Heresy 181

[Melifeather]

 

We now know there was all sorts of politicking involved at Harrenhal, with both Lord Rickard and Lord Tywin prudently staying away and therefore preserving their deniability. GRRM has told us that there's a lot more to tell, which heavily implies that to claim the rebellion would never have happened is probably very wide of the mark. The rebellion was always going to happen but the fall-out from Harrenhal shaped both the timing of the rebellion and the composition of the rebels.

Trouserless Bob Baratheon has a claim to the throne and makes a splendid figurehead. The Starks have the brains and the men. Lyanna is intended to unite them. Rhaegar needs to frustrate this alliance so kidnapping Lyanna makes some sense, but it then spirals out of control. Brandon and then Rickard after him rush to King's Landing to meet their fate. Aerys follows up by demanding Eddard Stark, which makes sense in bridling the Starks and significantly also demands Bob Baratheon, which means that Aerys knows what's really going on. The Blessed St. Jon of Arryn therefore has no alternative but to launch the rebellion early, before the alliances are locked in place.

Where Ned Stark has cause to complain is in the sidelining of Lyanna. There was no honour in the war because it was launched and fought to take the throne, not to rescue [or even avenge] Lyanna. Once it was up and running she became a footnote in a fairly sordid history. 

 

I see this a little differently, though I do agree that there was all sorts of politicking, but I don't believe Rhaegar was there to frustrate an alliance. He was there to build an alliance. The text supports this with the whispering of Varys in Aerys ear that the tourney was cover for a secretive meeting. That is why the now reclusive Aerys surprised everyone by declaring that he would attend.

The alliance building was referred to by Lady Barbary as "southron ambitions". This not only entailed the marriage alliances and exchanging of wards, but also aligning themselves with Rhaegar. The kidnapping effectively severed the alliance between Rhaegar and Lords Rickard, Hoster, Steffon, Jon A, and secretly Tywin...well, it was a secret to Rhaegar that Tywin was no longer his ally as evidenced by the way that Rhaegar confidently instructed Aerys to call Tywin to his aid believing that Tywin was still their friend.

Tywin was a saboteur. He led both sides to believe he was aligned with them when in fact, he was only aligned with himself and his pursuits and he definitely wanted Aerys and Rhaegar gone, gone, gone.

 

Howland Reed was certainly present at the tower when it all went down. He saved Lord Eddard's life and afterwards was one of the two to ride away, but I don't recall his being referenced by name in the deathbed scene. There's just an assumption it was in the tower itself and therefore he must ipso facto been one of "they".

Good catch!

[Black Crow]

I see this a little differently, though I do agree that there was all sorts of politicking, but I don't believe Rhaegar was there to frustrate an alliance. He was there to build an alliance. The text supports this with the whispering of Varys in Aerys ear that the tourney was cover for a secretive meeting. That is why the now reclusive Aerys surprised everyone by declaring that he would attend.

The alliance building was referred to by Lady Barbary as "southron ambitions". This not only entailed the marriage alliances and exchanging of wards, but also aligning themselves with Rhaegar. The kidnapping effectively severed the alliance between Rhaegar and Lords Rickard, Hoster, Steffon, Jon A, and secretly Tywin...well, it was a secret to Rhaegar that Tywin was no longer his ally as evidenced by the way that Rhaegar confidently instructed Aerys to call Tywin to his aid believing that Tywin was still their friend.

I think its rather more likely to have been more straightforward. Lord Rickard's Southern ambitions were to be achieved through marrying Lyanna to Bob Baratheon and then putting him on the throne. Rhaegar I see as trying to frustrate this cunning plan by inviting them to join his gang instead and so avoid a civil war - and preserve the Targaryen succession. 

[shizett]

Howland Reed was certainly present at the tower when it all went down. He saved Lord Eddard's life and afterwards was one of the two to ride away, but I don't recall his being referenced by name in the deathbed scene. There's just an assumption it was in the tower itself and therefore he must ipso facto been one of "they".

He was:

He could hear her still at times. Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister's eyes. Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. After that he remembered nothing. They had found him still holding her body, silent with grief. The little crannogman, Howland Reed, had taken her hand from his. Ned could recall none of it. (AGOT, Eddard I)

[Mace Cooterian]

Happy New Year to all of you.

And a renewed call for expressions of interest in a Heresy bi-centennial project

 

Pardon this brief intermission.....but wanted to also say Happy New Year to fellow Heretics and to invite anyone to go back and redo the Centennial Project on Timelines for BC's upcoming new Project.  I had a real challenge trying to piece together the timelines and felt that I generated more questions than I did answers during that particular piece.

You want hurt my feelings....scouts honor!!!

Here is the link:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/103768-heresy-92-and-nae-deid-yet/

 

[Black Crow]

 

He was:

My bad, thanks for the correction

[Black Crow]

Pardon this brief intermission.....but wanted to also say Happy New Year to fellow Heretics and to invite anyone to go back and redo the Centennial Project on Timelines for BC's upcoming new Project.  I had a real challenge trying to piece together the timelines and felt that I generated more questions than I did answers during that particular piece.

You want hurt my feelings....scouts honor!!!

Here is the link:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/103768-heresy-92-and-nae-deid-yet/

 

Timelines will certainly be revisited, its one we haven't looked at in a while and after all we've since had the World Book to play with so a fresh new essay is certainly going to be needed.

[Black Crow]

 

Tywin was a saboteur. He led both sides to believe he was aligned with them when in fact, he was only aligned with himself and his pursuits and he definitely wanted Aerys and Rhaegar gone, gone, gone.

Returning, briefly, to this one I'd agree that Tywin was playing both sides. He wanted Aerys gone certainly, but I'm not so sure about Rhaegar and think the delay in intervening was simply down to waiting to see whether Rhaegar or Trouserless Bob would prevail and as always that brings us back to what Rhaegar was really up to.

The assumption he couldn't be found for all those months during the rebellion because he was too busy having his wicked way with Lyanna becomes far less credible in the light of his politicking and concerns for the kingdom revealed both in text and in the World Book.

[shizett]

Since the discussion seems a bit slow right now, I have a general question. I read a lot of theories on different swords and their corresponding wielders here. Although I find the discussions very intriguing, I have a hard time understanding what could one (or two or three) individuals with certain swords achieve, especially in a world that already has mass-murdering weapons like wildfire, dragons, or army of dead. The only message Jon's famous dream, him in the black armor and wielding the on-red-fire sword, had for me was the realization that a hero can do very little if not nothing. So, what is it you envision for the sword wielding heroes? They will kill the dragons? BR/Bran? The Great Other? R'hllor?

I am not disagreeing or criticizing, just trying to figure out how such a simple solution could be an apt solution for such a realistic and complex problem.

[Black Crow]

Its a splendid point I've made myself in the past. No matter how good a single individual with a single sword might be, tackling a whole army, whether undead or otherwise, really isn't on. In storytelling terms it doesn't work either whether we're talking about an actual sword, a fiery sword or a metaphorical sword - say for example a dragon, because then this massive sprawling intricate epic devolves into "with one bound Jack was free".

There is, presumably, going to be some kind of significance to there swords but I tend to see them as more symbolic than real and that this story ultimately is about people.

[Melifeather]

Unless it's about breaking magic spells and killing the spell caster.

[Black Crow]

True, we have that business about Joramun's horn which can presumably do something about the deep magic within the Wall

[shizett]

Its a splendid point I've made myself in the past. No matter how good a single individual with a single sword might be, tackling a whole army, whether undead or otherwise, really isn't on. In storytelling terms it doesn't work either whether we're talking about an actual sword, a fiery sword or a metaphorical sword - say for example a dragon, because then this massive sprawling intricate epic devolves into "with one bound Jack was free".

There is, presumably, going to be some kind of significance to there swords but I tend to see them as more symbolic than real and that this story ultimately is about people.

I agree.

Unless it's about breaking magic spells and killing the spell caster.

I see

[shizett]

Have anybody else noticed this? Zizoz has mentioned it in "Wow, I never noticed that" thread (I am copying it, I don't know how to quote between threads):

In the AGOT prologue, the Other's sword doesn't seem to gain its magic sword-shattering ability until the Other draws blood.
 

So Waymar is perfectly able to parry the Other's sword for a long time, then he messed up, the Other draws blood, and the next "lazy" parry by the Other shatters Waymar's sword.

This is reminiscent to me of Beric cutting his hand to set his sword aflame.

The passage from the book is:

Again and again the swords met, until Will wanted to cover his ears against the strange anguished keening of their clash. Ser Waymar was panting from the effort now, his breath steaming in the moonlight. His blade was white with frost; the Other's danced with pale blue light.

Then Royce's parry came a beat too late. The pale sword bit through the ringmail beneath his arm. The young lord cried out in pain. Blood welled between the rings. It steamed in the cold, and the droplets seemed red as fire where they touched the snow. Ser Waymar's fingers brushed his side. His moleskin glove came away soaked with red.

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.

Ser Waymar Royce found his fury. "For Robert!" he shouted, and he came up snarling, lifting the frost=covered longsword with both hands and swinging it around in a flat sidearm slash with all his weight behind it. The Other's parry was almost lazy.

When the blades touched, the steel shattered.

[Black Crow]

That's an interesting one. Given the stress on the cold the scene stands alone with Ser Waymar's sword simply shattering due to the cold, but his blood bringing the ice-sword to life is an interesting possibility - especially given that a sword cold enough to shatter steel would probably self-cauterise any wound.

There may be no significance at all, but we do have the emphasis on blood and magic elsewhere and there might also be a nod to Elric of Melnibone's demon-sword Stormbringer which drank the souls of those whose blood it drew.

Come to that Craster's boys do look a bit like Elric 

[WitteRaaf]

"There is, presumably, going to be some kind of significance to there swords but I tend to see them as more symbolic than real and that this story ultimately is about people." (BC)

I agree. It's about blood and it's about a sword but like the Daynes with dawn it isn't given to just anyone. 

A man must prove himself and the power is in the proving.  He who is worthy may pull the sword from the stone.  It's about people, and who they choose to be

[Black Crow]

And as ever worth noting that the resolution pointed to in the early synopsis is about people laying aside old feuds and joining together to face the threat, rather than a sword pulled from the stone by a lone hero. GRRM has had a lot to say about prophecy and the dangers of relying on it and how it [stuff like Azor Ahai] never works out the way people think, or rather want to believe. In the end I think that this is how he intends it to be brought to some kind of resolution, not by a hero of legend arising, but through ordinary and very fallible human beings sorting it out in their own imperfect way.

[Lord Wraith]

True, we have that business about Joramun's horn which can presumably do something about the deep magic within the Wall

He heard two different tales about the Horn of Joramun. In the original tale it was supposed to "wake giants from earth."  Now it seems that the Wildlings think it will bring down the Wall.

Its odd on both counts since we see plenty of giants in Jon's POV. Also if it brought down the wall why didn't Joramun bring down the wall when he had it?

[Sly Wren]

He heard two different tales about the Horn of Joramun. In the original tale it was supposed to "wake giants from earth."  Now it seems that the Wildlings think it will bring down the Wall.

Its odd on both counts since we see plenty of giants in Jon's POV. Also if it brought down the wall why didn't Joramun bring down the wall when he had it?

Am suddenly wondering if this has something to do with the fact that Mance dug up graves to find it--Ygritte's being upset that they released all of those shades. So--does the horn literally wake the sleepers? The Starks in the crypts in Winterfell? Are they the giants?

[Sly Wren]

"There is, presumably, going to be some kind of significance to there swords but I tend to see them as more symbolic than real and that this story ultimately is about people." (BC)

I agree. It's about blood and it's about a sword but like the Daynes with dawn it isn't given to just anyone. 

A man must prove himself and the power is in the proving.  He who is worthy may pull the sword from the stone.  It's about people, and who they choose to be

And as ever worth noting that the resolution pointed to in the early synopsis is about people laying aside old feuds and joining together to face the threat, rather than a sword pulled from the stone by a lone hero. GRRM has had a lot to say about prophecy and the dangers of relying on it and how it [stuff like Azor Ahai] never works out the way people think, or rather want to believe. In the end I think that this is how he intends it to be brought to some kind of resolution, not by a hero of legend arising, but through ordinary and very fallible human beings sorting it out in their own imperfect way.

"Worthy" doesn't seem to mean "perfect" in the novels. Nor at the Wall. The unity of the Watch at the Wall--holding true--that seems to have power.

Darkstar says Arthur was only great because of the sword. Jaime and others belie that by focusing on what made Arthur "great"--taking care of the small folk, inspiring people, etc. 

Same with the Wall--seems like it depends on HOW the Watch uses it. If used to protect people, it will hold.  I think. 

[Black Crow]

He heard two different tales about the Horn of Joramun. In the original tale it was supposed to "wake giants from earth."  Now it seems that the Wildlings think it will bring down the Wall.

Its odd on both counts since we see plenty of giants in Jon's POV. Also if it brought down the wall why didn't Joramun bring down the wall when he had it?

Not necessarily. Given as you say that there are plenty of giants already wandering about those referred to must be something different and the business of waking them from the earth is therefore more likely to be a metaphor or a belief that seismic activity is down to Giants with a very big G rumbling down below, ie; blowing the horn will magically trigger it and so cause the Wall to collapse.