What caused the others to wake up and a possible ending to the song of ice and fire!

[Morgana Lannister]

4 minutes ago, devilish said:

An interesting theory indeed. However it compliments rather then contrasts my theory. 

Rhaegar could have started the ritual (ie Lyanna's kidnapping triggered the event) which lead to the sacrifice by fire to the King of Winter's descendent (the crux of the ritual) and which was completed by Dayne (the descendent of r'hllor) losing against Ned (representing the great other). Without Rhaegar's intervention, Lyanna would have married Robert, Aerys would have never burnt Rickard and Arthur would have never been killed by Ned. So similarly to the Armageddon Rag, the prophecy/premotion was poisoned and the way to avoid Armageddon was by doing nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

Interested indeed but not familiar with a lot of the pre ASOIAF so just about following you guys but a bit behind

[John Suburbs]

7 hours ago, devilish said:

snip

I've always suspected that the "ice" and "fire" of the title referred to blood magic, as in, infusing the blood and bloodlines with a particular magic.

In the Targ's case, this would be fire magic that, as hinted at TWB, they gained by literally fusing their blood with dragon blood.

For the Starks, I think their ice blood comes from the Others. If the Night's King was a Stark, and Joramun and the King of Winter slew the NK and his bride just before they could make their latest "sacrifice" (the same kind of sacrifice Craster makes), then that child would become a Stark and possible heir to Winterfell and ancestor to all the Starks since, passing ice-magic blood down through the line. (I have another theory as to who this person is, still alive and playing a major role in the events of ASOIAF. PM me if you're interested.)

I also think that for some reason, the mixing of ice blood and fire blood is a very bad thing. It was why the Pact of I&F was never consummated, and it is why the Others are on the move now -- because of Jon.

[Karmarni]

Spoilers still for AR, but gee this book's been out forever . . .

It's been awhile since I read Armageddon Rag, but I definitely do not think it's a copy and paste to ASOIAF. Author's don't do that kind of thing if they aspire to anything remotely considered 'good literature.' Nor did I get that it was about "saving the world from Doom." That I don't buy at all. That was Sandy's state of mind, and some of it was his drugged state, but he'd become disillusioned with his life. Sandy also bought that about being a "Sander" as in Alexander (Aside, it's here that we learn GRRM's intentions for Sandor Clegane as 'protector' btw. He outright stated what Sander as a name means in AR).

AR is more an homage to the sixties, to counterculture, to Woodstock, and songs (there are a lot of them GRRM put in there), to the power of a rock-n-roll band, to growing older having experienced this. I also think the death of Hobbins is more akin to the Altamont 1969 killing of Meredith Hunter than anything else. The dream flashback to the 1968 Chicago Riots was the best sequence, in my opinion. And Armageddon Rag is, in fact, a song. One that when played, didn't create or prevent any kind of destruction or lack there of.

Now, themes, symbolism, and sometimes structure, I do think authors' revisit these in their life's work. But I also don't think that Ice and Fire is the only thing that matters. What with such huge volumes and two more to come, there's a lot more that happens and is meaningful than just Ice meets Fire and what do we get? Well, for starters, we get Jon. Or Undead Jon, as it is. Because his death is kind of important and his resurrection is also.

Also, I don't think the children of any of the characters are going to be special; for the most part the story we are reading is of the 'special children'. Not everything will be set in stone or explained.  It will still be a fantasy world at the end and it will still be a feudal society at the end.

Also, just got to mention that Sansa as Alayne doesn't think of Tyrion 'fondly.' She says in the Alayne TWoW gift chapter,  

Spoiler

"Joffrey was comely too, though, she reminded herself.   A comely monster, that’s what he was.  Little Lord Tyrion was kinder, twisted though he was."

That's not as fond as the unkiss in my opinion. 

 

[Schwarze Sonne]

I believe in Jon x Dany in the finale. And no, I don't think he'll get toasted or Dany will die of childbirth.

Although it might be controversial, Jon x Arya is the alternative.

Sansa is the only girl I still like though. Dany annoyed me and Arya had become a coldblooded killer who loved to exact her self-justice when it wasn't her task (Dareon) and always tried to find reason for why she killed.

 

Tyrion x Sansa is unlikely to me. Sansa never loves Tyrion and probably never will. Tyrion took the offer to marry Sansa when Lancel was the other viable alternative for her, surely because he wanted some love and a beautiful wife. He then acted hurt when Sansa clearly got repulsed by him, most because of what his family had done to hers, and he did work for his family against her family too.

Joffrey was a dick, I found myself repulsed when GRRM compared him to a bully instead of a psychopath. Guess he was being ridiculously easy on teenagers. At least he was better than Ramsey and Euron.

[Morgana Lannister]

On 12/5/2016 at 6:57 PM, Greywater-Watch said:

It might just be a question of seasons, sort of inevitable change of time. GRRM stressed this aspect once again on his the last convention (Guadalajara International Book Fair) he attended, that the course of seasons was fundamental to his idea of creating ASOIAF.

Yes, of course but I think the seasons are in disarray because they are two warring forces tilting the balance and if Winter is Coming I guess that ice for now seems to be winning... 

[Morgana Lannister]

On 12/5/2016 at 9:49 PM, John Suburbs said:

I've always suspected that the "ice" and "fire" of the title referred to blood magic, as in, infusing the blood and bloodlines with a particular magic.

In the Targ's case, this would be fire magic that, as hinted at TWB, they gained by literally fusing their blood with dragon blood.

For the Starks, I think their ice blood comes from the Others. If the Night's King was a Stark, and Joramun and the King of Winter slew the NK and his bride just before they could make their latest "sacrifice" (the same kind of sacrifice Craster makes), then that child would become a Stark and possible heir to Winterfell and ancestor to all the Starks since, passing ice-magic blood down through the line. (I have another theory as to who this person is, still alive and playing a major role in the events of ASOIAF. PM me if you're interested.)

I also think that for some reason, the mixing of ice blood and fire blood is a very bad thing. It was why the Pact of I&F was never consummated, and it is why the Others are on the move now -- because of Jon.

This is very interesting and yes it is clear that those two houses have magic connected to these two elements respectively.  Now, I could be wrong and I might even yet change my mind but I see the union of fire and ice as positive and balancing and not the opposite.  Still I am none the wiser re what brought the WWs into the fore to such an extend but I am sure someone's theory will hit on something...

[Morgana Lannister]

On 12/6/2016 at 1:52 AM, Karmarni said:

Spoilers still for AR, but gee this book's been out forever . . .

It's been awhile since I read Armageddon Rag, but I definitely do not think it's a copy and paste to ASOIAF. Author's don't do that kind of thing if they aspire to anything remotely considered 'good literature.' Nor did I get that it was about "saving the world from Doom." That I don't buy at all. That was Sandy's state of mind, and some of it was his drugged state, but he'd become disillusioned with his life. Sandy also bought that about being a "Sander" as in Alexander (Aside, it's here that we learn GRRM's intentions for Sandor Clegane as 'protector' btw. He outright stated what Sander as a name means in AR).

AR is more an homage to the sixties, to counterculture, to Woodstock, and songs (there are a lot of them GRRM put in there), to the power of a rock-n-roll band, to growing older having experienced this. I also think the death of Hobbins is more akin to the Altamont 1969 killing of Meredith Hunter than anything else. The dream flashback to the 1968 Chicago Riots was the best sequence, in my opinion. And Armageddon Rag is, in fact, a song. One that when played, didn't create or prevent any kind of destruction or lack there of.

Now, themes, symbolism, and sometimes structure, I do think authors' revisit these in their life's work. But I also don't think that Ice and Fire is the only thing that matters. What with such huge volumes and two more to come, there's a lot more that happens and is meaningful than just Ice meets Fire and what do we get? Well, for starters, we get Jon. Or Undead Jon, as it is. Because his death is kind of important and his resurrection is also.

Also, I don't think the children of any of the characters are going to be special; for the most part the story we are reading is of the 'special children'. Not everything will be set in stone or explained.  It will still be a fantasy world at the end and it will still be a feudal society at the end.

Also, just got to mention that Sansa as Alayne doesn't think of Tyrion 'fondly.' She says in the Alayne TWoW gift chapter,  

  Hide contents

"Joffrey was comely too, though, she reminded herself.   A comely monster, that’s what he was.  Little Lord Tyrion was kinder, twisted though he was."

That's not as fond as the unkiss in my opinion. 

 

I am not at all familiar with Armageddon Rag but I totally agree that he is not going to revisit the same plot exactly although there may be common elements that appear in both.  Interesting re Sandor's name.  I think a lot of people agree that he is going to turn up alive in the books and this can only mean that he will play some sort of important role, surely heroic but I still don't see him being as major a character as some of the others, but a role he will play for sure.  Still invested in the infamous "Clegagne Bowl" that we just don't seem to get in either books or show lol but his role will definitely greater than that.  I am not going to enter into his possible love life because I have discussed that a lot in other threads that were more topic related but all I can say is that we shall see...

Of course fire and ice will not be the only elements in this huge epic series but I am kind of convinced that they are totally key to the seasons and the disarray they are in so the Dawn of Doom will be centred on them IMHO.

As for the children, they already are, Starks are wargs, Targs (or some) have fire power and dragons lol  However I am inclined to believe that rather than open war we will end up with a lot of unions, including nobility and wildlings etc.  I personally think this is how the world will begin to heal through unions that serve a political, or even magical, say, purpose.  I also totally expect a truce with the WWs of some sort and they are likely to come up as not something so evil but in their origins they would have been victims of men in some way too or they would just end up being almost cartoon villains.  I agree that the world will change in fundamental but not dramatic ways and I reckon the dragons will have to go and the WWs keep themselves to themselves.

To me that comment in TWOW 

Spoiler

does not refer to Tyrion having a twisted nature but to the way she thought about his body physically.  The unkiss okay there is an infatuation there and maybe something will happen between Sandor and Sansa but again too long a topic and I remain unconvinced.  I think she is becoming a more political figure to be honest and that inheritance-wise she will be very important to the end game and I seem to recall that George has now added her to the main 5 characters.  One encounter that I really look forward to see is Sandor and Arya, not romantically but because of the way she treated him.  I think all the characters are evolving a lot, but especially Tyrion and Arya, who had gone from mainly sympathetic to revenge obsessed but I am sure will bounce again.  Also Sandor will find more inner peace but still convinced that he is the most apt character to get rid of ser Robert but then again... we shall see...

 

[aryagonnakill#2]

The maesters straight up say that the winters got longer and colder, and summers shorter and cooler when the last dragon died.  If there is an event that triggered the WW's it was that.

[bent branch]

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 6:09 AM, The Hammer of Justice said:

hmmmm I think the shadow that killed Renly and Sir Cortnay Penrose was born from Melisandre and Stannis relation, not Edric's blood. Edric was still at Storm's End when the shadow baby thing happened.

But returning to the topic. I think what triggered the WW waking was the death of the dragons as a result of the Dance of the Dragons 150~170 years ago. I think that dragons are the WW's kriptonyte, they are required to make dragonglass and dragonsteel (valyrian steel?) which are both things reported to be strong agaisn't the WWs (and maybe dragonflame itself). So when the last dragon died in the reign of Aegon III, the WW finally saw an opportunity to attack. But they were few in number at the time, so they must have had to slowly build up his forces, raising the dead, creating their army of wights, until they finally become a force large enough to attack the realm.

The WWs and the dragons are the worlds strongest "mass destruction weapons", but they are opposite to one another, so i think the balance means that both forces will clash and they will both be destroyed, which will bring peace (or at least a "magical" peace) to the world

 

2 hours ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

The maesters straight up say that the winters got longer and colder, and summers shorter and cooler when the last dragon died.  If there is an event that triggered the WW's it was that.

I agree that the events we're seeing were triggered by the death of the dragons. From things that were said in AWOIAF, it appears the dragons were a magically created countermeasure to the Others.

[The Hammer of Justice]

15 minutes ago, bent branch said:

 

I agree that the events we're seeing were triggered by the death of the dragons. From things that were said in AWOIAF, it appears the dragons were a magically created countermeasure to the Others.

I think it is the same logic as with real life food chain. Snakes eat mice, if we kill the snakes, mice population will grow. In Planetos, Dragons kill WWs (directly and/or indirectly), if dragons are killed, WW population grows.

[aryagonnakill#2]

2 hours ago, bent branch said:

 

I agree that the events we're seeing were triggered by the death of the dragons. From things that were said in AWOIAF, it appears the dragons were a magically created countermeasure to the Others.

That is exactly what I think, cross bred from fire wyrms and those pterodactyl things from Sothoros, I can't remember their name.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

First, i think we all agree that both Stark and Targ blood is meaningful. The Targ's for their connections to dragons, and Starks because they were kings of the First Men (and their connections to the Nights King and the Others).

Jon is often considered so important because he is (oh so very likely) the decendent of both ice and fire, Targ and Stark.

But he isn't the only one...

Brynden Rivers, Blood Raven, is a child of house Blackwood (once First Men Kings themselves) and Targaryen.

His disappearance (I would call it abandoning his post) from the Nights Watch occurred about a generation before the events of GoT. He served as Lord Commander for 13 years before his disappearance (sound familiar?).

It is my belief that he is responsible for the return of the Others.

But I also don't think Bloodraven was the three-eyed-crow in Bran's dream, sooooo take it all with a grain of salt.

 

[Greywater-Watch]

There are two theories I have problems to follow.

1. Fire associated with Targaeryens & Dragons on the one hand and Ice associated with Starks and The Others.

Why should anything aparently so evil as The Others be associated to Starks?

2. What caused The Others to start moving and prepare their attack? Apparently The Others where already on the move at the very beginning of the first book (prologue of AGOT, 297 AC).

• some say because there was no more Stark at Winterfell (Ned died 299 AC, Robb died 299 AC, Bran and Rickon left Winterfell in 299 AC)
• some say because there were no more Dragons (last Dragon died 153 AC; not counting the three Dragons hatched by Daenerys in 299 AC)
• some say because there was no longer a Targaeryen on the Iron Throne (Aerys II died 283 AC)
• some say because of the death of ArthurDayne (died 283 AC)

From this point of view, the disappearance of the last Stark at Winterfell can be excluded as a reason.

For all other assumed reason: How much time does it require The Others to react?

• 15 years (counted from the death of the Mad King and/or the death of Arthur Dayne)
• 145 years (counted from the death of the last living Dragon)?

[bent branch]

9 hours ago, Greywater-Watch said:

There are two theories I have problems to follow.

1. Fire associated with Targaeryens & Dragons on the one hand and Ice associated with Starks and The Others.

Why should anything aparently so evil as The Others be associated to Starks?

2. What caused The Others to start moving and prepare their attack? Apparently The Others where already on the move at the very beginning of the first book (prologue of AGOT, 297 AC).

• some say because there was no more Stark at Winterfell (Ned died 299 AC, Robb died 299 AC, Bran and Rickon left Winterfell in 299 AC)
• some say because there were no more Dragons (last Dragon died 153 AC; not counting the three Dragons hatched by Daenerys in 299 AC)
• some say because there was no longer a Targaeryen on the Iron Throne (Aerys II died 283 AC)
• some say because of the death of ArthurDayne (died 283 AC)

From this point of view, the disappearance of the last Stark at Winterfell can be excluded as a reason.

For all other assumed reason: How much time does it require The Others to react?

• 15 years (counted from the death of the Mad King and/or the death of Arthur Dayne)
• 145 years (counted from the death of the last living Dragon)?

As you ask, "How long does it take for the Others to react?" As has been pointed out up thread, the Citadel has said the seasons became more unstable after the death of dragons. Therefore, I think it was with the death of the dragons. However, the Targaryens being removed from the throne is another possible answer. No matter what, it seems it is related to the dragons and/or dragonlords.

[roryclague]

I always had the feeling that the events surrounding the Summerhall tragedy are linked to the final mobilisation of the Others. I agree that the Dance of the Dragons may have played a role as well. The beginning of the process may have been the Doom of Valyria. Five hundred years between the initial catalyst and the second Long Night isn't much time compared to the 7500 preceding years of dormancy.