Heresy 195 and the Mists of Time

[Matthew.]

8 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Gared's wanting to light a fire and his reason for doing so is much nearer to certainty.

Is it? He doesn't press the issue, and he doesn't state plainly why he wants to light a fire. His situation is the same as Will's when he attempts to convince himself that he didn't really see something, the same as Jon's when he refuses to say aloud what he fears may have happened to Benjen.

All of them fall short of certainty, all of them fear that what they're about to propose is too ridiculous to say aloud, because all of them believable the same thing: the white walkers are the stuff of myth, and even if they did exist, they've been gone for 8,000 years. There is no "white rangers, occasionally glimpsed in the woods" context, for any of them.

 

8 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Why is it so important to deny the white shadows in the wood?

Strange. Twice, I've asked you that question, and twice you've given me the same exact deflection, even though I answered this deflection the last time you raised it.

In any case, I'll revisit some of the reasons I'm defending what I feel to be the correct interpretation:
-It better fits the textual evidence
-It fits the broader theme of magic returning to the world, that a new age of myths and heroes has begun
-It's an important aspect of the tone Martin wants to achieve with the Others. Just because something is fictional, that does not mean it is fantastical, a concept that poorer authors in genre fiction often fail to understand. The white walkers attacking rangers is not meant to be the equivalent of some native (but fictional) animal in the woods suddenly turning rabid; the idea that no man has seen the white walkers in 8,000 years impresses upon the reader the "feeling" that what is happening is extraordinary, almost unthinkable, it's mythology come to life.
Encountering a white walker is not only notable when they're raising the dead, it's always notable.
-It explains the extreme ignorance of the Watch
-It's a part of the foreshadowing that the White Walkers are not a natural race, but something that is made

Now, you may not agree with any of those, but I do have reasons for defending my point of view beyond just arguing for the sake of arguing.

When I asked "why is it important that we interpret the white walkers this way, even though it's impossible to demonstrate," I wasn't asking you to convince me it's important--only to articulate why you feel it's important, how it relates to your other theories, and so forth.

[Matthew.]

Also, I realize this is an awfully late observation, but I don't see why there's so much discussion of Sam's old list of commanders, when that passage has a far more overt example of Sam and Jon questioning the timeline--the dragonsteel.

Both of them jump to the conclusion that it must be Valyrian steel (Jon repeats this idea later in ADWD), yet that would imply that the traditional timelines are seriously off base. Now, that doesn't mean that the tale is correct, or that Sam and Jon's conclusions are correct, but it was clearly the author's intent with that passage to begin casting serious doubt on both the timelines and legends of Westeros.

[Black Crow]

1 minute ago, Matthew. said:

Is it? He doesn't press the issue, and he doesn't state plainly why he wants to light a fire. His situation is the same as Will's when he attempts to convince himself that he didn't really see something, the same as Jon's when he refuses to say aloud what he fears may have happened to Benjen.

All of them fall short of certainty, all of them fear that what they're about to propose is too ridiculous to say aloud, because all of them believable the same thing: the white walkers are the stuff of myth, and even if they did exist, they've been gone for 8,000 years. There is no "white rangers, occasionally glimpsed in the woods" context, for any of them.

I don't know, maybe its because back in the day I used to go bump in the night myself and know what its like to be out there - OK GRRM didn't - but I recognise how the rangers are feeling and thinking, and while Gared doesn't press the issue in the end, he does hint at his reason and he does come close to an overt challenge.

I agree that the business of the white shadows isn't so overt, but there are those clues and stray references by wildlings and rangers alike and the whole point I'll argue and continue to argue is that the threat is there and always has been there, but because its just been the odd white shadow in the deep midwinter its been ignored. 

[Black Crow]

5 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

Also, I realize this is an awfully late observation, but this thread has gotten awfully bogged down in discussing Sam's old list of commanders, when that passage has a far more overt example of Sam and Jon questioning the timeline--the dragonsteel.

Both of them jump to the conclusion that it must be Valyrian steel (Jon repeats this idea later in ADWD), yet that would imply that the timelines are seriously off base. Now, that doesn't mean that the tale is correct, or that Sam and Jon's conclusions are correct, but it was clearly the author's intent with that passage to begin casting serious doubt on both the timelines and legends of Westeros.

Ah well this one I agree with you on and did in fact refer to it in passing earlier, when I stressed the importance of the context in looking at that duplicated passage. Before pointing out that the dodgy list already had 674 names on it, Sam talked about the quality of the evidence; kings reigning for hundreds of years, knights riding around when there were no knights and so on - and [albeit in parenthesis] I commented that he might have added "steel swords when there were no steel swords"

All in all its a bit like Victorian imaginings of King Arthur and the knights of the round table with high gothic armour  

[shizett]

4 hours ago, Matthew. said:

Both of them jump to the conclusion that it must be Valyrian steel (Jon repeats this idea later in ADWD), yet that would imply that the traditional timelines are seriously off base. Now, that doesn't mean that the tale is correct, or that Sam and Jon's conclusions are correct, but it was clearly the author's intent with that passage to begin casting serious doubt on both the timelines and legends of Westeros.

Is it? Dragons used to be present in Westeros, Valyrians might have reinvented what was invented in Westeros before there was a Valyria. The technology might not have been lost but rather the know-how been erased. 

Valyrian Steel is related to the "industrialization" of making steel in Valyria, it does not mean that there was no steel to be found before that. Does it?

ETA: The histories and stories we have are not only the recordings of the past, but certainly translations and reinterpretations of those stories. A Maester decided to name whatever the Last Hero used as steel, that really says very little about what it was called originally.

[Brad Stark]

7 hours ago, Matthew. said:

Also, I realize this is an awfully late observation, but I don't see why there's so much discussion of Sam's old list of commanders, when that passage has a far more overt example of Sam and Jon questioning the timeline--the dragonsteel.

Both of them jump to the conclusion that it must be Valyrian steel (Jon repeats this idea later in ADWD), yet that would imply that the traditional timelines are seriously off base. Now, that doesn't mean that the tale is correct, or that Sam and Jon's conclusions are correct, but it was clearly the author's intent with that passage to begin casting serious doubt on both the timelines and legends of Westeros.

Only if you believe dragon steel is made by dragons, dragon glass is not.   If it is really just 'dragon like steel', it could predate dragons.  

Our world had steel used long before the iron age, such as from meteorites, which likely inspired Dawn.

It is possible they are wrong about dragon steel even being Valyrian steel,  it could refer to whatever Dawn is made of. 

[Black Crow]

2 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

Only if you believe dragon steel is made by dragons, dragon glass is not.   If it is really just 'dragon like steel', it could predate dragons.  

Our world had steel used long before the iron age, such as from meteorites, which likely inspired Dawn.

It is possible they are wrong about dragon steel even being Valyrian steel,  it could refer to whatever Dawn is made of. 

Valyrian steel appears to be based on Damascus steel which actually originated in India as wootz steel   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel   

Taking that parallel a little further, just as one wasn't invented in Damascus there's no reason to suppose the other was invented in Valyria but is much older. 

I'm also sceptical of dragonbreath being necessary - purely on practical grounds. Dragons are big beasties and swords, let alone daggers, comparatively small. Precision isn't something we associate with dragons or dragonfire. 

Rather I'd be inclined to turn to the association of dragons with comets and perhaps by implication with meteors. If the fiery tail of an iron meteor falli.ng to the earth is seen as a dragon, then a sword forged from that iron might well be known as dragon steel

 

But we digress...

[Matthew.]

11 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I don't know, maybe its because back in the day I used to go bump in the night myself and know what its like to be out there - OK GRRM didn't - but I recognise how the rangers are feeling and thinking, and while Gared doesn't press the issue in the end, he does hint at his reason and he does come close to an overt challenge.

It's not that I can't imagine how Gared or other rangers might feel, it's just that my interpretation of those feelings is different--I believe their feelings are rooted in superstitious knowledge, rather than practical knowledge. With the Gared example, he never says "Okay, listen, those wildlings were killed by white walkers and I'm seeing some warning signs they're in the vicinity, so here's what we're going to do..."

He's not trying to solve an issue that he's familiar with from experience, because no living man of the Watch has experience to draw upon; thus, Gared's solution (build a fire) is one that might have made him feel better, but it certainly wasn't going to ward off what was out there. And, once again, he falls short of actually suggesting aloud that the Others are lurking in their midst. Always, there's the restraint, the fear that it's just a little too crazy to say aloud. It's not really the same thing as being in the jungle or w/e, and knowing that there are guerillas out there. It's more like being afraid of ghosts than being afraid of an enemy combatant.

Put another way, while there clearly were Others out there in the Prologue, don't you imagine that there are plenty of times where you'd be ranging out in the Haunted Forest, and have that unsettled fear that the Others might be lurking around the corner, even if they really aren't? How could you not, when you're in the organization that was founded to fight the Others, ranging in a place called "the Haunted Forest," and the Old Nan's of the world have raised you on stories about all of the terrible things that lurk beyond the Wall.

Edit: Actually, you put it perfectly pages ago when you said that there's a difference between history and myth. As readers, we know objectively, from the very beginning, that the Others are history. However, as the story unfolds, we see that the personal context for most characters in world is that the Others are myth; not that they necessarily believe they don't exist, but it's a more dubious thing than the invasion of the Andals, or Aegon's conquest and so forth.

[Matthew.]

6 hours ago, shizett said:

Is it? Dragons used to be present in Westeros, Valyrians might have reinvented what was invented in Westeros before there was a Valyria. The technology might not have been lost but rather the know-how been erased. 

Valyrian Steel is related to the "industrialization" of making steel in Valyria, it does not mean that there was no steel to be found before that. Does it?

This is why I emphasized the fact that both the legend could be wrong (or misleading), and that Sam and Jon's interpretation could be wrong.

It's not that that passage is meant to tell the reader that Valyrian steel was in Westeros at the time of the Last Hero, it's meant to raise the possibility. That's why I'm speaking of the author's intent with the passage, rather than what the passage itself actually tells us--by the very nature of the passage, the timelines are being called into question. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but if we were to suddenly discover that they were wrong, no person could reasonably say that it wasn't foreshadowed.

[Black Crow]

35 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

This is why I emphasized the fact that both the legend could be wrong (or misleading), and that Sam and Jon's interpretation could be wrong.

It's not that that passage is meant to tell the reader that Valyrian steel was in Westeros at the time of the Last Hero, it's meant to raise the possibility. That's why I'm speaking of the author's intent with the passage, rather than what the passage itself actually tells us--by the very nature of the passage, the timelines are being called into question. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but if we were to suddenly discover that they were wrong, no person could reasonably say that it wasn't foreshadowed.

Ah well, that gets to the very root of our dilemma here.

There's something wrong with the timelines. No-one can seriously dispute that, but is it simply a matter of reducing the time periods, and thinking in terms of hundreds rather than thousands and tens of thousands of years, or is there something far more fundamentally wrong and might there have been knights and swords of steel during the age of heroes?

[Lord Wraith]

17 hours ago, Black Crow said:

And seeing as how we're where we are on the thread, here's a heads up that Heresy 196 will open with the first of two essays by Lynn S on... The Wall.

Can't wait to read them.

[Black Crow]

yeah, they're looking good 

[LynnS]

Oh, my...  

[Black Crow]

Returning to the present, or rather the past, I'm still keen to hear opinions as to what the foreshortening of the history actually means. While death aint what it used to be in Westeros and perhaps never was, is GRRM's foreshortening of the timeline just by way of introducing a degree of realism to his backstory or is it something important to the future plot. The heavy emphasis on Sam's realisation that the accepted history is mince suggests that it may be.

ETA: or to put it another way; does it matter whether Jon is Lord Commander no.998 or only Lord Commander 558? In itself, I suspect not, but I do suggest that the dodgy list is not something important in itself, but further evidence that there is something seriously wrong with the history of Westeros

[Armstark]

On 9.2.2017 at 8:57 AM, Black Crow said:

Ah well this one I agree with you on and did in fact refer to it in passing earlier, when I stressed the importance of the context in looking at that duplicated passage. Before pointing out that the dodgy list already had 674 names on it, Sam talked about the quality of the evidence; kings reigning for hundreds of years, knights riding around when there were no knights and so on - and [albeit in parenthesis] I commented that he might have added "steel swords when there were no steel swords"

All in all its a bit like Victorian imaginings of King Arthur and the knights of the round table with high gothic armour  

I would not be as quick to dismiss stories of kings that reigned for hundreds of years and knights before they were knights. Knights is really just a different name for warrior used by the septons/maesters who wrote down theses stories and we know for a fact that it is possible to live and reign for way longer than the normal human lifespan. Theses stories might be true after all and an additional point of confusion for Sam when interpreting the annals and the infamous list. He thinks they have to be wrong because it is impossible that a LC can reign for two hundred years when it might have been the norm.

 

As to the whole discussion around the fisherfolk quote I agree with Matthew on substance but with BC that we have discussed this a bunch of times to no avail, so I am not joining the fray.

[hiemal]

On 2/9/2017 at 2:28 PM, Black Crow said:

Ah well, that gets to the very root of our dilemma here.

There's something wrong with the timelines. No-one can seriously dispute that, but is it simply a matter of reducing the time periods, and thinking in terms of hundreds rather than thousands and tens of thousands of years, or is there something far more fundamentally wrong and might there have been knights and swords of steel during the age of heroes?

Considering the preponderance of other time-related weirdness going on in these books I think there is. The entire cycle of Ice and Fire seems a reflection of something out of whack with the natural progression of time, not just with its measurement. We have anachronisms abounding, they don't seem to be the exception but the defining rule whenever one civilization meets another and this extends to life itself, with mammoths and dinosaurs. A sixteen-year old girl is said to have been engaged in breeding human soldiers, as though they were goldfish. We have the CotF speaking of tens upon tens of thousands of life without the company of other sapients but the giants- where was humanity then and what preventing them from hopping on over? And what of the builders of cyclopean and ancient Yeen or accursed Carcosa?

Sorry for the unanswerable question drop, but I really do feel that while the issues of historical inaccuracy and even deliberate misrepresentation are important they mask something even deeper, and that even the misalignment of the seasons is just another symptom. I just don't have enough to tinfoil to begin making coherent connections.

[Black Crow]

20 minutes ago, hiemal said:

A sixteen-year old girl is said to have been engaged in breeding human soldiers, as though they were goldfish.

?

[hiemal]

56 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

?

In ADwD one of the Yunkish generals, called The Girl General and described as fancying herself another Danarys, was said to have been breeding her soldiers for particular traits as the one called the Pigeon Lord (I think?) who was breeding his for tallness. The human reprocudtive cycle being what it is this just seems... weird. Glaringly so, and while it couldeasily be just linguistic sloppiness or something, given the other weirdness, like the Shy Maid's bashfully repeated moment on the Rhyone I felt it should be included for completeness while it was on my mind.

[Black Crow]

Consider me enlightened.

Either she's engaged in some long-term forward planning, or she's a warm version of Craster 

[hiemal]

15 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Consider me enlightened.

Either she's engaged in some long-term forward planning, or she's a warm version of Craster 

lol I blush to admit I hadn't even considered that interpretation of "breeding her own soldiers"...