A step back and a look at "time" in ASOIAF on the grand scale.

[Dorian Martell's son]

9 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

@Dorian Martell's son well at least your, sort of, discussing the books now in your own strange way haha. Good, that's good.

In you're (lol) usual demeanour, you have side stepped a couple things but I'll let them slide and focus on what you found the courage to actually address.

Ok, the first time, define fluke. Why do you think it was a "fluke", and what do you even mean by that term?. Elaborate please. Do you think the wind was already whispering and the leaves were already  rustling is that it??. Well, if that was the case then why would Ned turn so suddenly to the tree and ask who's there if the wind was already whispering and the leaves were already rustling?. And I'm sure Ned has sat in front of the Heart tree ALOT of times, but this time he actually thinks somebody is behind him where the tree is. Tell me your stance on how that is a "fluke".

"Lord Eddard Stark sat upon a rock beside the deep black pool in the godswood, the pale roots of the heart tree twisting around him like an old man's gnarled arms. The greatsword Ice lay across Lord Eddard's lap, and he was cleaning the blade with an oilcloth.
"Winterfell," Bran whispered.

His father looked up. "Who's there?" he asked, turning …...

Ok the second time. 

"… but then somehow he was back at Winterfell again, in the godswood looking down upon his father. Lord Eddard seemed much younger this time. His hair was brown, with no hint of grey in it, his head bowed. "… let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them," he prayed, "and let my lady wife find it in her heart to forgive …"

"Father." Bran's voice was a whisper in the wind, a rustle in the leaves. "Father, it's me. It's Bran. Brandon." 

Eddard Stark lifted his head and looked long at the weirwood, frowning, but he did not speak......"

Neds head is bowed praying. You say he was frowning at the Heart tree while praying. How can you be certain Ned was frowning while praying? Neds head is bowed while praying, then after Brans words he looks up and frowns long at the tree. A reaction indeed. 

I do not think Ned would frown at the tree for a long time because he had to tell Cat a lie. He has never dishonoured her or done any physical harm. He told a lie that's all, a lie that had honor. Just like when he comforts Arya and makes her feel better because her own lie was "not without honor". He obviously does not view a lie as too harsh, in the right circumstances. 

I don't think Ned is going to be as anguished as you think at this. Especially in front of the Old Gods. They know the truth, and he knows it. He did the right thing. His nephew and beloved sisters son will live, but his wife that he hardly knows will have to suffer some because he had to lie to her. I don't think there is any reason for Ned to feel so sorrowful and regretful over that to the point of him stopping mid prayer, and looking at the tree for a long time and frowning  as if he can no longer finish the words.

Ned frowns lots of times in the story when confused or vexed but im not sure he does it much when feeling sorrowful or regretful. 

If we look at Brans words though and how the author tells us that "Bran's voice was a whisper in the wind, a rustle in the leaves", then the  sudden cut off from talking and the stare up at the tree from the bowed head position makes sense. It's a confused reaction, to Brans action.

 

All childish attempts of snark aside, the point is that ned does not react like he did the first time. If Bran's voice really was "a whisper on the wind" as opposed to that being a literary device, Ned would have reacted. But he did not. He was praying to his gods. Ned is rife with anguish. Most of his family is dead. Going south took his Father, Brother and sister and now out of love for his sister, he has to pretend like he dishonored his wife and family to save his sister's son by the prince. no matter how he looks at it, he has lost almost everything. With his brother gone, and a wife he married out of duty, and years of fighting cat over who Jon's mom is, he is very sorrowful. He can't even share his experience with his best friend, the king.
The thing is, you REALLY hope for bran to be able to alter the past. It won't happen. It is stated twice, by two different characters that it is impossible. Weather the trees are timeless, or bran can reach back and speak with old tongue, or whatever rationale you need to come up with to forward the idea, it does not matter as it will have no bearing on the story. Harping on a few lines of text won't change that, neither will asking me to constantly repeat something you have heard several times in the past. Now, if YOU want to continue discussing the books, you are welcome to do so, but there is no need to keep discussing me, or begging me to repeat something the search function can do for you  

[Macgregor of the North]

43 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Yes, I would agree. And not that I had doubted you, but I did do a quick search just to see how often Ned frowns, and it's seems that he really does tend to frown quite frequently, in many different circumstances. 

And I would admit, when pondering Ned's reaction, I did have his promise to Lyanna in mind, and his thoughts of broken promises. However, he did specifically refer to Cat, so I do think that it is less likely that this is such a dire thought that would make him break off, or suppress it.

...But still cannot say for certain as we still do not know what these broken promises are, and if they involve Cat or not.

 

Yeah the search of Neds frowns never really had any of him feeling sorrowful or regretful though. Just annoyed or confused/lacking understanding. 

Ive never thought personally he was thinking of his promise to Lyanna as he is talking about Cat at the tree and what he wants forgiveness from her for. Can only be the lie he told and the position there in because of it, which isn't really enough to stop him in his tracks in my opinion, which I'm thinking were pretty much in agreement on. 

[Macgregor of the North]

4 minutes ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

All childish attempts of snark aside, the point is that ned does not react like he did the first time. If Bran's voice really was "a whisper on the wind" as opposed to that being a literary device, Ned would have reacted. But he did not. He was praying to his gods. Ned is rife with anguish. Most of his family is dead. Going south took his Father, Brother and sister and now out of love for his sister, he has to pretend like he dishonored his wife and family to save his sister's son by the prince. no matter how he looks at it, he has lost almost everything. With his brother gone, and a wife he married out of duty, and years of fighting cat over who Jon's mom is, he is very sorrowful. He can't even share his experience with his best friend, the king.
The thing is, you REALLY hope for bran to be able to alter the past. It won't happen. It is stated twice, by two different characters that it is impossible. Weather the trees are timeless, or bran can reach back and speak with old tongue, or whatever rationale you need to come up with to forward the idea, it does not matter as it will have no bearing on the story. Harping on a few lines of text won't change that, neither will asking me to constantly repeat something you have heard several times in the past. Now, if YOU want to continue discussing the books, you are welcome to do so, but there is no need to keep discussing me, or begging me to repeat something the search function can do for you  

DM. Ive never said Bran will alter the past. Bran will simply fulfill the destiny of actually being the cause of the event in "the past". You do get that this is what I'm saying don't you?. I hoped we were clear on this part. There is no altering of the past, it only happens once and Brans action from his point in "time" is always what caused it. And I don't really want it to happen it's simply what I wholeheartedly believe GRRM is doing with Brans arc.

And if Bran actually finds he is the cause and always the cause of certain events, like a major one, or disastrous one, then I don't think anybody could deny that has massive bearing on the story as it will change Bran in "the present" as that is a big deal of a child to learn. That he may have actually caused something but he can never change it.

This is the part where you say that GRRM wouldn't use old tired tropes in his story I think. Well I hope it is because ive been meaning to talk to you about that...

[Dorian Martell's son]

1 minute ago, Macgregor of the North said:

DM. Ive never said Bran will alter the past. Bran will simply fulfill the destiny of actually being the cause of the event in "the past". You do get that this is what I'm saying don't you?. I hoped we were clear on this part. There is no altering of the past, it only happens once and Brans action from his point in "time" is always what caused it. And I don't really want it to happen it's simply what I wholeheartedly believe GRRM is doing with Brans arc.

And if Bran actually finds he is the cause and always the cause of certain events, like a major one, or disastrous one, then I don't think anybody could deny that has massive bearing on the story as it will change Bran in "the present" as that is a big deal of a child to learn. That he may have actually caused something but he can never change it.

This is the part where you say that GRRM wouldn't use old tired tropes in his story I think. Well I hope it is because ive been meaning to talk to you about that...

I understand what you desire. The bolded part,  that is being able to affect or change the past. If bran is powerful enough to do this, he will be able to make a choice in the matter. If he has the power to affect the past, he can make choices about it, therefore he would be able to go back and alter everything so the books wouldn't happen. 
The trope works in something like Babylon5 because is it initiated  by a godlike entity removing any choice by the actual characters. Bran is still a 10 year old boy and is literally shown in the novels trying and failing to communicate with the past. If he had the power to affect the past, he would do it to change things, but he can't, as stated by bloodraven and later bran himself. /thread
Also, I never said GRRM would never use tired old tropes, just this one 

 

[Macgregor of the North]

Just now, Dorian Martell's son said:

I understand what you desire. The bolded part,  that is being able to affect or change the past. If bran is powerful enough to do this, he will be able to make a choice in the matter. If he has the power to affect the past, he can make choices about it, therefore he would be able to go back and alter everything so the books wouldn't happen. 
The trope works in something like Babylon5 because is it initiated  by a godlike entity removing any choice by the actual characters. Bran is still a 10 year old boy and is literally shown in the novels trying and failing to communicate with the past. If he had the power to affect the past, he would do it to change things, but he can't, as stated by bloodraven and later bran himself. /thread
Also, I never said GRRM would never use tired old tropes, just this one 

 

It's no desire. Keep being adult about this, your so easier to talk to man. It's no desire, but simply what GRRM has in mind for Brans arc I believe.

Why do you think Bran would be able to go back and change the past? It doesn't work like that at all when this trope is applied. Events are set in stone and happen only once, in one timeline, with one cause.  Events can have a cause from outwith the strictures of time, at a point we would class as the future. All that has to happen is we read of Bran causing it, fulfilling that destiny. 

Why do you think that he could change it then? When applied in literature and film, this idea always proves that nothing the character does can ever change it, but simply be the cause of it. You know this, why are you being awkward and mentioning Babylon 5 as usual?. That seems like your go to for this debate. There are stories you know that this trope is applied to where there is no option whatsoever to change the past. 

The Weirwood tree network is Brans magical gateway for now (until he can see well beyond the trees) and due to the rules it operates by, Bran can actually cause an action in the "time" he longs for, but his teacher tells him he can't change the past, but he can learn from it. 

That last bit is what I find very important because I believe Bran will think on the history and stories he has learned and with this knowledge, he will seek to visit these stories like Old Nan tells him. Great advice Old Nan.

"Old stories are like old friends, she used to say. You have to visit them from time to time."

So Bran will think on certain stories and places and people and he can actually visit that "time" and event. I think it goes further than that though. Bran will inadvertently find he was the cause of an event.

Best example is the Laughing tree, I would find that really amusing on page.

So back to Bloodravens words, we can learn from the past. Well he has learned plenty from the past. He can't change it. Nope, we agree there. But, he can end up the cause of it (my words, not BRs).

So you think GRRM would not use only this tired old trope. He would use others but not this one? Just this certain one all on its lonesome?. Why not?. Wouldn't happen to be because you have stated that you personally would "detest" it if GRRM used it in ASOIAF would it?. Stay cool with that answer, I'm just trying to get where your heads at.

And when you say Bran tried and failed to communicate with the past twice. Only in the sense that he could not actually have full conversation with his father, but he did cause a reaction both times. We can leave that there though because none of the two of us are going to budge on that one unless the next books show us something stronger. 

 

[ravenous reader]

3 hours ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

If Bran's voice really was "a whisper on the wind" as opposed to that being a literary device...

@Macgregor of the North, this is the crux of the debate and why it's not possible to decisively declare victory either way.   Dorian among others chooses to interpret the 'rustling' as a more innocuous literary device vs. you and I among others who interpret it more literally.  The same deal with the intent behind the inscrutable 'frown' -- Dorian etc. chooses to view that skeptically, without ascribing any specific causality; vs you and I etc. who view the event as more pregnant with meaning, specifically indicating a mystical meeting of the minds, in which the present/future is capable of impregnating the past, as it were -- which unfortunately we cannot however prove took place, no matter how many times we go around in circles repeating our positions ad nauseum.  The fact remains:  we simply do not have enough info at our disposal right now to declare the case shut.  We can intuit and deduce based on GRRM's coy, open-ended, weasel-slick poetry to our heart's content -- nevertheless, we remain in nebulous territory in which the weasel constantly eludes us in the burrow. Whatever we conclude will be a leap, based on our own peculiar predilections.

Another example of the same dynamic can be found in the differing approaches you and I have demonstrated in assigning causality in the ongoing debate about 'what exactly it was that caused Waymar's sword to crack,' in which you, strangely enough, have been found taking Dorian's traditional no-nonsense, skeptical, less metaphorical approach, whereas I in contrast inexplicably find myself in your position (vis a vis DM now...) listening to music you fail to hear!  Oh the irony...

In particular, I do not find it coincidental that the Other's speech is described as 'ice cracking', and that the first thing that happens after we hear this 'ice cracking' for the very first time is that Waymar's sword turned to ice finally 'cracks' ('shatters', 'breaks'...these are all synonyms). What's more I do not read this episode in isolation, but rather relate it to other pivotal 'cracking' events, of which there are many, including the archetypal Lightbringer forging event, in which, please note, GRRM's language conveys that a sound -- not a sword -- cracked the moon.  Let me repeat:  A SOUND CRACKED THE MOON (since you are so keen on importing significance to his selected sentence structure in which subjects and objects matter...e.g. Bran's voice as the subject of the sentence...).  There are countless other examples of this pattern in which a sound prefaces, and moreover triggers, something breaking, but this is the most important one:

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Davos I

"Being a hero, it was not for him to shrug and go in search of excellent grapes such as these, so again he began. The second time it took him fifty days and fifty nights, and this sword seemed even finer than the first. Azor Ahai captured a lion, to temper the blade by plunging it through the beast's red heart, but once more the steel shattered and split. Great was his woe and great was his sorrow then, for he knew what he must do.

"A hundred days and a hundred nights he labored on the third blade, and as it glowed white-hot in the sacred fires, he summoned his wife. 'Nissa Nissa,' he said to her, for that was her name, 'bare your breast, and know that I love you best of all that is in this world.' She did this thing, why I cannot say, and Azor Ahai thrust the smoking sword through her living heart. It is said that her cry of anguish and ecstasy left a crack across the face of the moon, but her blood and her soul and her strength and her courage all went into the steel. Such is the tale of the forging of Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes.

I also think it's not inconceivable that the cry of the Other's sword rather than its touch did the damage to Waymar's sword.  Even if you don't accept this argument, you still haven't explained why the sword cracked at that exact point in the narrative, and not before or after.  As you've pointed out, it was already frosting over, so presumably there must have been a crucial tipping point, a point of no return, taking place at some point somewhere in the vulnerable window of the 'ductile-to-brittle transition' of the material (in this case, steel).  If you look at the diagram in the link, you'll see that the breaking might occur anywhere on the lower end of the sigmoid curve (to the left of the stippled line). Here is another, more detailed article showing the window involved more clearly. Applied to our debate, the important moment is the tipping point seen now as the actual moment of breakage, rather than the moment of frosting, which unlike the moment of breakage is a continuum rather than a clearly-distinguishable moment.  As you yourself have pointed out, the 'frosting' takes place over the course of the duel; vs. the shattering which happens all at once.  My impression -- poetically speaking -- is that this 'tipping point' was provided by the delivery of the final blow in the form of the ice-cracking word of the Other.

13 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

Well, we can rule that out because absolutely, 100% there is no chance that the spoken words from the Other caused the blade to frost over.

I'll concede this point.  However, that doesn't rule out the 'cry' of the sword doing the damage!  It also doesn't explain why the sword cracked when it did.  I suppose you would say, like your 'favorite' @Dorian Martell's son that the timing of the events in relation to one another was 'just a fluke' -- I say not!    The sword 'cracking' shortly follows the 'cracking' word (elsewhere in the text, we're told that voices 'crack' like whips to visible effect, so poetically this is a 'schtick' GRRM uses); just like the Others in the Prologue emerge from the wood almost immediately following Will's 'whispered' (and treacherous) prayer.  For me, the timing is not a fluke.

Quote

That happened during the duel where no words from the Other were spoken. Let's leave that, its dead now.

Fair enough.  But 'frosting' is not equal to 'cracking' -- so you still haven't explained the dynamics of the cracking to my satisfaction, alas!  

Quote

So we are left with your belief that after the blade had frosted over from the duel, regardless of if it was "the sound" of the swords, or the "contact" of the swords, (I say contact), you think it's the Others mocking words that then cause the blade to shatter?. 

That was the crucial moment, yes.

Here's another example, and then I'm a 'done man' (just like Dorian):

Quote

A Storm of Swords - Jon IV

By the sixth hour, Jarl had moved ahead of Grigg the Goat again, and his men were widening the gap. "The Mance's pet must want a sword," the Magnar said, shading his eyes. The sun was high in the sky, and the upper third of the Wall was a crystalline blue from below, reflecting so brilliantly that it hurt the eyes to look on it.

So here the Wall is analogous to a sword (and it's frequently compared to a sword throughout the text) -- let's say Waymar's sword for the purposes of the analogy I'm drawing.  To be precise, Waymar's 'white with frost' sword, just before the cracking event.

Quote

Jarl's four and Grigg's were all but lost in the glare, though Errok's team was still in shadow. Instead of moving upward they were edging their way sideways at about five hundred feet, making for a chimney. Jon was watching them inch along when he heard the sound—a sudden crack that seemed to roll along the ice, followed by a shout of alarm. And then the air was full of shards and shrieks and falling men, as a sheet of ice a foot thick and fifty feet square broke off from the Wall and came tumbling, crumbling, rumbling, sweeping all before it. Even down at the foot of the ridge, some chunks came spinning through the trees and rolling down the slope. Jon grabbed Ygritte and pulled her down to shield her, and one of the Thenns was struck in the face by a chunk that broke his nose.

Notice, the pattern I've identified here again:  first, the sound; then the shattering.

The sound of ice cracking -- analogous to the voice of the Other -- definitely precedes the visible crack and 'rain of shards', the latter analogous to the evidence of Waymar's sword finally shattering.  That implies that Waymar's sword might actually in effect have cracked at the moment we heard the Other speak, even before the damage was visible, and the more explosive effects of the catastrophe ensued!

ETA:  In summary, just as you believe Bran's voice pierced through the veil of time and affected Ned, I believe the Other's voice affected Waymar and his sword!    I call it the 'killing word'...

[Macgregor of the North]

@ravenous reader I have reached that point on a Friday night where it's weekend time and I switch off from Westeros. It's all about family time and the Joshua Klitschko fight tomorrow and I'll not pop back for a few days. 

Quickly stopping by though just to say I'll try and make more of an effort to get your killing word stuff. It's quite funny and I'm laughing inside bigtime at how your trying to get me to see your angles while I try to get DM to see mines. It's a crazy cycle and this thread has had it all haha. 

I'll be back, enjoy your weekend everyone 

[ravenous reader]

3 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said:

@ravenous reader I have reached that point on a Friday night where it's weekend time and I switch off from Westeros. It's all about family time and the Joshua Klitschko fight tomorrow and I'll not pop back for a few days. 

Quickly stopping by though just to say I'll try and make more of an effort to get your killing word stuff. It's quite funny and I'm laughing inside bigtime at how your trying to get me to see your angles while I try to get DM to see mines. It's a crazy cycle and this thread has had it all haha. 

I'll be back, enjoy your weekend everyone 

Have a lovely weekend Mac!   I'm pleased you can see the funny, or at least grimly ironic, side of the 'mocking' and 'counter-mocking'...

 

[Clegane'sPup]

2 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

@ravenous reader I have reached that point on a Friday night where it's weekend time and I switch off from Westeros. It's all about family time and the Joshua Klitschko fight tomorrow and I'll not pop back for a few days. 

Quickly stopping by though just to say I'll try and make more of an effort to get your killing word stuff. It's quite funny and I'm laughing inside bigtime at how your trying to get me to see your angles while I try to get DM to see mines. It's a crazy cycle and this thread has had it all haha. 

I'll be back, enjoy your weekend everyone 

This is why I peruse your posts.

2 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

Joshua Klitschko fight tomorrow

This ain't no mocking.

[Dorian Martell's son]

On 4/28/2017 at 11:07 AM, Macgregor of the North said:

It's no desire. Keep being adult about this, your so easier to talk to man. It's no desire, but simply what GRRM has in mind for Brans arc I believe.

I say desire because when you are presented with not one, but two instances when it is stated unequivocally that your plot idea will not happen, you stick to it. That is not what the author has in mind, that is what you want. 

On 4/28/2017 at 11:07 AM, Macgregor of the North said:

Why do you think Bran would be able to go back and change the past? It doesn't work like that at all when this trope is applied. Events are set in stone and happen only once, in one timeline, with one cause.  Events can have a cause from outwith the strictures of time, at a point we would class as the future. All that has to happen is we read of Bran causing it, fulfilling that destiny. 

You are assuming a trope is applied. It is not and characters in the books state twice it can't happen. But let's speculate that he can take actions out of linear time. Events are not set in stone if someone is able to reach (for lack of a better term) and affect the past. Setting something in motion is affecting the past. speaking to the past is affecting the past. doing anything in the present to anything in the past is affecting that past. Now, if bran realizes he can do this, he then has to make a choice as what to do. Bran is a 10 year old boy who misses his family very much. When he looks through the recorded playback part of the weirwood, he sees his dad and tries to talk to him. He can't. He tells BR about it. Bloodraven says he tried too, but couldn't do anything. Undaunted by something a 125 year old greenseer says about greensight ( as a 10 year old would) Bran tries again and once again, fails to contact his dad. This shows that bran, if given the opportunity, would speak to his dad and warn him about all the horrible things that are set to happen. Ned would then be able to make concrete choices to prevent these things and then we wouldn't have the books that are written. He cannot, and sees it for himself. Failing to speak to Ned once once might have been a fluke,  but failing twice is gospel here. 

On 4/28/2017 at 11:07 AM, Macgregor of the North said:

Why do you think that he could change it then? When applied in literature and film, this idea always proves that nothing the character does can ever change it, but simply be the cause of it. You know this, why are you being awkward and mentioning Babylon 5 as usual?. That seems like your go to for this debate. There are stories you know that this trope is applied to where there is no option whatsoever to change the past. 

If he could affect anything in the past to set a destiny in motion, he could make a choice to do something else. If he could talk to his dad, he would try to warn him. Why you would think a 10 year old boy who lost his home and whole family that he loved dearly would do anything BUT try to help them is a little beyond me. 
If you would bother to actually read past replies to your question, you would know that I bring up babylon 5 because it is one of the only times where a stable time loop works. It works because the choice is not available for the characters. They go along for the ride. Bran is the ride and he makes choices. The choice would be his and we all saw what choice he made. The only way the trope you desire so much can work with conscious choice si if time is in effect a self righting keel, and no matter what someone can do in the past, it means nothing, and that is what I find stupid, simple and boring. Do you have stories in mind where you think this trope is not done in a cheesy as fcuk way that I have outlined? 

On 4/28/2017 at 11:07 AM, Macgregor of the North said:

The Weirwood tree network is Brans magical gateway for now (until he can see well beyond the trees) and due to the rules it operates by, Bran can actually cause an action in the "time" he longs for, but his teacher tells him he can't change the past, but he can learn from it. 

Stated for the umpteenth time, If he can take an action in the past he affects it. If he affects it he can change it. He cannot, he looks back in time akin to a video playback and learns, but cannot affect or change. It is stated twice in the books. 

On 4/28/2017 at 11:07 AM, Macgregor of the North said:

That last bit is what I find very important because I believe Bran will think on the history and stories he has learned and with this knowledge, he will seek to visit these stories like Old Nan tells him. Great advice Old Nan.

Agreed, he will watch past events, like a video, and learn from them. In the thing we cannot discuss, we learn of a number of things that way. 
 

On 4/28/2017 at 11:07 AM, Macgregor of the North said:

"Old stories are like old friends, she used to say. You have to visit them from time to time."

So Bran will think on certain stories and places and people and he can actually visit that "time" and event. I think it goes further than that though. Bran will inadvertently find he was the cause of an event.

Again, if he can affect something to be a cause, he would be able to go farther back, and prevent, and prevent and prevent until nothing major happens to his family and we don't have the books. 

On 4/28/2017 at 11:07 AM, Macgregor of the North said:

Best example is the Laughing tree, I would find that really amusing on page.

Again, a poor example. If he could reach back in time and control the knight of the laughing tree, he could go back, control gregor and save his dad, mom, brother, sisters, uncle, aunt and grandfather and Jon's dad  from anything, rendering the story null and void.  He can't, as stated twice in the books 

On 4/28/2017 at 11:07 AM, Macgregor of the North said:

So back to Bloodravens words, we can learn from the past. Well he has learned plenty from the past. He can't change it. Nope, we agree there. But, he can end up the cause of it (my words, not BRs).

you are correct, as stated twice in the books, no greenseer can change the past.  As for the bolded part, well, we have been over that too many times over too many threads to repeat why is won't happen.

On 4/28/2017 at 11:07 AM, Macgregor of the North said:

So you think GRRM would not use only this tired old trope. He would use others but not this one? Just this certain one all on its lonesome?. Why not?. Wouldn't happen to be because you have stated that you personally would "detest" it if GRRM used it in ASOIAF would it?. Stay cool with that answer, I'm just trying to get where your heads at.

Why do you ask the same question ad-nauseum? It is almost impossible to "stay cool" when you repeat the same question that I have answered countless times. The fact that I give you examples from text and characters in book that explain that the plot device you love won't happen, all you can do is bring up my personal dislike of it being used here. That is not a very mature discussion tactic. It just reinforces the poor quality of your argument for your point. It literally says, Hey DM, you are right.

On 4/28/2017 at 11:07 AM, Macgregor of the North said:

And when you say Bran tried and failed to communicate with the past twice. Only in the sense that he could not actually have full conversation with his father, but he did cause a reaction both times. We can leave that there though because none of the two of us are going to budge on that one unless the next books show us something stronger. 

  The passage we are discussing is like Syrio's death. It can be interpreted as we the reader sees fit, because it won't have any bearing on the story. Sure, bran made the wind blow. Can he do anything else more substantial than causing a breeze two decades past? Nope. Not one bit. So for you,  Bran mad the wind blow, and absolutely nothing will come of it. For me, it was a breeze, like tons of others in the books, and nothing more. Either way, bran will have ZERO  bearing on the past of the story, and that includes "Setting" anything in motion. 
Now, if something is written to the contrary, that is different, but as of now, with what has been written, bran will have no effect on the past via the weirnet 

[ravenous reader]

3 minutes ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

I say desire because when you are presented with not one, but two instances when it is stated unequivocally that your plot idea will not happen, you stick to it. That is not what the author has in mind, that is what you want. 

Oh -- and you trust 'the author' -- are you naive..? 

[Dorian Martell's son]

33 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

Oh -- and you trust 'the author' -- are you naive..? 

I trust the author far more than I trust fans. I mean, just look at all the "Euron and Dario are literally everyone" else threads.  The book is supposed to have a bittersweet ending. You can't have one if a time traveling god boy can go back and alter the past  

[ravenous reader]

12 minutes ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

I trust the author far more than I trust fans. I mean, just look at all the "Euron and Dario are literally everyone" else threads.  The book is supposed to have a bittersweet ending. You can't have one if a time traveling god boy can go back and alter the past  

He can't alter the past that much.  He can affect it -- but only in a very limited fashion.  He said 'Theon' and his name, all only in the present, and while being straightjacketed by the tree's limitations.  Is that so world-shattering?

Please don't destroy my faith -- should you prove to be a romantic, after all...

[Dorian Martell's son]

16 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

He can't alter the past that much.  He can affect it -- but only in a very limited fashion.  He said 'Theon' and his name, all only in the present, and while being straightjacketed by the tree's limitations.  Is that so world-shattering?

Please don't destroy my faith -- should you prove to be a romantic, after all...

I could never destroy the faith of someone so willing to see past my difficulties  

[ravenous reader]

1 minute ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

I could never destroy the faith of someone so willing to see past my difficulties  

For 'Dorian', whoever you really are:

 

I am content to follow to its source 

Every event in action or in thought; 

Measure the lot; forgive myself the lot! 

When such as I cast out remorse 

So great a sweetness flows into the breast 

We must laugh and we must sing, 

We are blest by everything, 

Everything we look upon is blest.

 

From:  A Dialogue of Self and Soul

-- William Butler Yeats

 

(he -- Yeats -- was a romantic who struggled with modernism; or perhaps he was a modernist who struggled with romanticism...)

[Dorian Martell's son]

16 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

For 'Dorian', whoever you really are:

 

I am content to follow to its source 

Every event in action or in thought; 

Measure the lot; forgive myself the lot! 

When such as I cast out remorse 

So great a sweetness flows into the breast 

We must laugh and we must sing, 

We are blest by everything, 

Everything we look upon is blest.

 

From:  A Dialogue of Self and Soul

-- William Butler Yeats

 

(he -- Yeats -- was a romantic who struggled with modernism; or perhaps he was a modernist who struggled with romanticism...)

"She is coming, my own, my sweet; 
Were it ever so airy a tread, 
My heart would hear her and beat, 
Were it earth in an earthy bed; 
My dust would hear her and beat, 
Had I lain for a century dead; 
Would start and tremble under her feet, 
And blossom in purple and red."

   From: Maud

- Alfred, Lord Tennyson

[Macgregor of the North]

@Dorian Martell's son It's Monday so forgive me if i don't have the motivation to continue our saga with further explanations of how I think an applied trope such as the Stable time loop would work, and then hear your counters as to how you think it wouldn't work.

I am not alone in thinking the way I do with my interpretations and neither are you so there is clearly instances in the books that show there is room to interpret that GRRM is going down this road with Bran, but also, it is also worded a certain way that gives rise to your own interpretation, which opposes mine.

Can you at least agree that there is a chance GRRM is having some fun with the Stable time loop trope in Brans arc? You do not know what the next two books will show, and since there are thousands of us who think this is happening in Brans arc you can't really be that certain GRRM doesn't have this in mind for Bran can you?. Or maybe you can lol.

If we look at the fact GRRM has stated clearly he is having fun with the self fulfilling prophecy trope in his story I see no reason to think he would feel like he couldn't use a time loop type trope. In 91 this wouldn't have been a tired old used idea by any stretch. And we know GRRM has stated that any clues he has set in the book are set now so he won't change the plot for anyone because his original ideas are layered throughout the books so it would be stupid to change them now. 

Look at the first words he ever wrote on the saga. The moment in the snow where the pups are found. I firmly believe there is a deeper explanation for Jon hearing "something" in the wind on the trees and I think it involves Bran, and I also think that it always was the reason Jon found Ghost. That's my interpretation and I'm sticking with it until proven otherwise by the author.

GRRM has also said that while he is writing fantasy, he isnt bound to that one genre, and likes to frustrate genre expectations and use a bit of this and a bit of that so to me personally, there is more than a healthy chance that GRRM is applying this kind of angle to Brans arc and I really don't think you have enough to convince any of us who think this way that he isn't doing this with Bran. 

What do you say we wait until the next book comes out and compare notes again? We know we're both stubborn enough to never believe the other simply on what evidence we have so far so what do ya say?. 

Re enter the lists and charge at each other when we have more info from the next books?. 

[Macgregor of the North]

@Dorian Martell's son On the Knight of the laughing tree. To be clear, I never mentioned Bran controlling the Knight of the laughing tree, you assumed this.

The Knight of the laughing tree is Lyanna. Bran is not controlling her in the lists at all.  

[Dorian Martell's son]

6 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

@Dorian Martell's son It's Monday so forgive me if i don't have the motivation to continue our saga with further explanations of how I think an applied trope such as the Stable time loop would work, and then hear your counters as to how you think it wouldn't work.

Why stop now? You kept pushing this over several threads, tagging me. We have even withdrawn to a realm of general civility after your  gloating when you thought your cry to the moderators had me "Defeated."    Could it be that I make lots of sense, and you really have no counter?  

6 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

I am not alone in thinking the way I do with my interpretations and neither are you so there is clearly instances in the books that show there is room to interpret that GRRM is going down this road with Bran, but also, it is also worded a certain way that gives rise to your own interpretation, which opposes mine.

very good. you are learning. there is hope 

6 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

Can you at least agree that there is a chance GRRM is having some fun with the Stable time loop trope in Brans arc? You do not know what the next two books will show, and since there are thousands of us who think this is happening in Brans arc you can't really be that certain GRRM doesn't have this in mind for Bran can you?. Or maybe you can lol.

Of course I can. I can always be proven wrong, but we will have to wait and see. 

6 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

If we look at the fact GRRM has stated clearly he is having fun with the self fulfilling prophecy trope in his story I see no reason to think he would feel like he couldn't use a time loop type trope. In 91 this wouldn't have been a tired old used idea by any stretch. And we know GRRM has stated that any clues he has set in the book are set now so he won't change the plot for anyone because his original ideas are layered throughout the books so it would be stupid to change them now. 

I understand your oft stated opinion on the subject. I simply disagree on the use of the trope 

6 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

Look at the first words he ever wrote on the saga. The moment in the snow where the pups are found. I firmly believe there is a deeper explanation for Jon hearing "something" in the wind on the trees and I think it involves Bran, and I also think that it always was the reason Jon found Ghost. That's my interpretation and I'm sticking with it until proven otherwise by the author.

I do not think that a greenseer is literally responsible for everything in the novels. I take issue with the time traveling greenseer because limits on power leave room for drama, and the drama is what makes the story wonderful  You are obviously free to interpret the story in any way you wish. You only get into trouble when it becomes a duel with fellow forum members

6 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

GRRM has also said that while he is writing fantasy, he isnt bound to that one genre, and likes to frustrate genre expectations and use a bit of this and a bit of that so to me personally, there is more than a healthy chance that GRRM is applying this kind of angle to Brans arc and I really don't think you have enough to convince any of us who think this way that he isn't doing this with Bran. 

Again, I am aware of your position on the subject, I just disagree, and have text in the book to back up my argument for my position

1 hour ago, Macgregor of the North said:

@Dorian Martell's son On the Knight of the laughing tree. To be clear, I never mentioned Bran controlling the Knight of the laughing tree, you assumed this.

The Knight of the laughing tree is Lyanna. Bran is not controlling her in the lists at all.  

then why did you bring up Bran being a "Cause of" or have him "Setting it in motion to fulfill a destiny?" How did you figure bran's time whispering powers had anything to do with it? 

6 hours ago, Macgregor of the North said:

What do you say we wait until the next book comes out and compare notes again? We know we're both stubborn enough to never believe the other simply on what evidence we have so far so what do ya say?. 

Re enter the lists and charge at each other when we have more info from the next books?. 

I am shocked you wish to back down now, but as we are at an impasse, I will revisit this with you if and when the next book is released 

[ravenous reader]

14 hours ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

"She is coming, my own, my sweet; 
Were it ever so airy a tread, 
My heart would hear her and beat, 
Were it earth in an earthy bed; 
My dust would hear her and beat, 
Had I lain for a century dead; 
Would start and tremble under her feet, 
And blossom in purple and red."

'Were it ever so airy a tread...' basically sums up the airiness of this too-oft-trodden thread .

When your detractors, frustrated as they are by your overly-literal interpretations of the literary, and your brusque combative style, see you quoting poetry of such tenderness and lyricism, they will be uncomfortably bamboozled!  Although perhaps the latter was your object, at least partially, we should reassure them that it's all meant very ironically, of course.

As you can tell from the lateness of my response, and the comparative brevity of my message, relative to my usual arduous (and ardent) 'walls of text'; you have played a hardcore game, raising my Yeats with Tennyson -- so I am beaten...LOL.  

And now -- (No-)Thanks to you, I am forced to appreciate the urgent beauty of Tennyson's breathy blossoming heart-beat in a new light!