let's all relax: this AA business is nbd

[butterbumps!]

AA is not a synonym for “one true hero, president of awesome, ultimate good guy.”

AA, much like the Stallion that Mounts the World for the Dothraki, is the savior figure for a very specific religion—the R’hllorists. Every religion/ culture/ interest group has their own vision of what a savior, messiah, or hero looks like. The idea of a prophesied savior is universal. But the specific attributes given to these savior figures are not universal or interchangeable.

Azor Ahai, and AAR, cannot be separated from the religion that names him a hero. He’s the “warrior of fire.” He’s the messianic hero to the interest group who views fire and light as the greatest good, aka the R’hllorists. The people who exclusively name him hero are those in story who worship fire, specifically, followers of R’hllor. Other people, such as Davos and Saan, see Azor Ahai as a monster, while groups like the Faceless and the CotF would strenuously disagree with the idea of eternal light as unmitigated good, and darkness and death as evil.

The people who name Azor Ahai a hero and look forward to his return are the people who see the world as a literal and figurative battle between all dark and light. Their ultimate goal is to bring forth an endless summer, vanquish death, and have the dead rise as AA’s virtuous army, as per Benerro, the head priest in Volantis. It’s pretty much a hotter version of the Others that they are so excited about. Azor Ahai, “warrior of fire,” is not supposed to merely defeat excesses of darkness and death (which is what the Others arguably represent). AA is supposed to eradicate all of it from the earth. The punchline here is not about restoring balance, but in having fire triumph over all.

So the point is, Azor Ahai is a hero from one point of view. And not a balanced one.

Martin’s given us a number of different mythic figures, all of which strike at something simultaneously universal and culturally specific:

The Last Hero is the guy the Westerosi believe lived during the Long Night, went up North to deal with the Others, and overcame them with a “dragonsteel sword” and help from the CotF

AA is the guy who lived during a “darkness,” sacrificed his wife to forge a “sword,” and fought a monster.

.......................

AAR is the “promised” reincarnation of AA, who will come when “darkness gathers” under “bleeding star/s” to “wake dragons from stone.” Further doctrine tells us that this figure, as well as AA, is a “warrior of fire.”

The Stallion that Mounts the World is a “promised prince,” who comes to defeat contenders, unite the realm, and go to the “ends of the earth.” I want to note here that the Wall is frequently described as being the “end of the world,” and “ends of the earth/ world” is a euphemism for apocalypse.

There’s also a “prince that was promised” in the mix, referenced by the Wood’s Witch, Mel and the StMtW prophesy. The Wood’s Witch’s version may be connected to something called “the song of ice and fire,” as per what Rhaegar relays in the HotU, but the meaning is a mystery for the meantime.

It looks to me like Martin’s playing with the idea of the archetypal hero of the collective unconscious. That is, every culture has ideas of light/ dark, good/ evil, and messiah/ villain. These are the universal concepts that all cultures share in the abstract.

Each of these ASOIAF permutations of “hero” basically invokes a similar root concept: a great hero comes and leads people to overcome sort of threat to their interests. But then the attributes given to each of these figures renders them non-interchangeable.

The threat in the Last Hero is very specifically named to be the Others, which he dealt with by going to the end of the earth with “dragonsteel.” AA’s triumph is less specific than this; it’s not clear that his “darkness” had anything to do with the Long Night, or whether the monster (singular) he slew had anything to do with the Others. In fact, one could make a very strong argument this myth is about overcoming the Harpy of Ghis and founding Valyria, and therefore, not relevant to Westeros’ Long Night at all. So it’s not certain that these two figures refer to the same event, and rather likely they have two very discrete meanings. In light of the way Martin’s structured the story as a series of POV interpretations (not to mention, given us so much text on how people interpreted that comet variously, imbuing it with discrete meanings), it seems likely to me that we’re seeing cultural reflections on a universal concept—and as such, two very different meanings, if not merely different cultures using similar universal mythic language to describe two very separate events.

Then we get 3 versions of “messiah.” To put it out there, I get the feeling that “prince that was promised” is just the ASOIAF way of saying “prophesied leader.” It looks to me like various cultures prophesied that a “great leader to overcome problems” would come, and AAR, the StMtW and whatever the Wood’s Witch meant of the PtwP emerged, each with very specific attributes that reflect the culture interpreting the myth.

As such, R’hllorists would hear “prophesied leader” and visualize a guy with dragons. Conversely, the Dothraki would hear “prophesied leader” and visualize an all-powerful king who could unite the separate realms. God only knows what the Wood’s Witch was referring to, but something about “the song of ice and fire” is probably a good guess, especially if she has old gods connections (CotF are “Singers” after all).

As a side point, tStMtW is frequently dismissed as a merely Dothraki-centric vision with no relevance to the “main story,” but AAR appears to be taken for granted as a highly relevant, transcendent hero. I want to emphasize that both are culturally specific interpretations of “prophesied leader,” and that these culturally specific attributes matter in terms of giving them meaning. It’s inconsistent to dismiss one as culturally specific and not the other, so I want to advocate approaching all of these figures in the same way.

I guess my basic point with this is that this whole AA business is really no big deal. AA=/= the ultimate, transcendent savior of the series. He/ she is just the hero from one perspective, specifically, the perspective advocating for the triumph of a fire extreme. There's a ton of problems facing the Westerosi in this story; even if one assumes the Others are the major threat (arguable imo), it's not remotely a job for one person given the complexity of the co-morbid conditions Westeros is facing. One person is most definitely not going to swoop in and become the panacea. Especially not a "warrior of fire."

[Mladen]

AA is not a synonym for “one true hero, president of awesome, ultimate good guy.”

Since the first line sums it up perfectly, I will just focus on it. I can't even count how many times we have concluded that there is no universal truths in ASOIAF, and one of the prime example of it is the identity and ideology of "ultimate hero". The religious preaches can't be taken as the "universal true" regardless whether we are inclined to believe they are true. And the story, origin and everything around AAR is just that - religious preaching. Of specific religion. And as such, it should be noted that it doesn't represent universal truth, but the very specific ideology of one side.

Where does that leave us? What is AAR supposed to be? And how it will resolve in ASOIAF? Beside the obvious thematic point that each story has its own hero (POV structure) and the lack of universal heroism in the series, I find rather difficult to believe that this will all end with one guy single-handedly slay all the bad guys. That doesn't mean that certain individuals are not capable of great deeds, but actually that what they do is not universally accepted as good.

This whole AAR talk is more about whether we should accept that universal heroes truly exist rather than argue that who it will be at the end. My opinion that ASOIAF is not a good place for the type of hero people seem to believe AAR is.

[Lykos]

George RR Martin. 44:40 min.

[Ser Cold Fingers]

The Hero with a Thousand Faces ~ Joseph Campbell

[butterbumps!]

George RR Martin. 44:40 min.

oh wow, thanks for this. This really makes the point well.

If I'm not mistaken, the salient part you're pointing to is Martin's saying "I'm not interested in 'heroes,' but 'heroicism,'" and the following explanation about how ultimate heroes and villains aren't what he's about, but rather the human capacity for both good and evil at different points in time (and I suppose, to add onto that, one's point of view).

The idea of there being no one true universal hero or villain in ASOIAF is certainly at the core of what I was going for with this.

[Lykos]

butterbumps!, yes it starts a little earlier than I posted, doesn´t it. There´s a somewhat longwinded prelude about professions that are perceived as heroic before he makes the point clear.

I hoped you might be able to do a transscript, since I felt not up to the task. :P

[butterbumps!]

ok, the excerpt from the July 10, 2014 video (44:38):

So I'm not really interested in heroes. I don't think heroes per se exist in the way that science fiction sometimes depicts them. But I am interested in heroism. And I think in an audience like this [gestures to audience], all of you have the potential to be heroes, like on Tuesday. And then on Wednesday you may be shits. Uh, because that's the way all real human beings are. We all have the capacity to do great good inside us, we all have the capacity to be selfish, or greedy or petty. We've all done things, I hope, that we're proud of. And if we can admit it to ourselves, we've all done things that we're ashamed of. I know I certainly have done both.

And, uh, that's the kind of human being that interests me. Boy, what amazing, fascinating creatures human beings are, with all these contradictions inside ourselves. That's the sort of characters I want to explore, not the guy who's just "I'm Joe Hero," or his ultimate, "I'm the dark lord. I'm here to bring darkness over the earth." Uh, what a job description.

lol, I wasn't initially going to go here in the OP, but I think we can probably rule out "We're the dark lords, here to bring darkness over the earth" from the Other's resumes.

But thanks for this, Lykos. I was framing the OP to be mainly about how all of these idealizations of hero figures are just that-- idealizations from specific points of view, none of which are transcendent. But at the root of that idea is the notion that one true ultimate hero (or villain) is beside the point in this story. There just isn't one.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Well it is speculation but I envision AA as an anti-hero morally grey figure who is all about defeating the Others whatever the sacrifice in inoccents. However like other GRRM characters I do think that he might be seen by some as a hero in an ends justify the means point of view or by others as someone whose bad actions don't make up for the overall good results some of them resulted in, especially if in his quest to defeat the Others some of those actions might had been unnecessary.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Great OP and I agree.

Most people attribute only heroic qualities to AA and leave out the extreme view it has, but for some reason when looking at the stwmtw only focus on the un heroic qualities. I see no difference as they are only heroes to a specific group and not a global hero.

I see both light and darkness as important, however AA is meant to destroy all darkness so there will only be light, which is only heroic for the red-lot but not for other religions that have a strong association with darkness such as the old gods.

AA reminds me of the First Men and Andals burning all the weirwoods when coming to Westeros in favour of their own culture/religion.

ok, the excerpt from the July 10, 2014 video (44:38):

So I'm not really interested in heroes. I don't think heroes per se exist in the way that science fiction sometimes depicts them. But I am interested in heroism. And I think in an audience like this [gestures to audience], all of you have the potential to be heroes, like on Tuesday. And then on Wednesday you may be shits. Uh, because that's the way all real human beings are. We all have the capacity to do great good inside us, we all have the capacity to be selfish, or greedy or petty. We've all done things, I hope, that we're proud of. And if we can admit it to ourselves, we've all done things that we're ashamed of. I know I certainly have done both.

And, uh, that's the kind of human being that interests me. Boy, what amazing, fascinating creatures human beings are, with all these contradictions inside ourselves. That's the sort of characters I want to explore, not the guy who's just "I'm Joe Hero," or his ultimate, "I'm the dark lord. I'm here to bring darkness over the earth." Uh, what a job description.

lol, I wasn't initially going to go here in the OP, but I think we can probably rule out "We're the dark lords, here to bring darkness over the earth" from the Other's resumes.

But thanks for this, Lykos. I was framing the OP to be mainly about how all of these idealizations of hero figures are just that-- idealizations from specific points of view, none of which are transcendent. But at the root of that idea is the notion that one true ultimate hero (or villain) is beside the point in this story. There just isn't one.

I like this quote, it fits exactly with how MOIAF said recently about how GRRM want's heroes to be viewed in the story, which is not based off prophecies but the actual heroic deeds that they do, such as Dany's attempt to stop slavery and Jon's attempt to bring refugees into the realm etc.

[MoIaF]

As Queen Alysanne mention, yesterday in fact I made very similar remarks about what GRRM was trying to explore through these prophecies of heroes.

I've been involved in many of these discussion (many with you:) ) and I've wavered about the meaning and who might the hero be. I always thought Dany would be one of them, although I believe there will be others., many in fact. I've always said that I didn't believe in the concept of the One True Hero - I don't think that's what ASOIAF is about.

However, the more I consider these prophecies and what they mean I've come to realize that perhaps we have been looking at this the wrong way. We should n't try to find a hero because of a prophecy we should be looking at the people who are performing heroic acts regardless of any prophecy. That is being a hero without being told you are a hero.

I think considering those characters who take a stand when no one will, who do something for others when no one ask, is where we will find the heroes when they are needed. No prophecy can tell us who will act heroic when the time comes to act heroic. In fact perhaps AAR wasn't just one person, perhaps it was many people.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Also

I guess my basic point with this is that this whole AA business is really no big deal. AA=/= the ultimate, transcendent savior of the series. He/ she is just the hero from one perspective, specifically, the perspective advocating for the triumph of a fire extreme. There's a ton of problems facing the Westerosi in this story; even if one assumes the Others are the major threat (arguable imo), it's not remotely a job for one person given the complexity of the co-morbid conditions Westeros is facing. One person is most definitely not going to swoop in and become the panacea. Especially not a "warrior of fire."

Just because the red priests think that Azor Ahai is a figure that is all about helping their religion or is a warrior of fire and interpret it him according to their religion doesn't mean it is the case.

In fact, it probably isn't since those who read and interpret prophecies tend to not get all things right. Red priests especially have a history of doing so, they are big on confirmation bias.

I agree with your overall point that he is not going to be the stereotypical hero.

I also think it is likely that more than one person will play a role in the whole Others situation. A Daenerys who is in Westeros, Jon Snow and Bran Stark seem likely candidates. There are also prophecies in the story that might fit for them.

[butterbumps!]

Great OP and I agree.

Most people attribute only heroic qualities to AA and leave out the extreme view it has, but for some reason when looking at the stwmtw only focus on the un heroic qualities. I see no difference as they are only heroes to a specific group and not a global hero.

I see both light and darkness as important, however AA is meant to destroy all darkness so there will only be light, which is only heroic for the red-lot but not for other religions that have a strong association with darkness such as the old gods.

AA reminds me of the First Men and Andals burning all the weirwoods when coming to Westeros in favour of their own culture/religion.

I like this quote, it fits exactly with how MOIAF said recently about how GRRM want's heroes to be viewed in the story, which is not based off prophecies but the actual heroic deeds that they do, such as Dany's attempt to stop slavery and Jon's attempt to bring refugees into the realm etc.

Yea, I agree with both of you. I suppose part of my motivation here is to convey the point that AA isn't transcendently "good," to kind of take the pressure off in terms of trying to "fit" certain characters into this allegedly "ultimate hero." But I also don't want to push that too far in the opposite direction; I don't think he's any sort of ultimate villain either. I just don't think any extreme is ultimately beneficial without the other (and as an aside, I'm very curious whether that Wood's Witch was talking about "a song of ice and fire" wrt her version of the PtwP, and if not, where Rhaegar got that from). But in general, whether or not these current characters line up with the mythical figures on the basis of deeds, outlook or characterization, I don't think it matters all that much.

And on the topic of alignment, these myths are all super vague. You can seriously "interpret" all facets of them to come up with arguments for everything and everyone to fit. That's kind of the nature of archetypal language like this. But not all these prophesies are treated the same. It is really interesting to me that AAR is taken so universally whereas the StMtW isn't. I wrote about it recently in the active LB thread, but it applies here too:

the StMtW is basically about a great king who unites all people:

“As swift as the wind he rides, and behind him his khalasar covers the earth, men without number, with arakhs shining in their hands like blades of razor grass. Fierce as a storm this prince will be. His enemies will tremble before him, and their wives will weep tears of blood and rend their flesh in grief. The bells in his hair will sing his coming, and the milk men in the stone tents will fear his name.” The old woman trembled and looked at Dany almost as if she were afraid. “The prince is riding, and he shall be the stallion who mounts the world.”

and Jorah's elaboration:

“The stallion is the khal of khals promised in ancient prophecy, child. He will unite the Dothraki into a single khalasar and ride to the ends of the earth, or so it was promised. All the people of the world will be his herd.”

side note: "khal of khals" sounds a hell of a lot like a "prince that was promised." And the prophesy actually calls the guy a "prince." A "prince" prophesied to come and do stuff in the future, aka, a "prince that was promised." Could it be that......every culture awaits a great king to lead them toward triumph over some enemy?

It's talking about something very universal as well-- a major king who triumphs over all other contenders to lead his now united people to "the ends of the earth." Sort of like, idk, how Westeros is bleeding for a single leader to get these pretenders out of the way and unite everyone to deal with the little problem that exists at the end of the earth up north. Or like what the first Valyrians did against the Ghiscari. Or how the Moonsingers led the Braavosi to a new location at the end of Essos. Or like Nym did by leading her people over Dorne.

So my question is, why are we able to write this one off as Dothraki specific, but seem unable to do the same with Azor Ahai, which also has some very specific meaning and relevancy to a certain culture? Both that and the StMtW touch on some very basic universal archetypes of the collective unconscious about what a hero does, but if we're so willing to dismiss the Stallion, then why aren't we maybe questioning AA the same way?

and this:

Look at the context Mel uses "prince that was promised" in:

“The sand is running through the glass more quickly now, and man’s hour on earth is almost done. We must act boldly, or all hope is lost. Westeros must unite beneath her one true king, the prince that was promised, Lord of Dragonstone and chosen of R’hllor.”

Kind of sounds a lot like this call for unity, no?

“As swift as the wind he rides, and behind him his khalasar covers the earth, men without number, with arakhs shining in their hands like blades of razor grass. Fierce as a storm this princewill be. His enemies will tremble before him, and their wives will weep tears of blood and rend their flesh in grief. The bells in his hair will sing his coming, and the milk men in the stone tents will fear his name.”

......

“The stallion is the khal of khals promised in ancient prophecy, child. He will unite the Dothraki into a single khalasar and ride to the ends of the earth, or so it was promised. All the people of the world will be his herd.”

To be more transparent here, Mel is talking up the prince that was promised thing to emphasize the importance of political unity under Stannis, and she's trying to convince him to burn Edric in order to produce a dragon to accomplish the goal of conquest for the sake of that unity, which ostensibly is needed to prevent what she considers the end of the world.

[butterbumps!]

Just because the red priests think that Azor Ahai is a figure that is all about helping their religion or is a warrior of fire and interpret it him according to their religion doesn't mean it is the case.

It's come up a lot lately, but I'm really not sure why we can or should dismiss what a religion says about their own named messiah's attributes. We can argue that their interpretation of what they believe a messiah looks like isn't a transcendent, universal messiah that's a panacea from all angles, but I really don't think we can say that their concept of their own messiah can be dismissed. AA only has meaning in terms of the Red religion. Do you believe the same things about the StMtW?

[Suzanna Stormborn]

LOL Butterbumps, love the thread title.

I agree that there is waaaaayyyy too much emphasis laid on this prophecy, and it does not even mean what most people (characters and posters) seem to think it means. Or that whoever it is about will be the Harry Potter of ASOIAF. IMO, I completely disagree, whoever is AAR will die.

If you ask me it is a death sentence, the original AA had a terrible life and had to kill his true love. Why do we want this for anyone, especially Jon or Dany?

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

It's come up a lot lately, but I'm really not sure why we can or should dismiss what a religion says about their own named messiah's attributes. We can argue that their interpretation of what they believe a messiah looks like isn't a transcendent, universal messiah that's a panacea from all angles, but I really don't think we can say that their concept of their own messiah can be dismissed. AA only has meaning in terms of the Red religion. Do you believe the same things about the StMtW?

The red priests have a big history of jumping into conclusions that might not be true, but fit into their ideology, dogma or personal biases, so this is a very good reason to doubt that they have the whole picture. Rarely someone who dabbles in prophecy does, as humans are flawed beings with flawed and insuffient knowledge and plenty of confirmation biases.

I also think that what you said above about different cultures interpreting prophecy applies.

As for the Stallion, I am not entirely sure about it, it is either that it was Daenerys son, a what if, if not for an incredible magical incident, or maybe if you stretch it, it applies to Daenerys instead of her son, or maybe to the dragons that were born out the sacrifice of her son. In either case, there is something there even in the what if. Though in that case we have an interesting case of a prophecy of something that is not a certainty, basically a possible eventuality. That Daenerys son would be the stallion that would mount the world (if he didn't die). But it is likely with the Dothraki prophecy that they didn't have the whole picture and was partly erroneous.

[Lykos]

Thank you bumps!, ever since I´ve seen this "lecture" by Martin, I wanted to shove it up everyone´s noses, but had some trouble to do so in a succinct way. It´s copied and saved for shoving. :laugh:

Of course AAR is still a big deal to at least two factions in the story.

Tyrion in Dance.

Prince Aegon will find no friend here. The red priest spoke of ancient prophecy, a prophecy that foretold the coming of a hero to deliver the world from darkness. One hero. Not two. Daenerys has dragons, Aegon does not.

Melisandre in Dance.

I pray for a glimpse of Azor Ahai, and R’hllor shows me only Snow.

Then there are a couple of promised princes, whose gender may vary, or are they dragons?

Aemond to Sam in Feast.

It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. Rhaegar, I thought. . . the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died. He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King's Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet.

What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years.

And there was a last hero the last time there was a long night, sugesting there also where a first, second, and so on heroes, but I think for "Martin´s heroes" we need to look at the "broken men" and women breaking out of their roles and comitting a heroic deed worthy of redemption. (Keeping in mind that those without sin ....)

From the Rolling Stone interview.

One of the things I wanted to explore with Jaime, and with so many of the characters, is the whole issue of redemption. When can we be redeemed? Is redemption even possible? I don't have an answer.

But when do we forgive people? You see it all around in our society, in constant debates. Should we forgive Michael Vick? I have friends who are dog-lovers who will never forgive Michael Vick.

Michael Vick has served years in prison; he's apologized. Has he apologized sufficiently? Woody Allen: Is Woody Allen someone that we should laud, or someone that we should despise? Or Roman Polanski, Paula Deen.

Our society is full of people who have fallen in one way or another, and what do we do with these people? How many good acts make up for a bad act? If you're a Nazi war criminal and then spend the next 40 years doing good deeds and feeding the hungry, does that make up for being a concentration-camp guard?

I don't know the answer, but these are questions worth thinking about. I want there to be a possibility of redemption for us, because we all do terrible things. We should be able to be forgiven.

Because if there is no possibility of redemption, what's the answer then? [Martin pauses for a moment.] You've read the books?

[MoIaF]

It's come up a lot lately, but I'm really not sure why we can or should dismiss what a religion says about their own named messiah's attributes. We can argue that their interpretation of what they believe a messiah looks like isn't a transcendent, universal messiah that's a panacea from all angles, but I really don't think we can say that their concept of their own messiah can be dismissed. AA only has meaning in terms of the Red religion. Do you believe the same things about the StMtW?

Like how Stannis does what Mel believes he should do as AAR. Because it is her interpretation of AAR that he is following. Unless the person knew the original interpretation or decided that they wouldn't follow in being named a hero, the only thing they would have to go by is what they are being told.

So, basically the prophecy is dependent on who is interpreting it if the prophesied hero choses to follow them.

Did that make sense?

[Dr. Pepper]

I guess my basic point with this is that this whole AA business is really no big deal. AA=/= the ultimate, transcendent savior of the series. He/ she is just the hero from one perspective, specifically, the perspective advocating for the triumph of a fire extreme. There's a ton of problems facing the Westerosi in this story; even if one assumes the Others are the major threat (arguable imo), it's not remotely a job for one person given the complexity of the co-morbid conditions Westeros is facing. One person is most definitely not going to swoop in and become the panacea. Especially not a "warrior of fire."

The game of thrones, one of those co-morbid conditions, has served the demolish the idea of a One True Anything. We see all sorts of One Trues being explored, from kings to knights to ladies to religions and we are shown time and time again that while One Trues might be an amazing romantic notion, the people just aren't buying it.

On a similar note, I think it's interesting to point out that the mythic and prophetic heroes are mostly nameless. AA is the only one that might be named, but we are basing that on this figure being described as a single person without having any confirmation that Azor Ahai was historically a name rather than a title or a description of actions. We certainly haven't seen any version of this name elsewhere, as far as I recall, while we've see the names or versions of the names of other mythic heroes. For all we know it could mean "The Lamb's Watch". I think it's more likely that it's a title rather than an actual name for the reasons you noted above. These issues our characters are facing are huge and complex and simply can't be solved by a single person. Dany couldn't cripple the slave trade on her own, Jon can't singlehandedly defend the wall and realm, Stannis can't crawl to the IT without aid, religions can't exist without the people, etc. These myths and prophecies were likely simplified for user consumption so that a group of people became a single figure.

[butterbumps!]

Like how Stannis does what Mel believes he should do as AAR. Because it is her interpretation of AAR that he is following. Unless the person knew the original interpretation or decided that they wouldn't follow in being named a hero, the only thing they would have to go by is what they are being told.

So, basically the prophecy is dependent on who is interpreting it if the prophesied hero choses to follow them.

Did that make sense?

Oh, when it comes to applying specifics, yes, I think individuals are fallible. But the argument that we should read AA as the transcendent hero, and the Red's view of him as a warrior of fire, to usher forth endless summer and immortality as incorrect keeps coming up. It's like saying that Christians don't really understand the attributes of Christ correctly because they've screwed up the interpretation of the Hebrew Messiah, who's attributes deviate from the earlier one Christ derives from. One can make the argument that Christ is a false messiah, but not that Christians screwed up what they think Christ's attributes are.

The red priests have a big history of jumping into conclusions that might not be true, but fit into their ideology, dogma or personal biases, so this is a very good reason to doubt that they have the whole picture. Rarely someone who dabbles in prophecy does, as humans are flawed beings with flawed and insuffient knowledge and plenty of confirmation biases.

I also think that what you said above about different cultures interpreting prophecy applies.

As for the Stallion, I am not entirely sure about it, it is either that it was Daenerys son, a what if, if not for an incredible magical incident, or maybe if you stretch it, it applies to Daenerys instead of her son, or maybe to the dragons that were born out the sacrifice of her son. In either case, there is something there even in the what if. Though in that case we have an interesting case of a prophecy of something that is not a certainty, basically a possible eventuality. That Daenerys son would be the stallion that would mount the world (if he didn't die). But it is likely with the Dothraki prophecy that they didn't have the whole picture and was partly erroneous.

You can make an argument that there existed some basic, universal prophesy or archetypal concept that the Reds latched onto and imbued with specific attributes that are heroic from their perspective, and that, therefore, the Red interpretation of AA, "warrior of fire" deviates from the archetype. But AA only has meaning as a hero in the context of R'hllorism. AA is a very specific incarnation of the prophesy/ archetype. He's the warrior of fire. He doesn't have meaning outside of this.

It is no different than the StMtW. Both seem to derive from a prophesied messiah, and both are cultural interpretations of what the archetypal messiah looks like according to their interests.

[Ser RoddyRuinuous]

butterbumps!' OP is awesome. 100% support. AAR is not necessarily a global messiah, nor is s/he necessarily the Last Hero nor The Prince that Was Promised nor the Stallion who Mounts the World. IRL: The Messiah is not necessarily the Return of Christ who is not necessarily the Hidden Imam. Different cultures have different traditions, and it would be highly unlikely that this prophesied hero figure is the same to all of them.

We know that AAR is fighting against the Great Other, but that's all we know. Maybe the Starks have some kind of connection to the Great Other, in Bloodraven's cave or something. Maybe there are two forces striving for balance, and the balance is the ideal, rather than victory for Fire/Summer or Ice/Winter.

We don't see the Last Hero as anything but some guy who set out to defeat the Others. Not that he established an eternal reign of summer, but that he reversed the tide of Others.

All we know about the Stallion is that he's to conquer everything and unite the Dothraki.

The Prince that was Promised is even flubbier. What's s/he supposed to do? All we know is that s/his is the Song of Ice and Fire, according to Rhaegar.

I think that George might be poking a bit of fun at the notion that the Messiah is the same to all faiths, when, if you think about it carefully, it is not the same idea.

Good post, butterbumps!