do unspeakable things to people and the Others, no I can't even think about them." Why does he stop himself remembering? My guess is he saw them raising wights and it ain't pretty.

I do think Sam saw Others, as in White Walkers, and as in something other than a wight.

[TheButcherCrow]

I do agree that the White Walkers are the Others. I thought you had posted earlier that the term "White Walker" included Others and wights? If I am mistaken, chalk it up all the confusion that I think this discussion has caused.

I did post that earlier, lol. But I know think white walkers are the Others and everybody knows what a wight is :)

EDIT

You know what, screw it this is still bugging me. In every instance of the term "the Others" in the books, "Others" is used as a proper noun, albeit in the collective form . A proper noun describes unique entities. On the other hand (boom, boom), in every instance of the term "white walkers", it used as a common noun (in the collective form again) which describes a class of entities. Am I wrong about that? Is it just a grammatical licence he has had to take as the common noun version of "others" would get preposterously confusing?