3 Eyed Crow

[MightilyOats]

Whoa, what the hey.

I never said, or implied, or once ever gave the briefest thought to the idea that Mormont is the 3EC.

i'm just saying, I seem to recall reading somewhere that George has said something along the lines of that maybe there's a bit of Mormont left in the raven.

Probably from that Q&A thing.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

It's hard to prove a negative, but I've never seen any GRRM comment confirming that Mormont was a warg, and I know that he's been coy on other occasions about the subject of Mormont's raven.

In any case, Mormont being a warg might explain the apparent endorsement of Jon Snow, but it wouldn't explain why the raven screamed out "Burn! Burn! Burn!" before Jon Snow set the wight on fire in A Game of Thrones. Mormont told Jon later that he didn't know that fire would be effective against wights until he saw it for himself.

[MightilyOats]

That might be what I was thinking of, and Mormont leaving something of himself behind in his raven does not mean he's necessarily an out and out warg.

He might just have wargish tendencies, and only in this case.

I think it's more in line with someone just plain old leaving a piece of themselves behind in something when they die. It's a neat literary device, it shows up all over the place in fiction (particularly fantasy) and it allows him to write the bird as intelligent as he needs it to be, if he needs it to be intelligent.

Remember when it landed on Jon's shoulder, "miraculously" ? Yah, little things like that.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

That might be what I was thinking of, and Mormont leaving something of himself behind in his raven does not mean he's necessarily an out and out warg.

Really? Do we have an instance of another person leaving a bit of themselves in an animal after they die without it meaning that he was an out and out warg?

[MightilyOats]

Oh good lord, you can't tell me you've never heard of such a thing in fiction, particularly FANTASY.

Read the rest of the sentences I wrote, they help justify the first one.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Oh good lord, you can't tell me you've never heard of such a thing in fiction, particularly FANTASY.

I have heard of such a thing. I've also heard of elves and orcs, but that doesn't mean that you'll find one in Westeros.

[MightilyOats]

So...wait, what?

A literary trope is not a fictional race.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

So...wait, what?

I'd like an example from this series that we're currently discussing to back up the assertion you made above. There are many aspects of genre fantasy that GRRM does not use, and others that he intentionally subverts, so the fact that something is habitually done in other fantasy fiction doesn't prove a thing. In this series, the only people who have left part of themselves in an animal companion are wargs.

[MightilyOats]

I'd like an example from this series that we're currently discussing to back up the assertion you made above.

Mormont is the first and only example I (or anyone else) is aware of.

That's like if I asked you to prove me wrong, with in book evidence.

It's asking for something that can't be done, and just...deciding you win when the other person can't bring the evidence to bear.

I'm putting forth the idea that George is using a literary trope with one of his characters, albeit covertly.

Why this opinion seems to sit unwell with you, I've no idea. You yourself have already admitted you've seen it (bare minimum heard tell of it) in use in fiction.

This discussion need not go any further.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Mormont is the first and only example I (or anyone else) is aware of.

That's like if I asked you to prove me wrong, with in book evidence.

It's asking for something that can't be done, and just...deciding you win when the other person can't bring the evidence to bear.

No, it's not. You made the assertion, so the burden of supporting it with evidence lies with you. If I offered a theory, people would ask me to support it with evidence from the book, and rightly so.

Why this opinion seems to sit unwell with you, I've no idea.

What do you mean, it "seems to sit unwell with" me? I'm not offended by the idea. I just don't think that it's very likely. This is still a discussion board, where people offer theories about the series and respond to the theories of others, right?

[MightilyOats]

No, it's not. You made the assertion, so the burden of supporting it with evidence lies with you. If I offered a theory, people would ask me to support it with evidence from the book, and rightly so.

Right. but what we're talking about is my evidence for the theory.

So...there it is.

What do you mean, it "seems to sit unwell with" me? I'm not offended by the idea. I just don't think that it's very likely. This is still a discussion board, where people offer theories about the series and respond to the theories of others, right?

Absolutely, but you don't seem intent on lending my idea any validity.

You actually compared a literary trope to a fictional race in an attempt to discredit my opinion.

To me, that says you really, really, really don't like the idea.

Which is fine.

[Roughspun]

There’s the reverse case: a shadow of Lady living on in Sansa. Though that might be debated as well.

[Calibandar]

Oats,

The problem is that there is no evidence at all to suggest that Mormont somehow left a piece of himself in the Raven.

It doesn't seem plausible to me, but as Peter said, if you have a theory which you need people to attach some validity to, you have to make it seem plausible via argumentation.

For instance, I might say that Aegon Targaryen is still alive. This could be true, and I hope it is, but if I don't sustain this idea with some evidence, it's an empty statement.

[Spoony]

Ned also takes about angry spirits haunted the crypts if the swords are ever taken from the tombs of the Kings of Winter. Do you similarly believe that Others and wights are haunting the crypts of Winterfell, now that most of the older swords have been rusted away?

I think this is a classic example of false equivalency.

Ned isn't Yggrite - or a wilding.

And don't sing me the tune about how the free folk and the starks are both part of the "blood of the first men" - So are the Dayne's and a number of other houses - this doesn't equate to being supersitiuous - or democratic, as the free folk have shown themselves to be.

We don't know what Yggrite truly meant.

As far as I can remember - Ned's bit about the Ancient Kings of Winter was a passing speculation about how horrible it would be if these men's spirits actually were able to wander free - since they were such rough and tough people.

The context is completely different between these two scenes.

Ergo - they are not the same. AT ALL.

[Manakhkubar]

Really? Do we have an instance of another person leaving a bit of themselves in an animal after they die without it meaning that he was an out and out warg?

Actually, we have real life evidence for that. There are no wargs in real life, but still "pets" often adopt a lot of the personality and habits of their masters, especially intelligent social animals like, say, dogs or crows. Some dogs, after their masters died, are known to show emotional reactions to contexts their masters were known to dislike. "Speaking" birds even reproduced comments and idioms of their former masters in relatively fitting situations. Many people would argue that "there is still some part of their master in them".

One could argue that warging is not a completely unique feature but "simply" a very extensive expansion of that relationship.

[Spoony]

There is a difference between socializing - for social animals such as dogs and crows, than some oblique psychic connection though.

There is no skinchanging in real life - just wishful thinking, or gross oversimplifications.

[Manakhkubar]

There is a difference between socializing - for social animals such as dogs and crows, than some oblique psychic connection though.

Well, is there? That difference is a rationalized construct and emotionally ignored by many people even today. People feel the presence of a long dead person in a lot of things(!), let alone said pets.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Ned isn't Yggrite - or a wilding. And don't sing me the tune about how the free folk and the starks are both part of the "blood of the first men" ... this doesn't equate to being supersitiuous.

So you're saying that the wildlings are not superstitious?

The context is completely different between these two scenes.

Not that different. Ygritte and Ned are both using the same word to refer to an incorporeal spirit, not an Other or a wight. Ser Rodrik also refers to Lord Hornwood's shade being pleased to see his bastard son inherit, which is an odd thing to say if Ser Rodrik meant Lord Hornwood's undead corpse slavering for human blood.

[Ramz]

It seems likely that the three eyed crow is Bran. The major clue is that Bran means crow in Welsh. So the answer is hiding in plain sight. Bran (Crow) is on a journey to open his third eye.

This is further supported by the correlation between the seven Starks and the seven Westeros gods. Bran corresponds to the Crone, who is associated with seeing.

At least that is where the bread crumbs lead. If there is a sequel, we will see if the author agrees with me.

Pretty cool, about Bran meaning Crow.

[Ramz]

Oats,

The problem is that there is no evidence at all to suggest that Mormont somehow left a piece of himself in the Raven.

It doesn't seem plausible to me, but as Peter said, if you have a theory which you need people to attach some validity to, you have to make it seem plausible via argumentation.

For instance, I might say that Aegon Targaryen is still alive. This could be true, and I hope it is, but if I don't sustain this idea with some evidence, it's an empty statement.

It's something we will never really get, or understand. I think Oats is simply saying that its a cool little nod to Mor - having a crow who can do things that other crows cant to simply progress the story doesn't really need explaining. He could be right, he could be wrong, but that doesn't really matter. In some scenes, this crow might as well turn to the camera, and wink to the audience. That reason alone allows for some validation on what oats is claiming.

I'd have assumed you guys would be all over this super geekoid way of explaining why the crow does what it does.