Heresy 197 the wit and wisdom of Old Nan

[JNR]

29 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Not necessarily, for all we know - and I speak here as a father of two boys - it could have been and indeed sounds like a long running argument whereby she always calls them white walkers and Bran always insists on correcting her.

Well, really, BC, take a look at your own OP. 

You cite example after example after example of Old Nan saying "Others," in tale after tale, as remembered by character after character.  So she certainly can't always have called them white walkers.

I'm also just going to point out again that:

• Jon was raised in the North, never lived in the South a day (that he remembers...) and he invariably calls them Others, dozens of times.  The sole exception is when he was trying to persuade the free folk to help him man the Wall... at which time he switched to white walkers.

• In contrast, Sam was raised in the South, never lived in the North a day until coming to the Watch, and yet he, too, invariably calls them Others, dozens of times.  The sole exception is when, after once again calling them Others, he then lists synonyms for them... one of which is white walkers.

To me a mountain lion is called a mountain lion. I am aware it can also be called a cougar, which I might rarely call it, or a puma, which I would not call it, or even a painter -- and if I heard that last term in someone's story, I would suspect I was dealing with someone from the American south/Florida.

[Black Crow]

All true of course, but nevertheless this is a work of fiction and the use of two terms, one vague, very general and by its nature plural, and one very specific. do feel like a plot device.

[Brad Stark]

3 hours ago, Black Crow said:

All true of course, but nevertheless this is a work of fiction and the use of two terms, one vague, very general and by its nature plural, and one very specific. do feel like a plot device.

After 6 years without a new plot device, I do feel we are trying to create one where none exists.   And you kept saying I over analyzed the list of 674.

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, Brad Stark said:

  And you kept saying I over analyzed the list of 674.

yes 

 

As to the Others/white walkers business, this goes way back and certainly aint a "new" thing 

[Matthew.]

7 hours ago, Black Crow said:

...I still reckon that there is a significance to the use of two different terms just as we've learned some of the distinctions within those other terms and usages.

What significance, though? Even under a scenario where the CotF have created the white walkers, it's wholly unnecessary, and there's no real payoff to having the terms be distinct--no revelation. At best, it might be a fun little etymological note, eg "the term first arose as a blanket term for those 'Others' cast beyond the Wall," but that's not the way the term Others is used in the present story.

So what, then, is the argument, especially as relates to the conversation between Old Nan and Bran? Is the suggestion that the term "Others" means more to Old Nan than just a synonym for the white walkers? As JNR notes above, that's not at all reflected in the understanding of the Others as conveyed by any of the Stark children raised on her stories, not conveyed by Eddard (who also grew up with Old Nan's stories), not conveyed by anyone, ever--in word or action. It's not even consistent with the way the tale of the Last Hero is presented by Old Nan.

[Black Crow]

41 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

What significance, though? Even under a scenario where the CotF have created the white walkers, it's wholly unnecessary, and there's no real payoff to having the terms be distinct--no revelation. At best, it might be a fun little etymological note, eg "the term first arose as a blanket term for those 'Others' cast beyond the Wall," but that's not the way the term Others is used in the present story.

So what, then, is the argument, especially as relates to the conversation between Old Nan and Bran? Is the suggestion that the term "Others" means more to Old Nan than just a synonym for the white walkers? As JNR notes above, that's not at all reflected in the understanding of the Others as conveyed by any of the Stark children raised on her stories, not conveyed by Eddard (who also grew up with Old Nan's stories), not conveyed by anyone, ever--in word or action. It's not even consistent with the way the tale of the Last Hero is presented by Old Nan.

I'm open on the ultimate pay-off for this, but having brought in the white walkers it was necessary for the story to have this scene or one very like it to explain that the walkers and the Others are apparently one and the same, which it does successfully but then raises the supplementary question as to how specific the term Others is and thereby paves the way for the later realisation that the three-fingered tree-huggers may not be so cuddly as Bran has been led to believe.

[Voice]

20 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

So Best Beloved, GRRM better satisfy your 'satiable curtiosity soon regarding the hierarchy of humanity's grey-green projections -- or someone is going to spank you!

ETA:  Hopefully TWOW will have been published before the 'precession had preceded according to precedent' and 'there is nothing left of the Equinoxes'..!

P.S.  One last thing -- I don't think you can apply the same linguistic anthropological principles you use in your day job to this arena with any reliable fidelity, since a novel has not evolved organically in the same way (regardless of what GRRM may waffle about the difference between gardening and architecture)!

LOL! Quite agreed, but I won't hold my breath. GRRM is a tortoise, and is happy to let proud hares assume much and more.

And I agree with your post script as well. I am not making a linguistic study of ASOIAF so much as I am pointing out that use of the term may have more to do with proximity to the terms themselves, rather than alternative dialects.

That alternative dialects exist in ASOIAF is a matter beyond debate. They are cited in the text. Pyp can tell where a person is from just by hearing them talk. He guessed where Sam was from by hearing his dialect of the Common Tongue, for example.

I make no quibble with that idea.

What I do think bears consideration, however, is that southerners are given few reasons to speak of the Others in a literal way. They use the term while swearing, and that's it.

When we tell someone to "go to hell" in English, for instance, we do not mean a literal visit to fire and brimstone. Even if we do want it to mean that, it is being used figuratively, as we have no real-world means of sending someone to a place that only exists in a religion.

In tales of the Long Night, or while guarding Eastwatch by the Sea, the terms are used quite literally and the actual meaning of the words matter. As Jon Snow said, "The words matter, and so do these traditions."  

A perfect example of this can be found in the semi-canonical World of Ice and Fire anthology. In it, a maester proposes that the Others are merely a tribe of wildlings. The term has lost all connotation to the fact that they bring the cold, or the cold brings them. And, this view is lent credence by Yandel:

Archmaester Fomas's Lies of the Ancients—though little regarded these days for its erroneous claims regarding the founding of Valyria and certain lineal claims in the Reach and westerlands—does speculate that the Others of legend were nothing more than a tribe of the First Men, ancestors of the wildlings, that had established itself in the far north. Because of the Long Night, these early wildlings were then pressured to begin a wave of conquests to the south. That they became monstrous in the tales told thereafter, according to Fomas, reflects the desire of the Night's Watch and the Starks to give themselves a more heroic identity as saviors of mankind, and not merely the beneficiaries of a struggle over dominion.

When living in the north, and actually dealing with such beings, the difference between a wildling and an Other could not be more obvious.

The Citadel is aware of both terms, but has little cause to apply them accurately.

 

19 hours ago, Black Crow said:

In all honesty I think that there is an important point which this discussion is obscuring.

In the beginning an Other and his twins stepped out of the shadows, slew Ser Waymar Royce and boody-trapped his body.

As the story progresses we hear a number of times of the Others as an ancient enemy and that a massive Wall was built to keep them at bay

Then, on the Wall a secondary character throws a curve-ball by referring to White Walkers

Who are they?

A few chapters down the pike Old Nan refers to them too and young Bran, being a smart-ass, tells us that the White Walkers and the Others are one and the same.

Mystery solved.

But why was it a mystery in the first place, why confuse matters by using two quite different terms, used in the same spoken language the length and breadth of Westeros?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

In other words:

All white walkers are Others.

All (starry blue eyed) wights are Others.

All Others are not white walkers

All wights are not Others.

People get a bit too hung up on the notion of separate species when I attempt to draw this distinction. I've mentioned separate types of Others merely as a possibility. What stands out to me, and seems like it should stand out to everyone, is that the term "Other" carries two very distinct uses.

The first, is italicized above. It is a proper, yet inclusive term. Three blasts of the horn means: Others, white walkers, wights. The blue-eyed lot, as a group. 

The other (and different) use of the term can be found in the contentious tale from Old Nan we have been discussing. It is exclusive.

Per Bran's understanding of the story of the Last Hero, and the beings who came in the long night, Bran asserted use of an exclusive proper term, and did so querulously. Rather than smack the little shite down a peg, Old Nan agreed, and continued telling the story while using the proper exclusive term.

Now, it is certainly possible that Old Nan caved in to the whims of the brat. He is a lordling. But Old Nan was never afraid to knock the kids down a peg, nor confront them, so

 

18 hours ago, JNR said:

Well, of course I agree about this.   It's just apparent.

I also agree with ravenous reader.  Old Nan normally told the story with the phrase "Others," often enough that Bran memorized it that way (much as the Reed kids have memorized the fantastically complex tale of the KotLT, about which they seem to have drawn different conclusions). 

But on this one occasion, very unusually, Old Nan slipped up and said "white walkers," and that's why Bran complained.  It may mean nothing, or it may mean something.

Then it seems we all agree, as this is all I was saying.

Old Nan had a senior moment, Bran corrected her.

Now, as someone who has spent quite a bit of time listening to storytellers, I must point something out. Old Nan might have been testing Bran when she made her slip.

Parents do this too of course. It's a good way to see if someone is listening and has retained comprehension. Old Nan's tone and agreement makes me lean in this direction, but of course that is only a very subjective hunch.

 

11 hours ago, Matthew. said:

Why use two different terms - skinchanger and beastling - to mean the same thing? It's giving the world and local cultures flavor, a sense that they have distinct vernaculars and biases. It's a worldbuilding choice.

I'm not really sure that I'd describe incomplete information as a "mystery," at least not in the sense of the term "white walker" being some exciting puzzle that the reader becomes engrossed in solving. Much as we initially lack enough information to fully understand Mormont and Tyrion's conversation, we also don't initially know what the "Long Night" was, though it's referenced on occasion--including in the aforementioned exchange where we also first see the white walkers mentioned.

Old Nan and Bran's conversation serves the storytelling function of giving the reader context, so we understand that what happened in the Prologue is extraordinarily important, so we understand that the report that Tyrion scoffed at was, again, extraordinarily important--Mormont's fears are justified.

I agree with this as well. "Beastling" implies bias, as does the patronizing term "children of the forest" or the trivializing term "squirrel people."

But that does not mean such biases and perspectives are without meaning. For some, like Hodor or one of Varamyr's raped women, for example, it makes sense to think of a skinchanger as a beastling.

A man, seeing "singers of the song of earth," sees childlike creatures.

A giant, seeing "singers of the song of earth," sees squirrel-like creatures living in trees.

While not accurate in a vacuum, these terms do tell us quite a bit of roles and interactions involved when taken as a whole.

 

8 hours ago, JNR said:

Well, really, BC, take a look at your own OP. 

You cite example after example after example of Old Nan saying "Others," in tale after tale, as remembered by character after character.  So she certainly can't always have called them white walkers.

I'm also just going to point out again that:

• Jon was raised in the North, never lived in the South a day (that he remembers...) and he invariably calls them Others, dozens of times.  The sole exception is when he was trying to persuade the free folk to help him man the Wall... at which time he switched to white walkers.

• In contrast, Sam was raised in the South, never lived in the North a day until coming to the Watch, and yet he, too, invariably calls them Others, dozens of times.  The sole exception is when, after once again calling them Others, he then lists synonyms for them... one of which is white walkers.

To me a mountain lion is called a mountain lion. I am aware it can also be called a cougar, which I might rarely call it, or a puma, which I would not call it, or even a painter -- and if I heard that last term in someone's story, I would suspect I was dealing with someone from the American south/Florida.

Well said.

But the issue is that unlike you and the Floridian, Old Nan and Bran have lived in the same region, speaking the same dialect, for a very long time. Bran likely acquired much of his manner of speech from Old Nan, and this might even be true of his father's generation. Okay, now I'm getting way too real-worldy.

Point is, Bran is familiar with Old Nan's "pumas" and "painters." To him, a puma might come in the night, but a painter is someone who paints. Old Nan's agreement with that distinction implies that she identifies it as well.

 

6 hours ago, Black Crow said:

All true of course, but nevertheless this is a work of fiction and the use of two terms, one vague, very general and by its nature plural, and one very specific. do feel like a plot device.

Exactly.

 

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

yes 

 

As to the Others/white walkers business, this goes way back and certainly aint a "new" thing 

LOL! Nope, certainly not new.

[Voice]

4 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

And you kept saying I over analyzed the list of 674.

If it's any consolation, BC used to say the same thing to me.

And, while I missed the tilt regarding 674, I must mention that it is a number GRRM likes:

Quote

"Nine hundred thousand six hundred and seventy-four dragons. Gold that could feed the hungry and rebuild a thousand septs."

To add that to your roll of foil.

[Black Crow]

2 hours ago, Voice said:

 

Old Nan had a senior moment, Bran corrected her.

Now, as someone who has spent quite a bit of time listening to storytellers, I must point something out. Old Nan might have been testing Bran when she made her slip.

Parents do this too of course. It's a good way to see if someone is listening and has retained comprehension. Old Nan's tone and agreement makes me lean in this direction, but of course that is only a very subjective hunch.

 

Or, [not to disagree] as I said, speaking from experience, its a game they play - and one which serves an immediate purpose in explaining what Mormont was maundering about, and perhaps a longer term purpose in the wars to come.

[Voice]

18 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Or, [not to disagree] as I said, speaking from experience, its a game they play - and one which serves an immediate purpose in explaining what Mormont was maundering about, and perhaps a longer term purpose in the wars to come.

Completely agree.

[Frey family reunion]

I really think that Bran's discussion with Old Nan, was to simply make the reader aware of the folklore of the Others and the fact that Others and White Walkers were considered interchangeable terms.

[Melifeather]

IMO the Others includes everybody north of the Wall, so not just white walkers, but wildlings, giants, and skinchangers. Maybe even the Children.

[Black Crow]

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

IMO the Others includes everybody north of the Wall, so not just white walkers, but wildlings, giants, and skinchangers. Maybe even the Children.

Oh I'd say that while we're going to find that membership of that particular club is up for debate, the little three-fingered tree-huggers are going to be found on the organising committee. 

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

Oh I'd say that while we're going to find that membership of that particular club is up for debate, the little three-fingered tree-huggers are going to be found on the organising committee. 

I can agree on the organizers and would go so far as to include Bloodraven.

[Brad Stark]

If we are done with the taxonomy of the North,  I'd like to get back to The Thing that Came in The Night. 

4 'prentice boys saw it, all described it differently, 3 died and 1 went mad.  Years later,  they were seen following it in chains. 

If all the boys saw it at the same time,  it was an optical illusion or maybe wasn't there at all.

But if the boys were separate and it was a creature of ice, water or snow,  it could be shape changing. 

The dead boys in chains sound like wights.

I assumed the 'prentice boys were apprentices, which is unusual.   Why would they be at the Nightfort?  BC seems to think they were apprentice greenseers,  which doesn't make sense to me,  but does fit with them going mad.

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, Brad Stark said:

If we are done with the taxonomy of the North,  I'd like to get back to The Thing that Came in The Night. 

4 'prentice boys saw it, all described it differently, 3 died and 1 went mad.  Years later,  they were seen following it in chains. 

If all the boys saw it at the same time,  it was an optical illusion or maybe wasn't there at all.

But if the boys were separate and it was a creature of ice, water or snow,  it could be shape changing. 

The dead boys in chains sound like wights.

I assumed the 'prentice boys were apprentices, which is unusual.   Why would they be at the Nightfort?  BC seems to think they were apprentice greenseers,  which doesn't make sense to me,  but does fit with them going mad.

It's not a stretch to see the 'prentice boys as being greenseer apprentices like Bran, and the "thing" that came in the night was a three-eyed crow. It actually fits the description perfectly. As for the chains...Bran is described as the chained wolf. Jojen just didn't realize that he was bringing Bran to be chained to a tree versus breaking his chains.

[Black Crow]

4 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

 BC seems to think they were apprentice greenseers,  which doesn't make sense to me,  but does fit with them going mad.

Not me 

[Brad Stark]

The problem I have with apprentice greenseers is the Watch knew they were there and knew they were apprentices, which doesn't fit.  Unless in the past the Watch knew about and worked with greenseers.  But I am still surprised that part wouldn't have made it into the tale.

I like the connection between the 3 eyed crow, who doesn't seem to know how he appeared in Bran's dreams and a monster everyone sees different.  But Euron also saw a crow.

As to the chains, Bran's are metaphorical,  no one saw Bran shambling around in chains.

[Melifeather]

The stories about the Nightfort are meant to denigrate greenseers and make becoming an apprentice the equivalent of child sacrifice to justify what the Watch did to get rid of the Night's King.

[Black Crow]

Don't see it I'm afraid. There really is nothing at all to suggest that the Nightfort was a school of withcraft, wizardty and greenseeing.

No matter the arguments of greenseers under the bed we are very firmly told that that they are rare and precious things