Heresy 188

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, Tucu said:

Marriage of Stark heirs to southern houses is not against all precedent. You have marriages to a Blackwood and a Royce that are southern First Men houses; there are also marriages to a Manderly that is a southern First Men house with heavy Andal influence.

Quite, although it does occur to me that while there's a lot of talk about R+L=J meaning Jon is a union of Ice and Fire and a there's a popular belief in some quarters that Jon and Danaerys will wed to bring Ice and Fire together [but if R+L=J is true surely that aint necessary], but what if mixing the two would be a disaster in magical terms?

[Tucu]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

Quite, although it does occur to me that while there's a lot of talk about R+L=J meaning Jon is a union of Ice and Fire and a there's a popular belief in some quarters that Jon and Danaerys will wed to bring Ice and Fire together [but if R+L=J is true surely that aint necessary], but what if mixing the two would be a disaster in magical terms?

I am not sure how mixing the bloodlines could on its own be bad in magical terms. Jon Snow seems to be 100% Stark in terms of looks, behaviour and magical links.

I can see it causing trouble if it polarises supporters of two pretenders. Jon Snow having the backing of the ice forces to claim a realm that used to belong to the fire forces.

But is this enough reason to bring on the apocalypsis?

[Zman919]

14 hours ago, Tucu said:

The world book says: "The king's bastard brother Brandon Snow offered to cross the Trident alone under cover of darkness, to slay the dragons whilst they slept."

Seeing the image of Brandon Snow making 3 wierwood arrows I thought he was planning to kill the 3 Targs, not the 3 real dragons.

If every instance of Bran has the ability to warg it could be literal.

[wolfmaid7]

5 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I've argued before that its most likely not a case of the comet swinging by and showering magic pixie dust in its wake, but rather being drawn by the the increasing power of the magic.

That's not what i said or implied.The Comet served no more purpose than the Star of Bethlehem to the Maegi and the shepards.They believed through prophecy or were told by others that the star signified something and they came.This is what i'm saying  the Comet is drawing people and things that are magically inclined to a particular location because to them it is a sign.Not that its magical and sprinkling pixie dust.It means time for us to get a move on,make ourselves known again,reach out and touch some people.

4 hours ago, Black Crow said:

There's no evidence at this point that the Targaryen equivalent of the Bobsey Twins were actually calling themselves dragons - let alone anybody else. Dragonlords perhaps but not dragons. As for assassinations by night a knife is surer than an arrow whether of weirwood or not - why in that case weirwood? No, there's no reason to suppose that the passage isn't to be read literally and the Brandon was going to shoot the dragons with magic weirwood arrows, while they were on the ground rather than try and take them on the wing.

As to the odds, yup pretty long and good reason to negotiate, yet Brandon and Torrhen shortened them dramatically to get a good deal.

The bolded part goes toward my point,yet Jace is the one who made the pact to get support for his mom.I would still go with an arrow if he could get in the air from a distance then on the ground would be no problem.Knife to me is a bit to close for comfort.However,i take your point about why not any arrow.The only thing i could see is that it would be a statement using Weirwood arrows.

Whst good deal though? They got the same thing as everybody else whether they got their arses kicked and knealt or just knealt they were named wardens of their own lands.Did Torrehen get something else?

4 hours ago, Black Crow said:

A marriage pact and the failure to follow it through is hardly the same thing as the King of Fire burning the King of Winter 

The pact of ice and fire was a marriage pact.If i understand the arguements correctly,the pact of ice and fire (which was already broken) was being used to make the claim that Aerys broke it when he killed Rickard and Brandon.That be the point you can't break what was already broken so your right it isn't the same.No agreement was made Rickard and Aerys that would warrant this reaction from the supernatural realm.

Plus there is no King of Winter now or then that be the point and what needs to happen.

"They were the Kings of Winter," Bran whispered. Somehow it felt wrong to talk too loudly in this place.

Osha smiled. "Winter's got no king. If you'd seen it, you'd know that, summer boy."

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, Tucu said:

I am not sure how mixing the bloodlines could on its own be bad in magical terms. Jon Snow seems to be 100% Stark in terms of looks, behaviour and magical links.

I can see it causing trouble if it polarises supporters of two pretenders. Jon Snow having the backing of the ice forces to claim a realm that used to belong to the fire forces.

But is this enough reason to bring on the apocalypsis?

I'm just wary of easy answers and mindful that placing extremely hot and extremely cold objects or liquids together can quite literally be explosive.

[Matthew.]

3 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Quite, although it does occur to me that while there's a lot of talk about R+L=J meaning Jon is a union of Ice and Fire and a there's a popular belief in some quarters that Jon and Danaerys will wed to bring Ice and Fire together [but if R+L=J is true surely that aint necessary], but what if mixing the two would be a disaster in magical terms?

I suppose this depends on whether or not we're supposed to read Jon's potential (whatever it might be) as somehow more dangerous than, say, Bloodraven, who also comes from mixed magical bloodlines. From Melisandre's world view, Jon would be a "spoiled onion," but that doesn't mean she's right.

From what we've seen, the CotF don't seem to really display the Melisandre world view that Fire and Ice are forces at war with one another, though we only have Leaf to draw upon for context. Specifically, is it accurate that the CotF view themselves as "Team Ice," that they are acting specifically to counterbalance "Team Fire?"

The CotF utilized what we might call ice magic to create WWs, but at the same time, they also utilize dragonglass, an important material to the Valyrians, the shadowbinders, and various other fire sorcerers, if Quaithe's conversation with Dany is anything to go by. In addition, the Reeds speak of utilizing earth and water, which we might assume is lore inherited from the CotF.

This is all a very long winded way of saying that I think Jon could just as easily embody the "land is one" philosophy of Jojen, rather than representing a violent collision of inimical forces; again, that's not to discount the more sinister reading, as I am mindful of the fact that Jon's dream in ADWD may have been foreshadowing a more violent path, and death mostly seems to change characters for the worse.

[Black Crow]

24 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

From what we've seen, the CotF don't seem to really display the Melisandre world view that Fire and Ice are forces at war with one another, though we only have Leaf to draw upon for context. Specifically, is it accurate that the CotF view themselves as "Team Ice," that they are acting specifically to counterbalance "Team Fire?"
 

Depends on viewpoints as always but notwithstanding the walkers I still don't see the three-huggers as the aggressors in all of this, and that what they have done has been broadly defensive in nature. Bloodraven had a Targaryen father yet notwithstanding the popular interpretation of him as  "Targaryen Loyalist" he has been absorbed into the Wood. His powers may or may not be enhanced by his Targaryen blood but there's no doubting that he serves the old gods. Similarly notwithstanding the often shrill assumption that R+L=J and therefore Jon is the lost heir to the Targaryen throne, I have long held that his mother is more important and that he is a son of Winterfell. He may or may not have something of Rhaegar in him but if blood will out it is Stark Blood.

Fire on the other hand seems a touch more aggressive.

[Brad Stark]

6 hours ago, Arry'sFleas said:

One of the most striking feature of the world created by the author are the uneven seasons.

This discussion about what may have happened when, reminds me that the Year of the False Spring (281 AC) sticks out as a unique event in the annals of the story. There has not been one before (nor since) and we have tales going back 8,000 years.

At least two important events took place during that false spring:

- the Harrenhal tourney where Rhaegar crowned Lyanna Stark as queen of love and beauty: an obvious intended alliance between Ice and Fire

- the appearance of The Knight of the Laughing Tree, whose shield bore the image of "a white weirwood with a laughing red face": again white and red; also such an unusual story that involved the Starks and that for some weird reason, neither Eddard nor Old Nan ever mentioned to their children, to the amazement of Meera.

I could not find any book text to show that both events are directly related nor if the disappearance of Lyanna can be traced to this particular year.

The WIF tells us that the year ended such ' On the last day of the year, snow began to fall upon King's Landing, and a crust of ice formed atop the Blackwater Rush' and that Rhaegar 'with the coming of the new year' journeyed towards the Riverlands; on his way he came  upon Lyanna  near Harrenhal.

It strikes me that the seasons, mad as they are, would have such a unique hiccup and i suggest we should look that way for a trigger.

Do we have evidence there was never another false spring?  I thought maybe something significant happened in 281 AC to release the Others, but I also thought maybe 'false spring' was something that could have happened other times.

I think we will find out a lot more about the tournament and events leading up to it.  It could be something very significant happened that we just haven't read about yet.

The Knight of the Laughing Tree has to be Lyanna, and the story included just to show something about her character.

[Matthew.]

8 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Depends on viewpoints as always but notwithstanding the walkers I still don't see the three-huggers as the aggressors in all of this, and that what they have done has been broadly defensive in nature.

I didn't say they're the aggressors, my point was more that they were using the WWs as a tool to accomplish a particular job--the WWs are soldiers made to fight men, and specifically to fight men in conditions under which the CotF can survive by hiding away in their caves while men freeze or are slaughtered. I view it as a defensive response to men and not a defensive response to some personification of "Fire" that has overstepped its bounds.

The dragonglass comparisons, to me, are meant to be an example of why I think the CotF are not averse to fire, even if it was one of the tools men employed against the weirwood; the first CotF we meet greets Bran with a torch and proceeds to destroy some wights with fire. Compare that to Melisandre, who would probably be filled with supernatural terror at the idea of utilizing the magic of the weirwood.

That's why I'm not specifically convinced that the CotF/old gods would view Jon as a dangerous collision of magics, because I'm not sure that magic is at war with itself in the first place--men misusing magic are at war. What exactly that might mean for Jon's plot role is hard to determine, since "Union of Ice and Fire" is a vaguely defined notion that allows for many, many interpretations--including some that are not all that spectacular in scale.

[Black Crow]

2 hours ago, Matthew. said:

I didn't say they're the aggressors, my point was more that they were using the WWs as a tool to accomplish a particular job--the WWs are soldiers made to fight men, and specifically to fight men in conditions under which the CotF can survive by hiding away in their caves while men freeze or are slaughtered. I view it as a defensive response to men and not a defensive response to some personification of "Fire" that has overstepped its bounds.

The dragonglass comparisons, to me, are meant to be an example of why I think the CotF are not averse to fire, even if it was one of the tools men employed against the weirwood; the first CotF we meet greets Bran with a torch and proceeds to destroy some wights with fire. Compare that to Melisandre, who would probably be filled with supernatural terror at the idea of utilizing the magic of the weirwood.

That's why I'm not specifically convinced that the CotF/old gods would view Jon as a dangerous collision of magics, because I'm not sure that magic is at war with itself in the first place--men misusing magic are at war. What exactly that might mean for Jon's plot role is hard to determine, since "Union of Ice and Fire" is a vaguely defined notion that allows for many, many interpretations--including some that are not all that spectacular in scale.

I'm not saying that they are averse to fire generally and the very notion of balance as expressed in the Reeds' oath embraces both Ice and Fire, rather I'm suggesting that far from being the saviours of all mankind its the other lot who appear to be intent on upsetting the balance in trying to bring about a summer that will never end. 

In that respect Jon is likely to be a positive force. If he really does has a Targaryen side he remains a son of Winterfell. Danaerys the dragonlord on the other hand may express some of the best of intentions but seems more in the destroyer of worlds mode.

[Black Crow]

2 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

Do we have evidence there was never another false spring?  I thought maybe something significant happened in 281 AC to release the Others, but I also thought maybe 'false spring' was something that could have happened other times.

Not that I recall but the very fact of it being referred to as "the year of the false spring" [singular] and referenced as an historical marker very strongly suggests that if not unique it was extremely unusual and the only one in living memory.

[House Cambodia]

10 hours ago, Tucu said:

Marriage of Stark heirs to southern houses is not against all precedent. You have marriages to a Blackwood and a Royce that are southern First Men houses; there are also marriages to a Manderly that is a southern First Men house with heavy Andal influence.

Did they produce Stark heirs? Maybe the crucial issue is not so much First Men bloodline as followers of the Old Religion.

[Black Crow]

I'm rather of the opinion that blood is over-rated. As I've said before I'm of the opinion these days that warging is passed on by the direwolves rather than the genes. Instead I reckon what's important is what people [in text] believe about it. The business about King's blood being the most obvious example. Is King's blood truly more potent when working magick, or is that only what Mel thinks? Is First Men blood important to warging and skinchanging, or is it just that the Starks have been more often exposed to direwolves.

And on that note, good night all.

[Matthew.]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

I'm not saying that they are averse to fire generally and the very notion of balance as expressed in the Reeds' oath embraces both Ice and Fire, rather I'm suggesting that far from being the saviours of all mankind its the other lot who appear to be intent on upsetting the balance in trying to bring about a summer that will never end. 

In that respect Jon is likely to be a positive force. If he really does has a Targaryen side he remains a son of Winterfell. Danaerys the dragonlord on the other hand may express some of the best of intentions but seems more in the destroyer of worlds mode.

The abnormal seasons suggest that if there ever was a "balance," it has already been upset for a long, long time. What Benerro (replaced by Kinvara in the show) espouses would probably ruin things further, but I don't know that what they're doing is any worse than what's happening north of the Wall, where an entire people have been subjected to genocide and magical afterlife slavery.

We might be generous to the Others, and say that they're preparing for a legitimate threat, but so are the Fire Priests. The Others think there's an enemy coming that's intent on destroying the sacred groves, and they're not wrong. The Fire Priests think there's an enemy coming that's intent on destroying all warm blooded life, and they're not wrong. They fuel one another.

If sorcery is a sword without a hilt, then it may be that the only way to truly secure stability is either the death of sorcery, or for someone to gain dominion over the sorcery that is running amok, and make the only ethical choice there is: the choice to not use their sorcery. Perhaps the "bittersweet ending" means a rather lonely existence for one, or several characters.

[Tucu]

2 hours ago, House Cambodia said:

Did they produce Stark heirs? Maybe the crucial issue is not so much First Men bloodline as followers of the Old Religion.

Yes, the current Starks are direct descendants of Tullys , Blackwoods and Royces and quite recently. Rickard grandmother was a Blackwood; his great-grandmother a Royce. Neither Tully or Royce follow the Old Gods.

Also, Stark women married into southern houses too, so their blood is all over Westeros.

 

 

 

[Brad Stark]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

I'm rather of the opinion that blood is over-rated. As I've said before I'm of the opinion these days that warging is passed on by the direwolves rather than the genes. Instead I reckon what's important is what people [in text] believe about it. The business about King's blood being the most obvious example. Is King's blood truly more potent when working magick, or is that only what Mel thinks? Is First Men blood important to warging and skinchanging, or is it just that the Starks have been more often exposed to direwolves.

And on that note, good night all.

I never thought the type of blood or even the sacrifice is necessary.  For the most powerful spell, her shadow babies, she only used a few drops of blood.  I think she believes her god wants the sacrifices, but it has nothing to do with her ability to work magic, she just gives people that impression so she can do the sacrifices.

[Brad Stark]

3 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Not that I recall but the very fact of it being referred to as "the year of the false spring" [singular] and referenced as an historical marker very strongly suggests that if not unique it was extremely unusual and the only one in living memory.

Being the only time in living memory is not the same as being the only time in 8000 years.

[Rodx]

Someone also thinks odd the conection between the names Bael,Baelor,Baelish ?

Remember that infamous exposition Petyr gives during a lesbin sex scene,is not a gratuitous sex after all,Petyr actually is struggliing with his inner temptations,also the episode Baelor that puts his plans in motion actually was wriiten by Martin Hinself,is because of this I think Petyr don't want ned's death but he tempted to do ...

[Zman919]

5 hours ago, Rodx said:

5 hours ago, Rodx said:

This is really helpful and reinforces the Christian-Judeo viewpoint. Bael and Baal look to be the same, which is who The Queen of the South coerced Solomon into worshiping. What do you guys think the odds are that Baelish and Melisandre are likey to run into one another?

[Arry'sFleas]

6 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

Being the only time in living memory is not the same as being the only time in 8000 years.

either living or dead memory, it is not mentioned in any songs, tales and maester's records which are the only medium for knowing events going back 8,000 years or earlier.