Daggers in the Dark: What Did Melisandre Really See?

[butterbumps!]

Hi can somebody please elaborate on this theory, please? I'm not familiar with it. Thankyou.

Hi Bond, welcome.

There's a couple of angles to this. One is that Jon will learn the truth of his parentage from something hidden in the Winterfell crypts (many of us subscribe to the belief that Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna). So one facet of this is that there's something of a "birth certificate" in Lyanna's tomb, like a special sword or a dragon egg or something like that. While I believe in R+L, I'm not so sure that I think there's proof of his parentage down there (although if there is tangible proof, my vote goes to it's being the Crown of Winter that Aegon I took from Torrhen when he conquered the North, returned to the Starks via Rhaegar->Lyanna).

Another aspect of the theory wonders if there is something of value in terms of defeating the Others buried there, i.e. he receives some kind of boon or tool that's hidden in order to fight the battle. Some theories tossed around have been the horn of winter, the original Ice, and a dragon.

[The Bond]

Hi Bond, welcome.

There's a couple of angles to this. One is that Jon will learn the truth of his parentage from something hidden in the Winterfell crypts (many of us subscribe to the belief that Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna). So one facet of this is that there's something of a "birth certificate" in Lyanna's tomb, like a special sword or a dragon egg or something like that. While I believe in R+L, I'm not so sure that I think there's proof of his parentage down there (although if there is tangible proof, my vote goes to it's being the Crown of Winter that Aegon I took from Torrhen when he conquered the North, returned to the Starks via Rhaegar->Lyanna).

Another aspect of the theory wonders if there is something of value in terms of defeating the Others buried there, i.e. he receives some kind of boon or tool that's hidden in order to fight the battle. Some theories tossed around have been the horn of winter, the original Ice, and a dragon.

Thanks very much for the reply! Are these theories taken from clues in the books or are they just clever guesses? I don't recall ever reading anything to suggest there was any token of Jon's lineage in the crypts but it wouldn't be the first time I've missed something.

[Dr. Pepper]

Maybe I'm not communicating my thoughts effectively.

Sorry to be an asshole, Lady Tippy, but, just speaking for myself here, all of the underlined prophesied hero is sort of messing with the effectiveness of your communication. I can't stop looking at 'prophesied hero'. My eyes just go from one underlined prophesied hero to the next. Why is it underlined every single time?

[butterbumps!]

Thanks very much for the reply! Are these theories taken from clues in the books or are they just clever guesses? I don't recall ever reading anything to suggest there was any token of Jon's lineage in the crypts but it wouldn't be the first time I've missed something.

Yes and no. Are you familiar with the arguments for Jon's being the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna? That might be a good place to start if you're not familiar with that: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/77385-rlj-v35/

Finding tangible proof of Jon's lineage is something of a spin off of this theory, since one of the arguments against R+L that comes up is that his parentage doesn't matter since there's no way to prove it. So this spurs speculation that maybe there's something down there that could offer Jon proof.

But on a more textually-grounded basis, there seems to be possible foreshadowing in the dreams Jon has. He has a recurring dream where he walks through the Winterfell crypts, terrified by some unnamed entity. We also have Bran's dream from aGoT where he dreamed he sat down in the crypts with Ned (right before they got news of Ned's execution). In this dream, Bran notes that Ned was sad and that it had "something to do with Jon." Then there's the angle that seems to imply there's something important in the crypts, or at Winterfell more generally. Mel has Mance go there on that covert OPs, and some posters wonder if she's actually looking for something there beyond the rescue of Arya. I'm probably missing more.

Personally, I think there's something significant to the crypts, but I'm not sold on the idea of it being a sort of "birth certificate."

[Little Wing]

Mayhaps Jon will, in his unconscious state, find out more about the Kings of Winter buried in the crypts? They were supposed to be scary, so maybe it is their presence that frightens him in his dreams and/or that maybe he will become as them once he "comes back to life" and more than a little pissed off... :dunno: My guess how Jon will find out about his parents is through Bran who'd hear Ned's confession beneath WF's heart tree (can't remember where it was said that you cannot lie to the Old Gods, or something to that effect, so Ned may have come regularly to talk about everything concerning his secret, it was a way to cleanse himself but also unburden by talking about it since he couldn't talk about it to anyone, poor guy).

Sorry for drifting off topic.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Sorry to be an asshole, Lady Tippy, but, just speaking for myself here, all of the underlined prophesied hero is sort of messing with the effectiveness of your communication. I can't stop looking at 'prophesied hero'. My eyes just go from one underlined prophesied hero to the next. Why is it underlined every single time?

I'm glad you pointed that out! :laugh: I once had a conversation with someone about this topic that thought I should underline "prophesied hero" to set it apart from the other terms, since I believe all the other titles are referring to one "prophesied hero" in different ways. I guess they were wrong.

My main point here is that none of the characters in ASOIAF are reliable in their beliefs and assumptions The best part of this series is that we are forced to look beyond religious beliefs, moral ideals, emotional decisions and illogical assumptions made by individual characters. We must take everything as a whole and put the pieces together. I love this series. :wub:

Oddly, I didn't come to the conclusion that R+L=J the same as the majority of people I speak with. It wasn't Ned's thoughts, the ToJ fever dream, or the character descriptions that got me. It was the prophecies.

ETA: I removed the underlines.

[The Bond]

Yes and no. Are you familiar with the arguments for Jon's being the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna? That might be a good place to start if you're not familiar with that: http://asoiaf.wester.../77385-rlj-v35/

Thanks again yeah I know all about most of the common theories and speculations I just hadn't heard of this one about the crypts.

[FittleLinger]

snip

I very much enjoy your way of thinking, because it's the closest to mine that I've seen formulated around here. I had a mumbling in a heresy thread once, which basically said that the AA prophecy is wrong, as in AA would be bad news, because if there was a long night (Ice-related cataclysm. let's call it this way) it's normal for people to assume that the light/fire figure would resolve it, but actually no - we need balance, so long story short - Jon won't become exactly AA, and thank god.

[butterbumps!]

No, because I totally agree with this statement. The difference is that I believe the entire notion of "Azor Ahai" and "Azor Ahai Reborn" are the misguided re-tellings of a religious group obsessed with fire.

I think I understand what you mean-- correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that there is an ultimate prophesied hero and are calling this hero AA. You subscribe to the belief that the tales of the Last Hero and AA go back to the same person, and that everything we know of AA-- Lightbringer, etc etc-- pertains to this original figure.

This is where I think there might be a breakdown in logic. You believe the AA myth is the "misguided" retelling of the Last hero story via groups obsessed with fire, right? If this retelling is "misguided" and perverted by the fire groups, then it doesn't actually tell us what we need to know of the Battle for the Dawn, does it?

I disagree. If the "Azor Ahai" legend is a derivation from "The Last Hero" legend they are referencing the same person that fought the Others during the Long Night. The prophesied hero will be the reincarnation (for lack of a better word) of this person regardless of what title is given to him. We can agree to disagree, because I will always believe that what we have heard of the prophesied hero, as far as the title "Azor Ahai Reborn" is concerned, is just the biased view of the followers of Rhllor. And this is why Mel is wrong in her assumption that Stannis is "Azor Ahai Reborn".

What I'm trying to suggest is that as myths move across cultures, cultures redefine the meaning and purpose of the myth so that in some cases a figure does not resemble the original figure on which it derived in essence or purpose. For a real life example of what I'm saying, consider the derivations of Dionysius and Christ. I'm saying that AA means something much different now, and calling some AA really only means what the Reds say he is, which in my opinion is not a positive figure, especially if one values balance. Calling someone "Dionysius reborn" means something really, really different than "Christ come again." The "biased" view, as you say, completely changes the mythos from what it was, and as such, it no longer connects the way you are suggesting, in my opinion.

I disagree on this as well. My idea of balance and your idea of balance seem to be two totally different things. I don't see resurrection as "unholy" or going against the natural balance depending on the reasoning behind the resurrection.

Other than Mel's incredible fear of death (which should say something on its own), where has the notion of reanimation been presented as something positive in the series? I really think that part of the theme we get is that things like blood magic and interrupting death are part of what throws everything off kilter.

I feel that Bran is like Frodo (on a journey to defeat a great evil) and Jon is like Aragorn (hidden king destined to win a great fight). You can't have one without the other.

I don't have particular thoughts on that, except to say it's occurred to me that Bran might be heading toward some ugliness in the future. I don't trust Bloodraven, truth be told, and I'm a bit cautious about where that's headed. I think the myths that we know of the Last Hero certainly pertain to Jon and Bran over pretty much anyone else, but I'm uncomfortable labeling them more definitively at present.

Why does it need to be that complicated? Where is there any evidence that this occurred? You missed my point, I fully understand Mel's view of the "Great Other".

I don't see how this is complicated. AA is an Essosi figure. Several thousand years ago the people who would become Valyrians somehow bound dragons to their wills and overthrew the Ghiscari, thereby founding the Valyrian "Freehold." The AA myth describes blood sacrifice to forge his "lightbringer;" it just so happens that blood sacrifice is how to make dragons, which, incidentally, have been called "flaming swords above the world." This could also explain the Red's love of fire.

My speculation is that thousands of years ago, the Last Hero did the whole Battle for the Dawn with his obsidian and dragonsteel blade (Dawn, in my opinion), founded the Nights Watch, etc. The story of this hero travelled east. Sometime afterward, the AA myth was created, using derivations from the first Battle (these are pretty vague terms when you think about it) to mythicize the founding of Valyria/ making dragons. I don't think this is an overly complicated scenario.

The 'bolded' part is my point! The followers of Rhllor have twisted the "The Prince That Was Promised" prophecy to fit their religion Their title (Azor Ahai Reborn) given to the prophesied hero, and their Azor Ahai legend (based on the Last Hero) used to describe the prophesied hero are their own.

Mel herself considers "Azor Ahai Reborn" and " The Prince That Was Promised" to be the same.

Mel might not be right about that.

Unless Jon becomes a champion of fire in the way Dany is, then he is not AA by definition. I'm also unclear as to why you insist on the AA designation when you seem to hold the opinion that AA derives from something earlier-- why not call him the Last Hero?

1. "Azor Ahai" and "The Last Hero" are different stories referring to the same person.

2. "Azor Ahai Reborn" and "The Prince That Was Promised" are titles referring to a prophesied hero that will be this person come again.

3. The followers of Rhllor have turned this prophesied hero into an agent of fire through their retelling of his story to fit their religion, but that does not make it true.

Maybe I'm not communicating my thoughts effectively.

1. Different stories = different meanings.

2. Or Dany is AAR and Jon, who actually was promised at least three times, is the PtwP.

3. If the Reds have turned the myth of AA into something different than it's original meaning, why use the term AA when you're referring to the Last Hero?

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

I think I understand what you mean-- correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that there is an ultimate prophesied hero and are calling this hero AA. You subscribe to the belief that the tales of the Last Hero and AA go back to the same person, and that everything we know of AA-- Lightbringer, etc etc-- pertains to this original figure.

Nope, but I see where I'm going wrong in my explanation. :)

I believe there is an ultimate prophesied hero and am calling this hero 'prophesied hero'. I subscribe to the belief that the tales of the Last Hero and Azor Ahai go back to the same person who fought during the Long Night, BUT everything we know of Azor Ahai --Lightbringr, warrior of light, etc-- pertains ONLY to the story as it is told by the followers of Rhllor. I believe the followers of Rhllor are wrong and basically twisted the story of the Last Hero to fit their religion. I do NOT believe that Jon will become the warrior of light described by Mel and her followers. I don't believe that anyone will become the warrior they describe.

This is where I think there might be a breakdown in logic. You believe the AA myth is the "misguided" retelling of the Last hero story via groups obsessed with fire, right? If this retelling is "misguided" and perverted by the fire groups, then it doesn't actually tell us what we need to know of the Battle for the Dawn, does it?

No, it doesn't tell us what we need to know about the the Battle for the Dawn. That's my point, therefore there is no breakdown in logic. My comments have simply been misunderstood. Parts of the AA story may relate to aspects of the Battle for the Dawn (which I alluded to), but these parts have been twisted to fit their religion.

For example: I believe there was a great weapon used to battle the Others during the Battle for the Dawn, but I do not believe is was a magical sword called "Lightbringer".

What I'm trying to suggest is that as myths move across cultures, cultures redefine the meaning and purpose of the myth so that in some cases a figure does not resemble the original figure on which it derived in essence or purpose.

This is also what I have been saying. The AA legend came to be as the story of the Long Night moved across cultures, a certain culture redefined the meaning and purpose of the story so that the AA figure no longer resembles the original figure on which it derived it's essence or purpose.

For a real life example of what I'm saying, consider the derivations of Dionysius and Christ. I'm saying that AA means something much different now, and calling some AA really only means what the Reds say he is, which in my opinion is not a positive figure, especially if one values balance. Calling someone "Dionysius reborn" means something really, really different than "Christ come again." The "biased" view, as you say, completely changes the mythos from what it was, and as such, it no longer connects the way you are suggesting, in my opinion.

I'm not remedial. :P

I fully agree! You continue to try to break something down to me that I fully understand and agree on. My point is that in the end AA and the Last Hero derived from the same place. Mel and her followers believe that AAR will be a champion of fire...blah blah blah, but he will be whoever the prophesied hero was meant to be. They have not somehow created a new prophesied hero that will come alongside the original prophesied hero.

Other than Mel's incredible fear of death (which should say something on its own), where has the notion of reanimation been presented as something positive in the series? I really think that part of the theme we get is that things like blood magic and interrupting death are part of what throws everything off kilter.

I disagree. Blood magic, IMO, is neither good nor bad in the series. It depends on who uses it, and what they choose to do with it. I feel that everyone..the followers of Rhllor, the Children of the Forest, etc...uses blood magic as a means to get things done.

I don't have particular thoughts on that, except to say it's occurred to me that Bran might be heading toward some ugliness in the future. I don't trust Bloodraven, truth be told, and I'm a bit cautious about where that's headed. I think the myths that we know of the Last Hero certainly pertain to Jon and Bran over pretty much anyone else, but I'm uncomfortable labeling them more definitively at present.

That's fine.

I don't see how this is complicated. AA is an Essosi figure. Several thousand years ago the people who would become Valyrians somehow bound dragons to their wills and overthrew the Ghiscari, thereby founding the Valyrian "Freehold." The AA myth describes blood sacrifice to forge his "lightbringer;" it just so happens that blood sacrifice is how to make dragons, which, incidentally, have been called "flaming swords above the world." This could also explain the Red's love of fire.

I don't believe an actual person resembling AA ever really existed. "Lightbringer" and dragons as they relate to the Long Night is a totally different discussion.

My speculation is that thousands of years ago, the Last Hero did the whole Battle for the Dawn with his obsidian and dragonsteel blade (Dawn, in my opinion), founded the Nights Watch, etc. The story of this hero travelled east. Sometime afterward, the AA myth was created, using derivations from the first Battle (these are pretty vague terms when you think about it) to mythicize the founding of Valyria/ making dragons. I don't think this is an overly complicated scenario.

This is what I have been trying to say. I disagree with the other things you mentioned, but they are plausible.

Unless Jon becomes a champion of fire in the way Dany is, then he is not AA by definition. I'm also unclear as to why you insist on the AA designation when you seem to hold the opinion that AA derives from something earlier-- why not call him the Last Hero?

I NEVER insisted that Jon would be AAR by definition. I have actually argued against this from the beginning I believe that AAR is just another name given to the "prophesied hero" by some misguided people. I do not believe that anyone has ever existed or will ever exist that will be AAR by the definition used by Mel and her followers.

I refer to Jon as AAR/TPTWP because I believe they are different terms used to describe the same "prophesied hero". I believe that Jon is the original "prophesied hero".

I also would never call him AA or the Last Hero because those titles were given to someone that has already existed.

1. Different stories = different meanings.

They have different meanings NOW! They derived from the same person.

2. Or Dany is AAR and Jon, who actually was promised at least three times, is the PtwP.

You missed my point, because you believe that these will be two separate people. Following their descriptions, IMO, they are the same.

And what do you mean he was promised three times? That has nothing to do with him being TPTWP.

3. If the Reds have turned the myth of AA into something different than it's original meaning, why use the term AA when you're referring to the Last Hero?

I have been trying to explain my view of the AA myth which means I must use the term AA.

[The Idiots Lantern]

I think it's possible we're all misunderstanding the AA/TPTWP prophesy and it'll be realized in ways nobody expects. Legends are ways to explain the unexplainable, which means the logistics and mechanics of the legend may be alegorical, but at it's core is a real phenomenae.

But I also think the legend that Dragons hatched from an extra moon that got too close to the sun might have a core of truth to it as well, especially taken in light of a related legend amoung wildlings that red comet = dragons.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

But I also think the legend that Dragons hatched from an extra moon that got too close to the sun might have a core of truth to it as well, especially taken in light of a related legend amoung wildlings that red comet = dragons.

I'm quite sure it had a core of truth to it, but that's another thread. ;) Maybe I should start one.

[butterbumps!]

I disagree. Blood magic, IMO, is neither good nor bad in the series. It depends on who uses it, and what they choose to do with it. I feel that everyone..the followers of Rhllor, the Children of the Forest, etc...uses blood magic as a means to get things done.

I fundamentally disagree that blood magic is presented positively in the series. If anything, the timbre of the series goes somewhat against the ends justify means argument you're suggesting-- whether with blood magic or completely non-magical forms of leadership. Additionally, I don't think the CotF use bloodmagic. Blood could be one way humans began tapping into the CotF's powers, but I don't think the CotF use blood magic amongst themselves.

You missed my point, because you believe that these will be two separate people. Following their descriptions, IMO, they are the same.

It is misleading when you keep speaking in terms of AA if you don't believe that this iteration of the myth relates to Jon.

Not for nothing, but it doesn't even matter if there was an actual AA figure that had existed that fulfilled the description the Reds believe. Dany satisfies like every facet of the current iteration of that prophesy. If it wasn't split historically by 2 real figures, I would say that it certainly is split now.

And what do you mean he was promised three times? That has nothing to do with him being TPTWP.

The first time: "Your grandsire commanded it. A woods witch had told him that the prince that was promised would be born of their line." (Barristan to Dany)

Then in the HotU: "There must be one more" (which is a promise for another prince)

Then Lyanna to Ned: "Promise me, Ned [to keep my son, who is likely a prince, safe]"

That's what I was referring to with the 3 times promised. I'm saying that yes, I agree, Jon is probably the promised prince, which is possibly alluded to by the latter two promises surrounding his infancy/ conception.

But we honestly do not know what the hell a PtwP actually means. Yes, Mel calls Stannis the PtwP, but this sounds like a simple extension of her normal way of speaking. A savior figure who will return is conceptually a prince that was promised. For a follower of R'hllor, this figure would manifest as AAR. Which does not seem to pertain to Jon's character, but more likely Dany's-- she's the one on their side.

I think that the term, PtwP is what you mean by the boiler plate "prophesied hero" you keep referring to, as right now it's fairly neutral and all it means is a prince who will come. We can assume that this promised prince will be a hero or a savior, but this is not information that comes to us from the text. All that we know if it is that the Reds consider this figure to be AAR, and he's obviously their savior, but this is an interpretation that is kind of being forced onto the much more neutral PtwP term. Personally, I take it to mean simply that Jon is going to do something big.

I'm going to try to explain my thoughts a different way. I think that all of the terms that have been tossed around are no different than non-prophetic ones by nature. Each of the mythological figures carries a different connotation that changes the identity of that figure. The Stallion who Mounts the World is one version of a "savior," as are AA, and the Last Hero. They are each linked to a form of redemption, but the particulars of their identities are really, really different. On this it seems we agree.

I wasn't trying to suggest that you were remedial before. I was trying to understand why you laminate all of the savior figures together, even though you simultaneously believe that they are fundamentally different in their various iterations. Yes, these titles all point to an archetypal savior figure, but just like in our own world with our own religions and myths, I think it's obfuscating too many nuances in meaning to say that AAR=SwMtW=Last Hero. Archetypal saviors they may be, but they are not the same, and I don't believe they can be used interchangeably.

I think this reading-- to not use the titles interchangeably-- adds a layer of additional richness to the characters in question and the story as a whole. For example, Jon is simply a "PtwP," and he could choose ice, he could choose fire. Or he could "drink from both cups" (as per HotU) and take the middle road. Right now, it's sort of a blank slate for him, though I get the sense that given his character, he's going to choose the middle road- both and neither. While this points to what the Last Hero did, it doesn't have to play out to the exact same script; he can still be a hero as simply a King of Winter or something should Bran be the "last hero." Dany is very clearly fire, which connects her to the identity of AA; there's some connection between R'hollor and slavery, and though I think AA is villainous in the context of Westeros, she can be AA and a hero if she delivers the Essosi slaves "from their great darkness."

Where I think the richness plays into it is when the characters begin to accept these identities and and kind of reify the prophesy. Dany could be AA because she knowingly made the blood sacrifice, and as per her last DwD chapter, truly accepts the identity of fire. As per Jon's last few chapters, he's being recognized by others, and self-identifying with, a kind of King in the North/ Watchman/ King Beyond the Wall. So rather than prophetic dictation, I look for the differences in these prophesies as separate identifies, and I consider it more an issue of discrete character developments, and "finding themselves," as it were-- which requires the acknowledgement of the different variations of the "prophesied" figure, as other characters self-identify with different facets of the "archetypal hero." They can accept or reject their "fated" identities, which I think is critical.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

I fundamentally disagree that blood magic is presented positively in the series. If anything, the timbre of the series goes somewhat against the ends justify means argument you're suggesting-- whether with blood magic or completely non-magical forms of leadership. Additionally, I don't think the CotF use bloodmagic. Blood could be one way humans began tapping into the CotF's powers, but I don't think the CotF use blood magic amongst themselves.

We can agree to disagree, I guess I subscribe to heresy. :unsure:

It is misleading when you keep speaking in terms of AA if you don't believe that this iteration of the myth relates to Jon.

I guess.

Not for nothing, but it doesn't even matter if there was an actual AA figure that had existed that fulfilled the description the Reds believe. Dany satisfies like every facet of the current iteration of that prophesy. If it wasn't split historically by 2 real figures, I would say that it certainly is split now.

I agree, I feel this was done purposely by GRRM to keep us guessing and theorizing. Personally, I like it.

The first time: "Your grandsire commanded it. A woods witch had told him that the prince that was promised would be born of their line." (Barristan to Dany)

Then in the HotU: "There must be one more" (which is a promise for another prince)

Then Lyanna to Ned: "Promise me, Ned [to keep my son, who is likely a prince, safe]"

That's what I was referring to with the 3 times promised. I'm saying that yes, I agree, Jon is probably the promised prince, which is possibly alluded to by the latter two promises surrounding his infancy/ conception.

This came to me afterwards. I remember reading this somewhere else. I disagree on this as reasoning behind Jon being TPTWP, but I can see how someone could come to that conclusion.

But we honestly do not know what the hell a PtwP actually means. Yes, Mel calls Stannis the PtwP, but this sounds like a simple extension of her normal way of speaking. A savior figure who will return is conceptually a prince that was promised. For a follower of R'hllor, this figure would manifest as AAR. Which does not seem to pertain to Jon's character, but more likely Dany's-- she's the one on their side.

I see your point and I agree, but you're still messing mine...which may be my fault.

I think that the term, PtwP is what you mean by the boiler plate "prophesied hero" you keep referring to, as right now it's fairly neutral and all it means is a prince who will come.

No, that's only a portion of what I mean. You're placing too much value on the labels.

We can assume that this promised prince will be a hero or a savior, but this is not information that comes to us from the text. All that we know if it is that the Reds consider this figure to be AAR, and he's obviously their savior, but this is an interpretation that is kind of being forced onto the much more neutral PtwP term. Personally, I take it to mean simply that Jon is going to do something big.

Your view is different from mine and that's quite okay. :cheers:

I'm going to try to explain my thoughts a different way. I think that all of the terms that have been tossed around are no different than non-prophetic ones by nature. Each of the mythological figures carries a different connotation that changes the identity of that figure. The Stallion who Mounts the World is one version of a "savior," as are AA, and the Last Hero. They are each linked to a form of redemption, but the particulars of their identities are really, really different. On this it seems we agree.

:agree:

I wasn't trying to suggest that you were remedial before. I was trying to understand why you laminate all of the savior figures together, even though you simultaneously believe that they are fundamentally different in their various iterations.

I know Bumps!, I was just being funny. I wouldn't be having this discussion with you if I didn't think you were being civil. ^_^

Yes, these titles all point to an archetypal savior figure, but just like in our own world with our own religions and myths, I think it's obfuscating too many nuances in meaning to say that AAR=SwMtW=Last Hero. Archetypal saviors they may be, but they are not the same, and I don't believe they can be used interchangeably.

Um, I think it depends on which titles you put together in terms of ASoIaF. For instance, I would never place AAR/StWMtW/Last Hero together.

I think this reading-- to not use the titles interchangeably-- adds a layer of additional richness to the characters in question and the story as a whole. For example, Jon is simply a "PtwP," and he could choose ice, he could choose fire. Or he could "drink from both cups" (as per HotU) and take the middle road. Right now, it's sort of a blank slate for him, though I get the sense that given his character, he's going to choose the middle road- both and neither. While this points to what the Last Hero did, it doesn't have to play out to the exact same script; he can still be a hero as simply a King of Winter or something should Bran be the "last hero."

During reading, I agree it adds richness. The end result I feel will be entirely different.

Dany is very clearly fire, which connects her to the identity of AA; there's some connection between R'hollor and slavery, and though I think AA is villainous in the context of Westeros, she can be AA and a hero if she delivers the Essosi slaves "from their great darkness."

You and your views on Dany. You never fail to fascinate me. :D I can see where you are coming from, although I disagree.

Where I think the richness plays into it is when the characters begin to accept these identities and and kind of reify the prophesy. Dany could be AA because she knowingly made the blood sacrifice, and as per her last DwD chapter, truly accepts the identity of fire. As per Jon's last few chapters, he's being recognized by others, and self-identifying with, a kind of King in the North/ Watchman/ King Beyond the Wall. So rather than prophetic dictation, I look for the differences in these prophesies as separate identifies, and I consider it more an issue of discrete character developments, and "finding themselves," as it were-- which requires the acknowledgement of the different variations of the "prophesied" figure, as other characters self-identify with different facets of the "archetypal hero." They can accept or reject their "fated" identities, which I think is critical.

I agree and disagree...let's leave it at that. This was fun, but if we continue we will begin to write in circles, because I feel as if we're writing around one another. :cheers:

[Lady of Long Lake]

“Do not be so certain.” The ruby at Melisandre’s throat gleamed red. “It is not the foes who curse you to your face that you must fear, but those who smile when you are looking and sharpen their knives when you turn your back.

That "smile" line make me wonder if Mel is a little off in that premonition, or if she is referring to someone other than Bowen? He never played nice with Jon and Mel's implying that it's a friendly face that is plotting against Jon.

[Dr. Pepper]

That "smile" line make me wonder if Mel is a little off in that premonition, or if she is referring to someone other than Bowen? He never played nice with Jon and Mel's implying that it's a friendly face that is plotting against Jon.

Exactly what I'm thinking. Selyse, the Queen's Men, Marsh and co....they all let Jon know that they aren't happy with him. There are few in the Night's Watch who are avid Jon supporters. Dolorous Edd, Leathers, a couple others whose names I can't recall. The wildlings generally support him. So the 'smiles' could come from any of these people. However, Mel is definitely a person who smiles at Jon and plots behind his back. Her plotting doesn't seem all that malicious on the surface, but she's still working rather hard to manipulate him into trusting her and teaming up together for...something.

Going back to her vision, she has this firey weird body experience, that whole "Melony, Lot 7" thing, immediately before seeing the skulls and concluding that it's daggers in the dark. What was that all about? It's between her seeing Bran and Bloodraven and Jon and skulls. What does it mean?

[RoamingRonin]

I interpreted the vision to be Jon in a half-dead state following the attempt on his life. The curtain stands between the world of the living and the world of the "afterlife" life. He's warging in and out of his body as he recovers, meanwhile those that tried to kill him are still around plotting another attempt.

[Ragnorak]

Let's first look at what Mel sees we can probably assume to be true.

She saw the eyeless faces again, staring out at her from sockets weeping blood.

We know this is the dead rangers killed by the weeper and that she got this correct even though she only told Jon after he sent them out. I imagine she had a more detailed vision before or she simply is recounting all the detail here because no one could predict dead rangers just from this. Jon also sent out three groups of rangers and the fate of two of them is still unknown.

A face took shape within the hearth. Stannis? she thought, for just a moment ... but no, these were not his features. A wooden face, corpse white. Was this the enemy? A thousand red eyes floated in the rising flames. He sees me. Beside him, a boy with a wolf’s face threw back his head and howled.

We know this is Bloodraven and Bran but she does not. Bran has a profound connection to Jon Snow and she can't see it. Bloodraven is almost certainly warging a raven that is around Mel all the time and she has no idea about that either. She just knows that he (whoever this he is) can see her. What she is actually seeing are the symbols that manifest their power. For Bloodraven it is the weirwood and his thousand eyes. For Bran it is his wolf. She doesn't see either the Stark or Targaryen connections which matter tremendously for Jon and Stannis respectively. She thinks she saw his sister but she did actually see his brother and doesn't even know it.

She seemed to sense Orell in the eagle and had at least a clue as to the power embodied in Jon's connection to Ghost but both Bloodraven and Bran are a mystery to her.

Snowflakes swirled from a dark sky and ashes rose to meet them, the grey and the white whirling around each other as flaming arrows arced above a wooden wall and dead things shambled silent through the cold, beneath a great grey cliff where fires burned inside a hundred caves. Then the wind rose and the white mist came sweeping in, impossibly cold, and one by one the fires went out. Afterward only the skulls remained.

Is this one vision or more? Snowflakes falling to meet rising ashes is exactly what Jon observes while Mel is performing the marriage ceremony for Alys. Grey and white are the Stark colors so this could be read as a battle in the North or the whole scene could be one vision. What is fairly clear is that the impossibly cold mist is the Others and the skulls that remain are wights. So here we have a vision where skulls seem to clearly represent wights.

The flames crackled softly, and in their crackling she heard the whispered name Jon Snow. His long face floated before her, limned in tongues of red and orange, appearing and disappearing again, a shadow half-seen behind a fluttering curtain. Now he was a man, now a wolf, now a man again. But the skulls were here as well, the skulls were all around him. Melisandre had seen his danger before, had tried to warn the boy of it. Enemies all around him, daggers in the dark. He would not listen.

"Limned in tongues of red and orange" could be the vision or just an artifact of her looking into a literal fire. He is fading in and out which see sees as a shadow half-seen behind a fluttering curtain. A curtain could be a metaphor for death as could a shadow. It also could mean that there is an aspect of Jon that is obscured to her-- possibly his parentage and the deeper significance related to it. Jon as a Targ heir would certainly be a curtain raising event. The man/wolf/man certainly fits with Jon surviving his assassination attempt through warging Ghost. It also fits with his nightly dreaming patterns for the last year or more as Apple noted. From Mel's last vision we can reasonably assume that the skulls are wights and we already know Jon is surrounded by those. He also had his "father" die, believes two of his brothers died, had another brother die, and fears for his sisters' lives. The fluttering curtain could be tied to the skulls that surround him meaning that the truth of the deaths of his family are obscured. Everyone in Westeros is surrounded by death-- that's why the crows were feasting. It isn't exactly the most telling prophetic vision for anyone in the North with Winter coming.

"Daggers" in the dark seems to be a phrase she uses rather than something she sees here. Maybe she saw it in the past. Consider this warning she expresses to Jon:

It is not the foes who curse you to your face that you must fear, but those who smile when you are looking and sharpen their knives when you turn your back.

Who does that sound like? That is essentially the question LF poses to Sansa. LF is the one who practically defined himself as the dagger in the dark when you turn your back. He is certainly the foremost candidate in the series for such a reference.

Reasonably interpreting Mel's visions I think the single most obvious concluson to draw is that the skulls are wights because that's what they were moments before. Even if they are death, Jon is surrounded by death. His face becomes a wolf not a skull so based on the dynamics of her own vision Jon is not becoming a skull-- dying. Jon is either surrounded by wights or death and that was obvious to readers as far back as the Prologue in GoT and to Jon not long after that.

Based on Mel's track record and what we as readers know she's getting wrong or misses when she sees it, I don't think there's any reasonable justification for taking her visions as she interprets them seriously. Additionally, based on the content of her visions that the reader is privy to, an assassination plot against Jon or even his death is among the least reasonable conclusions that could to be drawn.

[Scipio Africanus]

Is this one vision or more? Snowflakes falling to meet rising ashes is exactly what Jon observes while Mel is performing the marriage ceremony for Alys. Grey and white are the Stark colors so this could be read as a battle in the North or the whole scene could be one vision. What is fairly clear is that the impossibly cold mist is the Others and the skulls that remain are wights. So here we have a vision where skulls seem to clearly represent wights.

I don't think so, I think it might represent the upcoming slaughter at Hardhome.

I kind of agree with the rest, though I'm not sure the hidden dagger represents LF (I doubt he'll ever make it that far up north). I fear Jon will be or has been betrayed by those he considers "friends" though I cannot speculate who at this point and time.

[FittleLinger]

Going back to her vision, she has this firey weird body experience, that whole "Melony, Lot 7" thing, immediately before seeing the skulls and concluding that it's daggers in the dark. What was that all about? It's between her seeing Bran and Bloodraven and Jon and skulls. What does it mean?

Subconscious sexual arousal, because she sees her ex, because she is Shiera Seastar?

PS I know I'm not helping much