Heresy 176

[Bran the Bringer]

"There are men who call themselves mages and warlocks," Maester Luwin said. "I had a friend at the Citadel who could pull a rose out of your ear, but he was no more magical than I was. Oh, to be sure, there is much we do not understand. The years pass in their hundreds and their thousands, and what does any man see of life but a few summers, a few winters? We look at mountains and call them eternal, and so they seem . . . but in the course of time, mountains rise and fall, rivers change their courses, stars fall from the sky, and great cities sink beneath the sea. Even gods die, we think. Everything changes.

If even gods die, to become mortal themselves, what is the difference between a god and a really powerful man?

There are a couple of ways to answer this.

 

Maester Luwin was clearly a man who struggles with belief in things he does not understand. I personally would go further and say he was a man who struggled with belief in general stemming from his frustrating study of things arcane. So it is difficult to take as gospel anything someone trained and chained and apparently firmly in the camp of the Maesters worldview when it comes to any matters of magic be it the magic of gods or men. We don't know gods die we only have his and possibly other Maesters words for that.

 

From a non-textual point of view there could be many things separating a god from a man even if they both seek a lower energy state. Note the difference between "becoming mortal themselves" (paraphrasing) and an entropy state that would still be death without the need for dipping into the sub-lunary sphere where we poor mortals dwell.

 

We could be talking about exponentially greater differences in power between even the weakest god and the most powerful of man's magicians. It might just come down to power like many things.

 

If gods are an anthropomorphizing of capricious elemental forces concieved of in a culture's mind's eye, as soon as that culture ceases to exist so does that god however power always lives on.

 

I'm not really certain if any of this starts an conversation in the direction you were thinking but there are a few ideas anyways.

[Old Ida]

I think Lyanna is just a girl  who is imported because she is Jon mother and that is reason for all of Ned´s secrety.  I do not think the father is as imported , may it be RT or someone else. She did not want Jon to be any other than Stark, that is all the promise is about.  Ned did his best to keep it and therefore Jon´s just keep going the road he sees ahead of him each and evelry time.  So he will one day come to know about his parentage  but will it really matter?  Think GRRM will skate over it, yes he is RL=J or something else but he will need to be the son or the blood   of Winterfell to become who he is born to be. who ever is his father.  It seems so out of the story to find politic reason, kidnapping or something else.    

Could she not have been a young girl who got pregnant (of a special child)  without any propesy  but the child was special becauce of her blood and maybe the father.

I mean does it have so much deal that it almost need a whole book about it?

 

As usual I beg you to forgive my English writing.

[wolfmaid7]

And just to repeat my question from the last thread.

 

If all of this silly game of thrones thing is down to Lyanna willfully running off with the raggle-taggle-gypsy-o, why in the feast of the dead is she sitting down with the other victims rather than presiding over it?

 

I think Theon's dream in totality is people who died and they need not have died.If we just take the ones we know of there's some twisted sense of humor.

Even if you could put the singular cause down to her running away with the Highness of the Harp she could still be considered a victim for many reasons especially from the viewpoint of the "dreamer", the only point of view he (or we at this point) can really have is what he knows or has been told, unless you believe there was someone else "forcing" that dream on him.

 

Whether she loved him or not I think we can be certain he manipulated her for his own ends. He did feel he needed that one more head.

 

Even if he really loved her (I'm not sold just using an example) love in no way keeps people from manipulating one another. Whether thats bad is probably dependant on the outcome. My wife getting me to do the dishes, even when my usual chore is the bathroom, is not in the same category as starting a war.

 

If he was such a clever lad he should certainly have seen all that coming. I think he did and went ahead anyways placing the lion's share of the guilt in his harp plucking hands.

 

Now that is just one perspective. I am certain many reasons can be found for her "innocence". All that being said there really are few true innocents in this world we love so much so deciding the matter merely on guilt or innocence may be barking up the wrong tree.

 

Being at Winterfell might certainly be influencing his viewpoint both psychologically and in perhaps "other" ways. Having recently betrayed the family that influenced him so much could also well be influencing his viewpoint, even down to the fact that while he didn't betray Lyana, the actions surrounding her life led to his father's betrayal as well.

 

It might just come down to those who are in the "dream" were those who were betrayed by others they believed in.

 

I probably am no where near what you are getting at ( do we call that BC adjacent? :cool4: ) just throwing a few ideas in there based on my perception of the question.

That's if he really was responsible for her "kidnapping".If this story didn't have for e.g Loras being in Renly's armour riding in to save the day.Or The Mountain and his band of craziness slaying people with no arms i'd say yes possibly Rhaegar,but having introduced these elements.What looked like a duck may not have been a duck.

[TheSmallOther]

I'm not taking it anywhere... I just know that based upon the way that GRRM writes, there is something going on with the Aerys/Rickard Trial by combat that has yet to be revealed to the reader...

 

Ah, but what forces Aerys to fight Starks? You say one is lord of fire, another one is of ice. Sounds like two equals, such as Rhllor and Great Other in Mel's mind. But in reality Stark is Aerys' vassal, not his equal. Wouldn't it be strange for the Mad King to treat his vassal at the same level as himself?

[Black Crow]

Are Lyanna, Brandon and Rickard part of the feast or just observers? Unlike the more recently deceased they are standing up.

 

As the dream started off it was the feast at Winterfell when Robert came to stay so was populated by those then present but as they turned dead it then expanded to include those other Starks who had died as a result of what's going on, reaching backwards as it were, but as I say the inclusion of Lyanna suggests she was a casualty of what's really going on rather than the cause of it.

 

And another reason why I'm still inclined to wonder, given the emphasis in the synopsis of the Stark-Lannister feud, whether there is a hidden Lannister connection to the origins of all this.

[Black Crow]

 

Ah, but what forces Aerys to fight Starks? You say one is lord of fire, another one is of ice. Sounds like two equals, such as Rhllor and Great Other in Mel's mind. But in reality Stark is Aerys' vassal, not his equal. Wouldn't it be strange for the Mad King to treat his vassal at the same level as himself?

 

I refer to my last post

[Black Crow]

I think Lyanna is just a girl  who is imported because she is Jon mother and that is reason for all of Ned´s secrety.  I do not think the father is as imported , may it be RT or someone else. She did not want Jon to be any other than Stark, that is all the promise is about.  Ned did his best to keep it and therefore Jon´s just keep going the road he sees ahead of him each and evelry time.  So he will one day come to know about his parentage  but will it really matter?  Think GRRM will skate over it, yes he is RL=J or something else but he will need to be the son or the blood   of Winterfell to become who he is born to be. who ever is his father.  It seems so out of the story to find politic reason, kidnapping or something else.    

Could she not have been a young girl who got pregnant (of a special child)  without any propesy  but the child was special becauce of her blood and maybe the father.

I mean does it have so much deal that it almost need a whole book about it?

 

 

Certainly not according to the original synopsis  :cool4:

[Black Crow]

As far as ultimately just being the Fall of the House of Stark, I don't think that is all it is. At the very least it is that plus character growth on the part of Theon using a good literary medium to do so. However we know George is better than just good. I am certain there is more meaning here.

 

But again you see I'm thinking in terms of the heavy emphasis placed in the 1993 synopsis on the fall of House Stark. That's certainly what it underlines and encapsulates and in terms of a deeper meaning I think it's pointing to these not being an aggregation of different or random events but a common process - the deliberate destruction of House Stark

[Lady Dyanna]

 
Traditionally putting skulls up is a way to ward off unwelcomed guests, usually of the human variety--especially if they're of large animals that are hard to take down, it kinda is a big way of saying: "don't f*** with me and mine, I can take down a bear by myself". Craster's all right with the gods, it's the other "wildlings" that he's got to look out for, who'd want to steal his women. That's why the skulls are there IMO.

:agree: At least that was how I was originally interpreting it. However, BC suggested that they might be part of a ward against the wights (in a response to one of my posts on the last thread asking how Craster could be protected against them when it didn't seem as if they were capable of following directives.) I thought that it was an interesting take on the situation and was hoping he'd explain more about his thoughts. :)

[Regular John Umber]

And just to repeat my question from the last thread.
 
If all of this silly game of thrones thing is down to Lyanna willfully running off with the raggle-taggle-gypsy-o, why in the feast of the dead is she sitting down with the other victims rather than presiding over it?

 
 

Lyanna is just another footnote in the never-ending game of thrones. She wasn't even the direct cause of the Robert's Rebellion, that honor went to Aerys, being the lunatic/moron that he was.

There was no 'one cause' for the Rebellion; it was a sequence of steps that led to it.

Which makes me wonder: were each of those steps orchestrated? How did Brandon find out about Lyanna? Was it from some little bird that whispered in his ear, got him angry, and set it off? Was that whispering misinformation, and by the time anyone realised, it was too late, and, with the Rebellion in need of some sort of legitimacy, a story was concocted to make it all fit?

[SerTarod]

I like the catch made in H175: the absence of Benjen. 

 

My views on Theon's dream:

 

1. Is the dream, Theon's dream?

and therefore should the setting and charactors be seen from his perspective?

if so, to me, then the guests at the feast are purely the people as Theon knew them or of them, and the dream becomes an illustration of his guilty conscience. 

 

Alternatively:

 

2. is the dream a subconscious feed from the weirnet?

if so, what is the purpose? and who is driving this perspective?

 

The problem I have with #2 is that I cannot see what it would achieve to give Theon this vision or "knowledge", as we later see, Theon has very little interaction with any of the main charactors (whom the wiernet maybe trying to reach and/or influence) until much later and at which time (ADWD) he is a broken man given to muttering and mumbles. 

 

The conclusion I can make is that the dream is for the benefit of the reader. But what are we supposed to see/read?

 

ETA: spelling

[Tucu]

Theon also sees this:

"Along the walls figures half-seen moved through the shadows, pale shades with long grim faces. The sight of them sent fear shivering through Theon sharp as a knife"

 

These figures seem to be the Starks of old. It reinforces the idea that we should be terrified of these Starks. Could the iron swords on their tombs be there to stop vengeful Starks from joining the Weirnet?

[Clueless Northman]

Which makes me wonder: were each of those steps orchestrated? How did Brandon find out about Lyanna? Was it from some little bird that whispered in his ear, got him angry, and set it off? Was that whispering misinformation, and by the time anyone realised, it was too late, and, with the Rebellion in need of some sort of legitimacy, a story was concocted to make it all fit?

Others have voiced such suspicions in the past.
Was it Littlefinger wanting revenge against Benjen?
Was it Tywin wanting to mess up Aerys' reign after he's been sent back? (in which case his revenge was close to be as total as against the Reynes)
Were they both acting together, initiating the uneasy Baelish-Lannister alliance way before GOT?

[Clueless Northman]

These figures seem to be the Starks of old. It reinforces the idea that we should be terrified of these Starks. Could the iron swords on their tombs be there to stop vengeful Starks from joining the Weirnet?

Last book was supposed to be titled "A Time for Wolves", then changed to "A Dream of Spring". Well, first name didn't hint at a happy ending with everyone being alive and fine - rather on Starks going on a rampage and causing a lot of violent deaths. Possibly before a less bloodthirsty conclusion.
Makes you nearly wonder if the swords aren't there to make sure the Starks of old don't rise up as wights, or worse.
Sure, this shouldn't happen because "There's always a Stark in Winterfell", which means that either he calms down the spirits below by his mere presence, or Winterfell being a key magical place, like the Wall though probably less important, a Stark is basically needed in Winterfell to actually power the Wall's magical defenses. But better safe than sorry, so the people of old took all the precautions they could, doubling the security measures.


EDIT: heck, should've been added to my previous post... Too late, and I can't delete that one, sorry.

[Black Crow]

 
 


There was no 'one cause' for the Rebellion; it was a sequence of steps that led to it.

Which makes me wonder: were each of those steps orchestrated? How did Brandon find out about Lyanna? Was it from some little bird that whispered in his ear, got him angry, and set it off? Was that whispering misinformation, and by the time anyone realised, it was too late, and, with the Rebellion in need of some sort of legitimacy, a story was concocted to make it all fit?

 

This is largely what I'm getting at. Leaving aside the arguments in themselves the obsession with R+L=J appears to be distorting what all this is about. In its multitude of variations it essentially boild down to Rhaegar and Lyanna running away together to make Jon. In the process they trigger the rebellion against Aerys and everything that has followed, but in the end all will be well because their son Jon is the chosen one.

 

This forms no part of the 1993 synopsis which instead focuses heavily on the fall of House Stark as a result of the feud with House Lannister. Now so far as the war of the five kingdoms is concerned we see that in the books. I'm just inclined to look backwards and seeing it beginning through unseen hands way before that. Hence my point about Lyanna appearing as a victim rather than presiding over the feast of the dead.

[Black Crow]

Last book was supposed to be titled "A Time for Wolves", then changed to "A Dream of Spring". Well, first name didn't hint at a happy ending with everyone being alive and fine - rather on Starks going on a rampage and causing a lot of violent deaths. Possibly before a less bloodthirsty conclusion.
 

 

True and of course its a time for the wolves of House Stark rather than the dragons of House Targaryen 

[Black Crow]

Others have voiced such suspicions in the past.
Was it Littlefinger wanting revenge against Benjen?
Was it Tywin wanting to mess up Aerys' reign after he's been sent back? (in which case his revenge was close to be as total as against the Reynes)
Were they both acting together, initiating the uneasy Baelish-Lannister alliance way before GOT?

 

Perish the thought  :devil:

[Bran the Bringer]

 

I think Theon's dream in totality is people who died and they need not have died.If we just take the ones we know of there's some twisted sense of humor.

That's if he really was responsible for her "kidnapping".If this story didn't have for e.g Loras being in Renly's armour riding in to save the day.Or The Mountain and his band of craziness slaying people with no arms i'd say yes possibly Rhaegar,but having introduced these elements.What looked like a duck may not have been a duck.

Oh I don't disagree with you here. I'm still not sold entirely on R+L=J theory. I don't think it's a bad theory but I am uncertain that either R or L are the parents and I am often a little gunshy as to the importance placed on Jon over other characters by many followers of the theory.

 

I tend to present from that point of view because it is so popular however, particularly if people are bringing them in for discussion. I shouldn't but without a clear theory otherwise in my own head It certainly is the easiest way to discuss them particularly if they are both asked about.

 

I don't know for sure that there will be a twist in the whole R+L=J, but, it looks like there may be to me based on GRRM's expression everytime D&D (cursed showrunners :) ) are asked about their meeting with George and his question as to Jon's parentage. If he and they are on the same stage being questioned watch his face everytime. When they talk of the meeting and the question he always has the most mischevious grin like he was glad they answered the way they did even though they will be wrong. I dunno putting too much stock in facial expressions to be sure but it has always made me wonder.

[Clueless Northman]

This forms no part of the 1993 synopsis which instead focuses heavily on the fall of House Stark as a result of the feud with House Lannister.

You know, put like that, it sounds an awful lot like Dune plagiarized in a med-fan setting...

[Black Crow]

Oh I don't disagree with you here. I'm still not sold entirely on R+L=J theory. I don't think it's a bad theory but I am uncertain that either R or L are the parents and I am often a little gunshy as to the importance placed on Jon over other characters by many followers of the theory...

 

Well of course in the first place the question asked was not about Jon's parents at all but about his mother. Rhaegar is a reasonable inference but not a given. The real problem is the expectations of the outcome. What's important is that Jon's mother is not "some woman" but a daughter of Winterfell. He too is a son of Winterfell and the only outcome predicted in the synopsis is that as a cousin rather than a half brother Jon can cheerfully get inside Arya's knickers. Things have moved on since 1993 of course and there's a shrewd notion that he and Sansa may get it together instead, but be that as it may there simply isn't room for the Jon Targaryen scenarios so stridently proclaimed by some.