Jump to content

In a Grove of Ash (Azor Ahai Goes into the Weirwoodnet)


LmL

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this helps, but I saw someone yesterday talking about the Other in the prologue and lightening.  Waymar after he is injured, is dripping hot smoky blood then comes up snarling.  Then he gets struck by the lightening of the Other's lazy parry.  I think in this moment Waymar is made into a black dragon, whose sword is a lightening struck tree.  The Other may be a thunder weilding Garth here too making this fight a black dragon vs storm god fight of the Rhaegar vs Robert variety.  Of course, the Others do not have a monopoly on Garth people, there are some in the Night's Watch as well.  Waymar himself is from the Vale, so in the sense that all NW bros are black blooded and bastard-like, he is Stone which is what dragons are born from perhaps?  He is leading a team north of the wall, so he is doing a last hero impression.  Maybe he is the dragon person leading the last hero team losing a fight against a garth follower of the dragon NK in the trees before coming back to life.

 

Others and Valyrians are connected REALLY early.  Gaunt is the key word.  The Other in the prologue is gaunt and hard as old bones, then Viserys is gaunt with hard lines in Dany 1.  Later in ACoK, Lord Karstark is gaunt.  Of course they have that white winter sun sigil.  They are the sons of winter which I guess just means that the NK was indeed a Stark.  Old Nan says the direwolves grow gaunt during the Long Night.  When Bran is describing the Kings of Winter in the crypts, there are two kinds, bearded shaggy fierce ones and this Other kind

 

Quote

Others were shaved clean, their features gaunt and sharp-edged as the iron longswords across their laps. "Hard men for a hard time. Come."

 

Hard, gaunt Other ones.      

 

Benjen is described as gaunt, which I think is a clue about something.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey @LmL, top stuff!

Love the weirwood / were-wood thing. A tree skinchanged by a person would be a man-tree, a were-tree, a were-wood. Well done.

Any symbolic connection to Manwoody?? (Sorry if I missed this in the podcast, was playing it while driving and occasionally had to engage with the traffic, yawn). Has to be something behind that otherwise hilarious name. Their sigil is a crowned skull and their castle is Kingsgrave. That's obviously tied to the legend that they killed a king of the Reach, but on a meta level: the (un)dead king who skinchanged a tree (a man-wood / weirwood).

A Manwoody was also a dragon princess's third husband, pretty explicitly set up as an "and once for love" character. Jon (the future (un)dead king who might do something or other with the man-trees) is the hottest contestant for Dany's "for love" guy; will he be her Manwoody? 

As a bonus treat, despite his many excellent qualities, Elaena said she really married Manwoody for his music (a harp, of all things), and, after all: Jon's will be the song of ice and fire.

---

That little tangent aside, I'm always interested in how these insights (of which you are a master) fit into the broader mechanics. I'm particularly thinking about the thorny issue of BSE - AA - Last Hero archetypes, and their relationships. Three guys, two guys, one guy in different stages? And where the Horned Lord stands: is his AA transformed, or a separate character? After listening to your podcast, I'm actually at the moment slightly leaning towards him not being AA transformed, but someone who literally kills AA (rather than being the resurrected AA, and so only killing him symbolically). 

The deeper we go, the less sure I am that AA was a "bad" guy. Or that the BSE was, or anyone else. It just doesn't fit the "heart in conflict" thing, if a major archetypal plot driver is simply "evil". There would be no conflict in fighting a character like that, right?

Instead, your analysis of "going into the trees" has me really focused on the CotF - because they are ultimately the ones who lead people into the trees, one way or another. Again, I don't think the CotF are evil, but that they're key in understanding why the archetypal characters do the things they do.

Gonna do another rundown of my evolving views on the Long Night scenario below. To try and find a symbolic parallel of how things may have unfolded, I'm linking it to Robert's Rebellion, which I'm taking the leap to say is the archetypal usurpation story re-nacted:

Quote

(1) the "Dragon king" (BSE character) arrives in Westeros or is a descendant of arrivals. He has dragons, he goes mad, there is a danger he might burn Westeros (like Aerys would have King's Landing).

(2) His rebellious distant kin who is out to overthrow him (this is the Horned Lord/Robert, who is a CotF mix, and thus has access to the trees - but perhaps not to dragons) defeats his armies. And then the "sun" kills the Dragon King (Jaime "golden like the sun", stabs Aerys in the back with a golden sword, blah blah blah, comet): so the destruction of the moon by the sun-comet definitely was about putting the final nail in the Dragon King's coffin (rather than something the Dragon King did himself in a fit of evil).

(3) AA (Rhaegar) wasn't "evil": he wanted to defeat his mad father (the Dragon king), and he succeeded in a way: but not at all in the way he wanted (here we get the "heart in conflict"). All dragons were destroyed, AA's wife died and there's a worldwide cataclysm of the Long Night. (Rhaegar just wanted to set things right vis a vis Aerys' misrule, right? And he succeeded! But it involved a cataclysm for the Targaryens, and the death of both Rhaegar and Lyanna). How did things turn out this way?

(4) Firstly, if this is what motivates AA, it would solve a serious conundrum in the AA forging story: where there is already a great darkness before he forges the sword (so I'd assumed this means the LN had happened before NN's scream cracks the moon: makes no sense). Instead, the great darkness that motivates AA to forge a weapon is the darkness of his father's mad reign, threatening to burn the world. The magic sword Lightbringer was forged to fight the Dragon King, not the Others.

(5) The CotF get involved, to "help". AA wanted a weapon to overthrow his father, but the CotF in fact wanted all dragons destroyed. Maybe the CotF manipulated AA into "stealing" NN (just how the Ghost of HH may have been instrumental in convincing Rhaegar that he needs Lyanna for a prophecy), with their real goal being that the Horned Lord would become angry enough about this to do something crazy: like rebel, and force the comet into the moon and trigger the Long Night and the destruction of all dragons. Perhaps the Horned Lord's mixed human-CotF heritage made him more powerful, powerful enough to pull this off? That was the CotF's true plan: freeze the world before the dragonlords burned it (a frozen world may thaw, but a burnt world is dead forever).

(6) The Horned Lord kills Azor Ahai, and takes Lightbringer from him, only to himself become "corrupt" after his victory (symbolised by Robert's decline during his reign). In the cataclysm of the Long Night, the corruption of the Horned Lord results in him becoming the Night's King. The dark lord with the fire sword burning in the long night. This is a moment when the CotF's plotting may have backfired: he usurps them as well, because he is that powerful in tree-magic (powerful enough to smash a moon, after all) and starts turning everyone into wights.

Although, yes I can see how AA and Horned Lord could be the same person: Horned Lord is what happens to AA after he's "manipulated" into entering the trees by the CotF (after which he overpowers/usurps them). 

(7) The Last Hero is the son of AA and the grandson of the Dragon King. His mother is Nissa Nissa, who died giving birth to him, and whom the Horned Lord loved. The LH would eventually get help from the CotF in the form of an Other-fighting sword (Dawn), and form a pact with them to defeat the Others. LH defeats the Horned Lord / Night's King with Dawn, and takes Lightbringer (one stage in Winterfell, one goes to Starfall, as we know ;)) Humans agree to "worship" the Old Gods, signifying their break with the dragonlords (because the CotF helped them defeat the Others).

The usurpation would cause mixed feelings in the legends, depending on who's telling them: it ended a mad Dragon King's rain and saved the world from dragons, but it did this by triggering the Long Night. Does the good outweigh the bad? And how do you decide who's the hero and who the villain? Hence in some stories the fire-sword wielding guy is a hero.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

 

I did mean to mention it but completely forgot because it turns out buses are not great places for typing up ASOIAF material on your mobile - who knew?

I feel you; plus the mobile website gets really lagged out sometimes. 

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:



The Faith itself has quite a few icy ties too as crystals are pretty heavily ice associated:

The Faith and the KG both. The Warrior's Sons wear mirror like armor (like the Others) and their sigil is a crystal sword on black - that a picture of an Other sword. High Septon has a weirwood staff, etc. 

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

the Wall is consistently described as crystalline, the Others' swords look like a shard of blue crystal, and Dany drinks shade of the evening from a crystal glass presented on a silver platter by a dwarf dressed in blue and purple, to name a few. So having this ice represented as black marble in Oldtown, the site of Aegon I Targaryen being anointed in the Faith, home to the Hightowers and potential GEotD trading post, makes sense to me.

Aegon being anointed by the faith... that's like the fire moon dragon getting lodged in the ice moon, or like the NK knocking up NQ.

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

There appear to be a lot of other LB-y symbolism around the Great Sept of Baelor i.e. the untransformed ice temple at the site of a dragon landing. There are multiple occasions that it kind of creates bloodstone: Arya gets blood on the statue of Baelor climbing to see Ned's head stump bleed all over its steps. Then Cersei bleeds her moon blood all over the Mother's Altar, and she gets bloody feet doing her walk of shame from the sept to the Red Keep: bloody feet from the ice temple to the dragon's landing castle that looks red as blood when it rains. And there's an awful lot of singing reaching for the stars, candles twinkling like stars and sunlight blazing off crystal towers around the Battle of the Blackwater.

So, KL works like this: Red Keep = sun. Rhaenys Hill = fire moon )burnt out collapsed former home of dragons), Visenya's Hill = ice moon (white marble sept, Faith, Warrior's Sons).  The fire moon burnt in the past, and so did the dragonpit, while the Sept of Baelor is foreshadowed to burn - just as the remaining moon is predicted to burn as well. The burning ice moon figure will be the King of Winter, essentially. 

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

 

Another black marble structure I forgot about is the labyrinthine Guildhall of the Alchemists, found on the Street of Sisters i.e. just below the Great Sept of Baelor.

I think it's below both, though the entrance is on the Baelor side iirc.

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

Does this kind of complete the set of "magicks", for want of a better word? Fire-transformed ice as the creation point of the fiery jade demon wildfire (which has to link to greenseeing magic in some capacity, surely)?

I think the wildfire is meant to be seen as running through everything. Certainly I think fiery greenseers were the catalyst for everything, including making the Others.

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

Ngl, now you've mentioned it I want this. Bring on the ice dragons! (TWOIAF compares ice dragons to whales and leviathans, just saying. Not entirely relevant, but cool.)

Cross your fingers!

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:



Having gone back and re-read the end of Dany IV, ACOK, the Undying's focus appears to be on Dany.

So beyond all the LB symbolism (dragon shrieking, Dany's ecstasy and horror, and the places the last three Undying are groping), I don't think it's 100% certain whether they're going for the dragons, Dany or using Dany to get the dragons.

I think I was thinking of the quote from Quaithe about people will see your dragons and lust or whatever, her convos with Xaro, etc. In the TV show it is more obvious they want the dragons, I think I was getting that confused a bit.

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

What I do find really interesting is the weirwood symbolism. ETA 1: I wrote this sentence before i had actually fully gone through and selected my symbolism search terms..... Changing to freaking awesome! Anyway, within  the vision:

But mostly this. Look what happens to the Undying when they get burned:

Yes, I have noticed most of this - it's the signature fiery dancers which always pop up at LB forging parties. I haven't mentioned them because then I would have to explain the Undying, and I haven't been ready to do that. Glad you caught this though, you are 100% right.

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

These are my highlight search terms/themes.

1) Ribbons of flesh and cutting things to ribbons:

There does appear to be other cool ribbon symbolism around water and mist and stuff that I am going to have to look into now I am aware of it, but it's not really relevant here. What is clear is that all of these scenes are drenched with exactly the kind of "whoops, looks like I'm busy killing my friends/allies" dreaming/imagery associated with BSE/AA dreams (as in Jon's burning sword atop the Wall dream).
ETA 2 going into the symbolism a little more:
a) Arya has ascended into the kingdom of the leaves, which I think I'm right in saying embodies the celestial realm. Presumably, this is also the domain of the weirwood? And she busily starts hacking away and slashing things to ribbons. so b ) moon maiden Sansa getting shredded for her moon blood is associated with someone in the kingdom of leaves busy hacking away. So this is yet another suggestion of naughty greenseers ruining everything for everyone. c) I'm reminded of the scratches across the face of god here. d) A list of people who just won't die or stay dead, associated with the presentation of a romantic rose by kissed-by-fire Red Ronnet which is also the iron rose of war, for which the poor guy loses a hand. and this is when Brienne wakes up for the third and final time - after slicing off the end of someone's arm.

2) Kinda reminded me of Mirri and her ululating wail on Drogo's pyre, and of Coldhands apparent death ritual on the elk.

yep

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

3) Their bones are wood, people! This rings a bell....

this is the same language we saw with the burning wight which Jon later dreams as having his father's face.It's scarecrow / ragman imagery. 

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

5) Yes, it is out of order but that's on purpose. Because, hey, the blue ice people who have wooden bones are running around with their hands on fire. Kinda like a tree that's been set on fire, or a tree whose bloodstained hands look like bits of flame. Remind you of anything? I mean, whew, I'm really struggling...

Yep

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

4) So the weirwood Undying are dancing, writhing and spinning in the flames which reminded me of:

And whaddya know? Dany also hired these dancers for her alchemical wedding:

Boy, these flames really know how to put on a show. I've italicised Dany opening her arms to them because she does this as well to the Undying: "They wanted her, needed her, the fire, the life, and Dany gasped and opened her arms to give herself to them . ."  so more parallels in word choice and imagery.

So, The ice people, who have been dead for a long time and are currently appearing to symbolise bone and fire i.e. weirwood trees, are dancing like a tree that has been dead a long time and is in the process of being resurrected, and this is associated with a wedding and the transformative union of the sun and the moon.

I feel like I may have stumbled across something here........

The big question is the order. The Undying are eternal blue shadows, and that compares well to the Others. They become fiery dancers when lit up by Drogon... does that mean the Others used to be fiery dancers, and will revert to that when burned? 

On 4/25/2017 at 4:10 PM, Archmaester_Aemma said:

ETA 3: In light of this, I saw a couple of throwaway lines with reference to indigo, which with hindsight may not be so throwaway.

So, potentially, we have associating with dawn in the context of green(-seeing zombies). If the indigo Undying have symbolically turned into weirwoods by coming into contact with dragons, then we have indigo as a herald of the dawn, in a sense. I am reminded of this line from Arya IV, ACOK:

Coming from a chapter that is so rich in LB symbolism, I think it's pretty noteworthy.

You know I am cautious with color symbolism, and no more so than with sunrise. Dawn and sunrise seem to bring all color back into the world, and in any scene the colors might be different, but what is consistent is that dawn brings all color back to a world that had lost it. I think Indigo would be associated with night and sunset, as the trees are called "Shade of the Evening" trees, and we also get a few instances of a "blue dusk." Red also appears at sunrise and sunset.  Mostly I associate indigo with blue warlock lips and shade wine, frostbite (blue lips), that sort of thing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LmL, regarding bringing color back into the world, do you have any handle at all the crystal prism stuff with the faith of the 7?  Crystal would be how you would get color out of white light.  Dawn is white, and a cruel dagger of light.  I still have the feeling that the ritual duels with the same symbolism at the king's pyres are something slightly different.  It could be one shows the last moon breaking and the other shows the next, or any number of things.  However I have hunch that it is related to dawn.  In that Other-symbolism filled first trial by combat in the Eyrie, the septon holds up a crystal sphere that 'shatters the light'.  If swords and light are interchangeable, then maybe this is the last hero'sword breaking?  Maybe it is white Dawn light splitting into a rainbow bringing color back like you are speaking of happening at sunrise?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unchained said:

@LmL, regarding bringing color back into the world, do you have any handle at all the crystal prism stuff with the faith of the 7?  Crystal would be how you would get color out of white light.  Dawn is white, and a cruel dagger of light.  I still have the feeling that the ritual duels with the same symbolism at the king's pyres are something slightly different.  It could be one shows the last moon breaking and the other shows the next, or any number of things.  However I have hunch that it is related to dawn.  In that Other-symbolism filled first trial by combat in the Eyrie, the septon holds up a crystal sphere that 'shatters the light'.  If swords and light are interchangeable, then maybe this is the last hero'sword breaking?  Maybe it is white Dawn light splitting into a rainbow bringing color back like you are speaking of happening at sunrise?  

Dawn breaks when the sun rises, so....  I mean sometimes it's not important to over-think nature mythology. The sun king turns dark and throws on his cloak of starry wisdom during the Long Night because that is what happens at night in real life. Dawn has to break for the sun to rise. 

As for crystal, I equate it with ice, like the wall and the Others swords, so... will an Other's sword break Dawn, as the crystal shattered the light? Or is Dawn the crystal, shattering the light as it shatters itself?

What did you mean about the duels at the king's pyres? I think I know what you mean, but please expound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, LmL said:

Dawn breaks when the sun rises, so....  I mean sometimes it's not important to over-think nature mythology. The sun king turns dark and throws on his cloak of starry wisdom during the Long Night because that is what happens at night in real life. Dawn has to break for the sun to rise. 

As for crystal, I equate it with ice, like the wall and the Others swords, so... will an Other's sword break Dawn, as the crystal shattered the light? Or is Dawn the crystal, shattering the light as it shatters itself?

What did you mean about the duels at the king's pyres? I think I know what you mean, but please expound.

I was referring to alchemical weddings/ Kings pyres as opposed to ToJ or tent before the alchemical wedding type scenes.  They are really similar, but you never see the main features of a duel or a pyre at the same one.  

 

I'm not sure what breaks what.  I have always thought of Dawn, Other ice swords, and the crystal swords that symbolize the the warriors of the 7 as the same.  So I don't see an Other sword breaking Dawn.  GRRM has opposites fight, usually I think.  Unless they are different.  Maybe a white meteor hitting the Wall would be the same symbolically as Dawn fighting crystal or being white light thrust into a prism that color emerges from.  

 

Since you mentioned the sun king throwing on his starry cloak, do you agree with what I said above that Waymar dripping hot blood and snarling in his sable cloak makes him momentarily a black dragon?  And that lazy parry that strikes his sword like a tree struck by lightening makes the fight momentarily into a storm lord vs black dragon / Rhaegar vs Robert fight?  A sable cloak could be a stand in for starry ones at times. That one gets a dozen slashes in what I am tempted to say is last hero math since Waymar is some sort of last hero figure.  I have been thinking about cloaks lately.  Euron drowns Baelor Blacktyde in a cask and takes his sable cloak.  Tyrion stands on the back of a fool who was nearly drowned in a cask to put his cloak on Sansa, then another trickster used the same dupe l to steal her.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Unchained said:

Since you mentioned the sun king throwing on his starry cloak, do you agree with what I said above that Waymar dripping hot blood and snarling in his sable cloak makes him momentarily a black dragon?  And that lazy parry that strikes his sword like a tree struck by lightening makes the fight momentarily into a storm lord vs black dragon / Rhaegar vs Robert fight?  A sable cloak could be a stand in for starry ones at times. That one gets a dozen slashes in what I am tempted to say is last hero math since Waymar is some sort of last hero figure.  I have been thinking about cloaks lately.  Euron drowns Baelor Blacktyde in a cask and takes his sable cloak.  Tyrion stands on the back of a fool who was nearly drowned in a cask to put his cloak on Sansa, then another trickster used the same dupe l to steal her.  

Yes, I think I agreed with all that so much I forgot to comment. Waymar as a dragony LH sacrifice, absolutely, and those 12 wounds are completed by the eye wound as the 13th. I have followed all the discussion of sable cloaks, and the fact Euron BloodstoneEye has one is telling. 

The question is about the implications for the last hero re: Waymar rising as a one eyed person. Does this equate the LH being raised as an icy greenseer who makes Others or something? Or is the eye color only suiting the scene, and the symbolic intent is that the last hero became an Odin figure, a resurrected greenseer fighting against the Others as I have proposed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Unchained said:

I was referring to alchemical weddings/ Kings pyres as opposed to ToJ or tent before the alchemical wedding type scenes.  They are really similar, but you never see the main features of a duel or a pyre at the same one.  

That's an intriguing observation (have I told you lately how clever you are, as God and the internet intended?! ;))

So you're saying that a 'duel' and a 'pyre' never take place together?  I tend to equate being doused in blood to being drowned in flame, since I think blood and fire are equivalent currencies, e.g. we even see them placed together in the 'red' maw of the weirwood.  In terms of the 'tent of joy,' Drogo was put into a bathtub of stallion's blood, following which the shadows, including of a man wreathed in flame, danced around the tent -- so that's all fiery enough imagery for me!  In the case of the 'tower of joy' (uncapitalized, note...) Lyanna was drenched in her bed of blood while the archetypal duel took place outside, following which a funeral pyre was made by Ned (did he burn the tower down?).  So, I'm not sure I'm following the significance of what you were suggesting?  Could you explain further with illustrative examples?

Quote

I'm not sure what breaks what.  I have always thought of Dawn, Other ice swords, and the crystal swords that symbolize the the warriors of the 7 as the same.  So I don't see an Other sword breaking Dawn.  GRRM has opposites fight, usually I think.  Unless they are different.  Maybe a white meteor hitting the Wall would be the same symbolically as Dawn fighting crystal or being white light thrust into a prism that color emerges from.  

Fighting ice with ice...

Quote

Since you mentioned the sun king throwing on his starry cloak, do you agree with what I said above that Waymar dripping hot blood and snarling in his sable cloak makes him momentarily a black dragon?  And that lazy parry that strikes his sword like a tree struck by lightening makes the fight momentarily into a storm lord vs black dragon / Rhaegar vs Robert fight?  A sable cloak could be a stand in for starry ones at times.

Yes, I agree the sable-clad Waymar is analogous to Drogon.  Will to the soon-to-be treacherous Rhaegal.  Gared is the Viserion analog.  I predict that the fates of the brothers in the Prologue will correspond to those of the actual dragons, and that accordingly we'll see Drogon being killed as a consequence of Rhaegal, and thereafter being wighted.  At that point, I expect Bran to skinchange him, because Dany will lose control of him.  I think the Bran-Drogon combo is the Dawn sword!  Black ice, though, not white!  Wighted black ice...so 'white' in a punning sort of way.

Quote

That one gets a dozen slashes in what I am tempted to say is last hero math since Waymar is some sort of last hero figure.

For sure.

Quote

 I have been thinking about cloaks lately.  Euron drowns Baelor Blacktyde in a cask and takes his sable cloak.  

And @Crowfood's Daughter pointed out Jaremy Rykker's sable cloak was 'reappropriated' by one of his brothers, Thoren Smallwood after Rykker died and was wighted.

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Jon II

The other houses had yielded no wisdom. "Gone," cried Mormont's raven, flapping up into the weirwood to perch above them. "Gone, gone, gone."

"There were wildlings at Whitetree only a year ago." Thoren Smallwood looked more a lord than Mormont did, clad in Ser Jaremy Rykker's gleaming black mail and embossed breastplate. His heavy cloak was richly trimmed with sable, and clasped with the crossed hammers of the Rykkers, wrought in silver. Ser Jaremy's cloak, once . . . but the wight had claimed Ser Jaremy, and the Night's Watch wasted nothing.

If you read between the lines in the Prologue, Will was approaching to retrieve the 'spoils of war,' namely the sword and sable coat, no doubt, before the wighted Waymar intervened.

Quote

Tyrion stands on the back of a fool who was nearly drowned in a cask to put his cloak on Sansa, then another trickster used the same dupe l to steal her.  

The cloak implies power on the back of murdering ones own brother.  That's why the brothers have that 'laugh' in the Prologue about Waymar no doubt having twisted the heads off all the 'sables' -- essentially, Euron has put this into practice literally, riding to power on the backs of his countless abominations, including kin(g)slaying(s).

1 hour ago, LmL said:

As for crystal, I equate it with ice, like the wall and the Others swords, so... will an Other's sword break Dawn, as the crystal shattered the light? Or is Dawn the crystal, shattering the light as it shatters itself?

Can you expound a bit more on the distinction, please?

We may have seen a visual demonstration of the ritual in the Prologue:

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Prologue

Ser Waymar Royce found his fury. "For Robert!" he shouted, and he came up snarling, lifting the frost-covered longsword with both hands and swinging it around in a flat sidearm slash with all his weight behind it. The Other's parry was almost lazy.

When the blades touched, the steel shattered.

A scream echoed through the forest night, and the longsword shivered into a hundred brittle pieces, the shards scattering like a rain of needles

So that would put Waymar in the position of the Last Hero, Will as Azor Ahai the villain, and the Other as white meteor sword (?)...

Will and his sword both break (the Last Hero embodies the broken sword...fittingly, there's 'last hero' math with the number of cuts, namely the 12 slashes in the sable + the 1 eye wound).  But then following being broken, Will rises again Last Hero Reborn (the sun/son of the Last Hero, or the resurrected LH), so the Others bring the Dawn...?!

The sword in question is likened to a lightning-struck tree. In the analogy, the lightning is the Other's pale sword 'alive with light'; with the tree as the other sword (also pale, it's a weirwood).  Does the lightning shatter the tree; or does the tree shatter the lightning?  

The 'koan' you posited is a real mindbender!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:
37 minutes ago, Unchained said:

I was referring to alchemical weddings/ Kings pyres as opposed to ToJ or tent before the alchemical wedding type scenes.  They are really similar, but you never see the main features of a duel or a pyre at the same one.  

That's an intriguing observation (have I told you lately how clever you are, as God and the internet intended?! ;))

So you're saying that a 'duel' and a 'pyre' never take place together?  I tend to equate being doused in blood to being drowned in flame, since I think blood and fire are equivalent currencies, e.g. we even see them placed together in the 'red' maw of the weirwood.  In terms of the 'tent of joy,' Drogo was put into a bathtub of stallion's blood, following which the shadows, including of a man wreathed in flame, danced around the tent -- so that's all fiery enough imagery for me!  In the case of the 'tower of joy' (uncapitalized, note...) Lyanna was drenched in her bed of blood while the archetypal duel took place outside, following which a funeral pyre was made by Ned (did he burn the tower down?).  So, I'm not sure I'm following the significance of what you were suggesting?  Could you explain further with illustrative examples?

I actually disagree with Unchained here. Beric and Hound fight a duel around the fire, so does Jon when he finds Ygritte in the pass, the Wildlings and NW almost fight in the weirwood grove of nine, and as you say, the fighting and action in the tent does not seem separate to me. Besides, a wedding is a battle, as Cersei says. They are two sides of the same coin. Drogon in Daznak's, a ton of LB stuff there and Dany has the sexual language with Drogon as she flies. So fighting, fucking, and fire all together. 

Perhaps I am missing the distinction you are trying to draw. 

ETA: Gregor and Oberyn have the lines about being like lovers close enough to kiss at the end of their brutal LB forging fight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

Wighted black ice...so 'white' in a punning sort of way.

You get a sticker for that one :wub: 

 

45 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

And @Crowfood's Daughter pointed out Jaremy Rykker's sable cloak was 'reappropriated' by one of his brothers, Thoren Smallwood after Rykker died and was wighted.

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Jon II

The other houses had yielded no wisdom. "Gone," cried Mormont's raven, flapping up into the weirwood to perch above them. "Gone, gone, gone."

"There were wildlings at Whitetree only a year ago." Thoren Smallwood looked more a lord than Mormont did, clad in Ser Jaremy Rykker's gleaming black mail and embossed breastplate. His heavy cloak was richly trimmed with sable, and clasped with the crossed hammers of the Rykkers, wrought in silver. Ser Jaremy's cloak, once . . . but the wight had claimed Ser Jaremy, and the Night's Watch wasted nothing.

If you read between the lines in the Prologue, Will was approaching to retrieve the 'spoils of war,' namely the sword and sable coat, no doubt, before the wighted Waymar intervened.

Yeah, I knew there was one other sable cloak. It's owner was wighted too... and Euron has one blue eye, just like Waymar. I think that Euron represents the greenseer who made the Others - I *think* that is AA becoming NK, which is why Euron has the BSE parallels. Stannis is similar, AA --> NK, and he has a lot of blue shadow symbolism too. This seems like a cold odin figure... that is probably the NK, but what if Jon is like a good guy with blu eyes? I favor red eyes like his wolf, but who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have fallen into the trap of thinking two events are showing us something sequential when they are really the same thing twice.  I am not dead set of them being different, I wondered if it may have something to do with the history saying there were two hammers of the waters and the Others seem to present at the fights while they seem to only appeared after the long night started which means a moon breaking already occurred once.  Maybe.  

 

@Crowfood's Daughter pointed out that Lady Dustin also wears sable with vair.  Vair is also a tincture from heraldry and Baelor Blacktyde wears a vairy doublet.  Vair the fur is the winter coat of a squirrel, while vair the heraldry pattern is an alternating pattern of bell shapes of different colors.  Like @LmL says, the starry cloak is the sun king's winter attire, and vair the fur is the squirrel's.  It is grey-blue in color.    Vair the pattern like Blacktyde wears looks a lot like a form of motley which may make him a fool like Dontos who almost drowned and Patchface who did.  I agree with you @ravenous reader about taking the cloak from someone you kill.  It seems you are supposed to pay the iron price for it unlike Theon had done with the gold chain the first time we see him meet Balon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, an update in terms of real world mythical astronomy. Many have you have probably seen this story, which can be summed as "Graham Hancock was right about a comet impact around 11,000 BC being the cause of the Younger Dryas (a 1200 severe climate cold spell)."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4457530/Mini-Ice-Age-wiped-cvilisation-13-000-years-ago.html

Graham, a brilliant but outside-the-mainstream author and researcher who has, of course, not been write about every theory he's put forward, but for the last 20 years, he has been writing books that all advance his core theory, which is basically the sober version of the Atlantis idea: an advanced civilization or civilizations existed before 11,000 BCE, and was wiped out in global catastrophe. We are still technically coming out of an ice age, but most of the 'coming out of the ice age' took place between 15,000 bce or so and 7,000 bce. There was a lot of glacial melting and 300 feet of sea rise during that stretch of time, so it's certain that there was a lot of climate upheaval to support the general idea... but the smoking gun is some sort of large scale disaster that would have killed most of the people and large animals on earth, resetting civilization to a large extent.

In 2008 or so a theory about a "Younger Drays Comet" began to emerge as scientists thought they had found evidence of nanodiamonds - shocked particles that really only occur during a meteor impact. That evidence has not held up well however, and the Younger Dryas comet theory has taken some blows of late because the nanodiamond evidence did not seem to bear out. However in Graham's last book, Magicians of the Gods (which in retrospect is one of the most brilliant called shots in the history of modern science), Graham lays out two different lines of evidence for the Younger Dryas comet: evidence of truly massive flooding in the northwestern United States, and a healthy dose of mythical astronomy and archeoastronomy at Gobekli Tepe. The flood evidence is really interesting, and you can get a good sample of it by watching Graham Hancock and his fellow researcher Randal Carlson interviewed on Joe Rogan - they bring lots of pictures which are really necessary to appreciate the flood evidence. (one, two). 

Of course, the mythical astronomy and archeoastronomy is what I want to talk about. The crux of this comes down to something called the vulture stone. It's a stone with stars and constellations laid out - but only as the skies were in 10,900 BCE or so. Because of the cycle of precession, the fixed background of stars seems to move very slowly, working backwards through the zodiac in a 25,000 some odd year cycle. And because of that, if you were to say, make a monument today which points are Sirius or some other significant star on, say, the summer solstice sunrise, in a few thousand years, your alignment would be a little off. But predictably off - people in the future would be able to tell when you aligned the monument to, what 'star date' it's fixed at. At that's the case at Gobekli Tepe, a collection of stonehenge like dolman circles aligned to the stars found in today's Turkey. Fucking graham, brilliant man that he is, went there and fucking figured that shit out before all the accredited scientists, and put it together with the flood evidence in North America to speculate that the Yonder Dryas comet hypothesis (which he did not think of btw) was in fact true. Of course it didn't mean much until the academics came along and verified his work - which they have now done. He was just another one of those quasi-quack alternate theory people. He's always been the least wacky of that group, kind of straddling the line really, but now it's all changed.

This is one of the greatest discoveries in the history of mankind making discoveries about the past. There are so many implications, so many ideas and theories that will need to be reshaped and reexamined in light of this. Graham Hancock can pretty much take single-handed credit - he will be remembered as one of the most brilliant people ever to live, quite frankly, and I am very proud to say I have been in his corner since I first read Fingerprints of the Gods in 1997. That book quite honestly changed my life, though that's another story. I've always regarded many of his ideas as being in the maybe pile - maybe he's partly right, maybe not, but he's always been someone who has seemed to really understand myth and the mind of ancient man. His view of mythology has greatly shaped my own - I came up with the term "mythical astronomy" based on his approach, and I made my discoveries concerning the Long Night and moon meteors by thinking about ASOIAF myth the same way Graham thinks about real world myth. And it turns out - Graham was right. He was right! The comet - Long Night theory basically happened in the real world, sans ice demons I would assume. Again, it's hard to overstate how monumental of a discovery this is - and both the original theory and the verification of the theory comes from mythical astronomy and archeo-astronomy!

Look, I am as derisive of conspiracy and science-denial as anyone. These days, there are charlatans and hacks telling you to question pretty much everything. Flat-earth theory is making a comeback for god's sake - you probably know someone who believes it. However, that sneering and derision can go too far, and in an overreaction to quackery, good ideas which challenge mainstream theories can be discarded. Usually a good idea will bear out, so it's no conspiracy to repress information... but my point is, you should be careful before you sneer. A lot of people who have sneered at Hancock over the years are gathered around a huge feast table, eating helping after helping of crow. Hancock, meanwhile, is a genius and a visionary who will go down in history as being RIGHT about his biggest theory. 

The full paper can be read here; I plan to read and assess and maybe do a podcast about it. Cheers everyone! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the daily mail article is wrong on many accounts. It creates a a see-saw representation of the ice age hunter gatherers as savages who wouldn't watch the stars extensively. There's no reason to believe that hunter gatherers, or at least their shamans, wouldn't be trained in watching sun and moon cycles as well as stars. Some of the already known artifacts to be related to astronomical observance suggest a pre-ceding tradition of centuries if not thousand of years. It are after all hunter gatherers who also made art both paintings and statuettes (some ceramics). That article also tries to present it as if the scientists don't believe there were modern human races before 11k BC. Total bull. Cro-magnon are homo sapiens and it's been established for decades that they back at least 30-40k years ago. Pure sensationalist article that. Archeologists and anthtopologists do not regard ancient cultures, including hunter gatherer cultures as savage people who don't know shit. 

That a comet struck 13k years ago by itself and caused an extra little ice age was not a stupid hypothesis, but without evidence it was nothing more than that - a hypothesis. No scientist will accept a hypothesis as fact until evidence can be found for it, in whichever field. And I don't see how that proves any of his other claims, some that are based on highly questionable artifacts.

Sorry, it won't make me a Hancock convert. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Well the daily mail article is wrong on many accounts. It creates a a see-saw representation of the ice age hunter gatherers as savages who wouldn't watch the stars extensively.

I think you are misreading the article - it never in any way says that people before 11,000 didn't watch the stars. It doesn't say anything  like that at all. In fact, it implies the opposite through citing Hancock's idea, saying 

But as Hancock points out, this would have been an all-consuming challenge for people used to living in small, roaming groups. The switch from hunting to agriculture, and from mobile tent villages to settlements, would demand every ounce of energy, diplomacy and ingenuity our ancestors could muster.

How would they find the time to invent complex maths, plot the heavens, master architecture and learn intricate stone-working? All those skills and more were needed to build Gobekli Tepe.

Stonehenge, which was built around 5,000 years ago, consists of rough-hewn slabs. It is ingenious, but compared to Gobekli Tepe it’s like a parish church beside Chartres Cathedral.

For 20 years, Hancock has insisted that there is only one explanation for this explosive intellectual evolution. All that knowledge already existed.

The theory is just the opposite - that there was an advanced people, well capable of observing the stars, in existence before the comet hit. That is the whole point. 
 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

There's no reason to believe that hunter gatherers, or at least their shamans, wouldn't be trained in watching sun and moon cycles as well as stars. Some of the already known artifacts to be related to astronomical observance suggest a pre-ceding tradition of centuries if not thousand of years. It are after all hunter gatherers who also made art both paintings and statuettes (some ceramics).

Yes, you and Graham and I all agree on this. In fact there is evidence of Taurus in some of the cave paintings, and definitely the Pleiades. Again, this is graham's theory, that ancient people have been advanced astronomers going back at least 12,000 year sand probably a lot longer. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

That article also tries to present it as if the scientists don't believe there were modern human races before 11k BC. Total bull.

Again, I am not sure what article you are reading, but this article does not say anything like that. You are making a straw a man argument. Modern homo sapiens have existed for at least 60,000 years if not more, everyone knows that. Honestly, your response perplexes me.

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Cro-magnon are homo sapiens and it's been established for decades that they back at least 30-40k years ago. Pure sensationalist article that. Archeologists and anthtopologists do not regard ancient cultures, including hunter gatherer cultures as savage people who don't know shit. 

That view has been evolving slowly, but before Gobekli Tepe, mainstream academics resisted any advanced monument making older than 4,000 bce or so, and resisted any notion of being "advanced" in most of the ways we would consider advanced. The level of astronomy used at Gobekli Tepe is indeed changing the way scientists think about mankind in that era. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

That a comet struck 13k years ago by itself and caused an extra little ice age was not a stupid hypothesis, but without evidence it was nothing more than that - a hypothesis. No scientist will accept a hypothesis as fact until evidence can be found for it, in whichever field. And I don't see how that proves any of his other claims, some that are based on highly questionable artifacts.

So, you probably have not kept up with his claims. In his last book, he specifically claimed to back up the Younger Dryas comet hypothesis using the flood evidence in the pacific NW and the mythical astronomy / archeoastronomy at Gobekli Tepe. It turns out his analysis of Gobekli Tepe has been confirmed by other scientists, so that is what he was right about. He also specifically identified the comet as having come from the Taurid stream, and claimed the ancients were aware of this belt of doom and marked it out - they knew that's where the comet came from, and watched it for more. This is also what the scientists have confirmed. Many of his other ideas gain a lot of support from this - for example, he's made the claim that the archeo-astronomy of the great pyramids is also tuned in to about 10,5000 bce, and that looks a lot more likely now since people at Gobekli Tepe did the exact same thing - recorded that approximate date in their monuments with acheoastonromy. Also, I did not say every idea he's ever had was right. But this was one of his big ones, and he nailed. He deserves credit from any fair-minded person. You've been very unfair in your characterization of him. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Sorry, it won't make me a Hancock convert. :)

You know I love you and respect you, but clearly you have misinterpreted the article. And besides, the article isn't the point, it's just a summary of the scholarly work. You have set up straw man arguments in the summary article, knocked them down, and then acted as if Hancock's amazing discovery means nothing. I am disappointed in your response, and think it reflects a heavy bias on your part. I recommend taking a look at the main work, at least the summary from the main work. 

http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/33194700/MAA_TEMPLATE_Decoding_Gobekli_Tepe_final.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seconded, sweetsunray. The notion that prehistoric peoples had such advanced astronomy is awesome, and the construction of these structures is super impressive. Kind of a mystery even. All of that pointing to an advanced civilisation... not yet convinced. The complete lack of any material evidence is a problem that has to be overcome -- it may yet happen, but I need something before I can jump on board. Like maybe a milkglass sword.

So between Hancock and Thundarr, we basically have the plot of the Long Night. Right on! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, LmL said:

But as Hancock points out, this would have been an all-consuming challenge for people used to living in small, roaming groups. The switch from hunting to agriculture, and from mobile tent villages to settlements, would demand every ounce of energy, diplomacy and ingenuity our ancestors could muster.

Tangent: 

I despise this sort of thinking. Conspiracy-theory nut bullshit. The Neolithic revolution happened over a couple thousand years. Guess how long two thousand years took in 12,000 BCE? Just as long as it takes now. A long fucking time. We're in the middle of a global technological revolution rught now. Do we have no energy to remember history or learn new ways to build shit? Of course we don't! We're spending it all learning how to type code! 

Sorry for the vitriol, but that line of reasoning makes me furious. It's really bad historical thinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

Tangent: 

I despise this sort of thinking. Conspiracy-theory nut bullshit. The Neolithic revolution happened over a couple thousand years. Guess how long two thousand years took in 12,000 BCE? Just as long as it takes now. A long fucking time. We're in the middle of a global technological revolution rught now. Do we have no energy to remember history or learn new ways to build shit? Of course we don't! We're spending it all learning how to type code! 

Sorry for the vitriol, but that line of reasoning makes me furious. It's really bad historical thinking. 

I'm not really even sure what point you are making. 

 

1 hour ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

Seconded, sweetsunray. The notion that prehistoric peoples had such advanced astronomy is awesome, and the construction of these structures is super impressive. Kind of a mystery even. All of that pointing to an advanced civilisation... not yet convinced.

Yes, that is far from proven. What he was right about is the comet. It lends support to his other ideas. 

Quote

The complete lack of any material evidence is a problem that has to be overcome -- it may yet happen, but I need something before I can jump on board.

There is not a lack of evidence. There is a lack of proof. It takes a certain kind or amount of evidence to constitute proof.  But now that we have pinpointed this kind of reset event, it's a logical thing to ask if people might have been more advanced before that, because any culture in existence at that time may well have been broken up. Hancock isn't saying he can prove that poeple were advanced back then, but that there is enough evidence to consider it, which is eminently reasonable. 

Also, consider that sea level has risen 300 feet or more since 11,000 bce, and humans tend to live near the coast. So most settlements from that time will be under 150-300 feet of water. And you know what - we have been finding more such submerged things lately. And we spend very little time and energy exploring under the sea. 

Quote

Like maybe a milkglass sword.

So between Hancock and Thundarr, we basically have the plot of the Long Night. Right on! 

 

Now you're just being obnoxious.  What we have is very strong evidence for a comet impact in 11,000 BCE that matches many myths around the world, all of which testify to a changed world which was much harder to survive in. This raises more questions which should be looked into. All of these same myths which turns out to be right about this cataclysm - the flood myths would come from this event as well - also talk of a previously advanced civilization. Humans back then were just as smart as they are now, so there is absolutely no reason they could not have been advanced in ways which would surprise us. We should consider what those myths are saying, because they have proven to be somewhat rooted in fact. Because of course they are, they played the role of a cosmology and history for human beings. What bugs me is when people assume myths are just silly stories. 

But again, you are conflating the Younger Dryas comet hypothesis (strongly supported by the new evidence) and the 'Atlantis' hypothesis, for lack of a better word, which of course is far from proven, and then tossing Thundarr to make it all sound silly. That's not scientific thinking, its just being obnoxious. 

The bottom line, and the thing I shared this article for which you aren't even addressing at all, is the archeoastronomy that Hancock figured out. That was freaking brilliant. When was the last time you visited some old monuments and figured out they were sending a message about a comet impact 13,000 years ago? I mean come on! That is some shit! Give the man his due! And that is what is relevant to my writing on ASOIAF, the mythical astronomy aspect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa man! I was just making a joke. Obnoxious, yeah, probably, but just an attempt to dilute the seriousness. 

Honestly, I am pretty impressed about this guy's findings. The other archaeologists seem never to have considered that the animals on the megaliths were constellations, which seems like a huge mistake. Almost all megalithic structures had a strong astronomical aspect, shich is definitely something that archaeologists like to overlook. It's pretty impressive, a credit both to Hancock and -- most importantly -- to the people who built the thing. I am certain that Neolithic people were top-notch astromomers and it irks me when people want to make them out to be dumb and ignorant. 

That last sentiment was pretty much what I was getting at with my tangent. I just get riled up when people assume that ancient cultures could only do one thing, or that 'primitive' cultures don't have immense knowledge. They do. Humans are pretty incredible. 

As for evidence and proof, my wife and I actually just had the same conversation. I wasn't clear about it here, but I am totally open to there being material evidence that we don't have. My wife pointed out the thing about ocean levels, too; I know very well that archaeologists have a hell of a time finding things that are now submerged. We've barely begun to look in underwater coastal areas.

Frankly, I would love for someone to find more structures and artifacts that push back the horizon on various human advancements to 10,000 BCE or further. I have spent several years in academia, and unlike too many historians and archaeologists, I am all about revolutionary discoveries that fuck with established paradigms. People spend too much time violently ignoring outlying data; sadly it's the nature of the beast that paradigm shifts take time and are fiercely resisted. 

It's a really cool find. And, relevant to this forum, it actually makes me think The George has read Hancock's work. 

Thanks for sharing this thing that's so interesting and important to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...