Daggers in the Dark: What Did Melisandre Really See?

[Ragnorak]

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.

I agree Hardhome is the most likely candidate. I mentioned the wedding scene because the image of ashes and snow was explicitly used there. Same with Littlefinger-- he isn't the most probable candidate just the most obvious assossiation in the books for "daggers in the dark." The way it is written Jon is like the guy in the horror movie heading toward the basement. We're told he should keep Ghost close but then circumstances arise where there's a narrow window of time that he isn't keeping Ghost close. The circumstances work to build the sense of danger but the circumstances have nothing to do with Mel's visions. Jon's actual stabbing is what makes Mel's visions seem accurate and prophetic. If the chapter ended with his announcement that he was heading to Winterfell and Martin chose to include the stabbing as the opening of Jon in the next book, there's nothing in Mel's visions that would indicate Jon is going to get stabbed three pages into book six.

[The guy from the Vale]

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

PS I know I'm not helping much

I think the 'Melony, Lot Seven' line disproves that theory. To me it seems relatively clear that Melisandre was once a slave girl called Melony.

[FittleLinger]

I think the 'Melony, Lot Seven' line disproves that theory. To me it seems relatively clear that Melisandre was once a slave girl called Melony.

Well one that old could have had several identities. Besides, if she needed to disappear for some reason, it would be reasonable to assume another identity. Imagine this as if a Hugor Hill remembers how he was sold as slave as "Yolo, lot 8", but he is still Tyrion Lannister.

[The guy from the Vale]

Ok, can't really disagree wth that except that I still don't think that Mel is Shiera Seastar. For one thing, we have no indications Shiera was into R'hllorism.

I don't disagree that Shiera might be someone in the story, but if so, I'd rather bet on Quaithe, not on Mel.

[DaveRoid]

It is an interesting theory but I see solid reasons to think otherwise....

4 reasons actually, I am sure number #1 has been brought up many times by now:

1- she is very good at interpreting visions on someone dying. it is interesting you mention the times she messed up when something vague occured (like she couldnt tell who arya was because she had never met her before, or couldnt tell if renly was in his armor because it was very hard to tell even for folks on the ground fighting). But her death visions have been SPOT ON: She correctly identifies threats to herself multiple times as well as deaths of renly, joff, rob, Balon, the NW rangers, The old bear party at the fist and might be others I am forgetting.

2- Mellisanda comments to Jon about his wolf and its absence in silent alarm, she also comments about her being his only hope. She says he should come to him after he gets the message from WF but Jon doesn't do that. This is all right before he gets stabbed.

3- She knows the names of the betrayers (she mentions to Jon if he wants their names at one point before he dismisses her), she knows that they are close to Jon as well (his lieutenants in this case). So that means her visions must have happened before with more specifics than what she see's in her POV chapters. Infact she mentions getting too many visions of Jon and too many of them with skulls at different times. So we cant judge her read on one vision, others might have been more specific with specific people in them.

4- In one of his interviews on DWD GRRM is asked if Jon's death was something he came up as the coarse of the story went. He said: no this was planned, I actually had the phrase "Daggers in the dark" written 10 years ago. This here stabs at the heart of this theory since George is linking mely's visions with this specific phrase and his death.

Taken as a whole I am 99.9% confidant that mely did see Jon's death as she usually does when it comes to death. Maybe its just the simplicity of the interpretation .. see skulls in the fire and someone's on the chopping block :)

I will reiterate my quote which no one seems to have a response to. I see these crazy stuff about skulls referencing weights and daggers in the dark referencing LF and scratching my head at the absurdity. Crack pot theories are already being mass dispelled by the new (and canon, GRRM approved) Iphon app info's that are coming out now so folks should STOP reading into every single line as a great mystery and a diversion. For one example we know for fact now that Rob named Jon his heir in the letter but because it wasn't explicitly said in the text at the time before the clarification some crazy theories poped up about who else might have been named with decent following. For another Jenye Westerling is confirmed (as the book hints at by a margin of 99%) NOT pregnant despite large crack pot theories saying the opposite. Same thing with Danny being fire resistant which is pretty much stated in the books where her head burns but she doesn't die but JUST BECAUSE it is not said out loud that she is fire resistant there has to be funny stuff going on.

The books are not that complicated guys, sometimes things are exactly what they seem.Use your imagination and cut through the fog and you can see the real facts most of the time. Stop acting like it is written by nostradamus and every single word needs to be scrutinized and deciphered.

Some folks just have too much time on their hands.

[Little Wing]

Yeah, people, stop using your imagination and start using apps instead! :lol:

Oh, and I just love when someone says that other posters should stop saying something because they happen to disagree with what is being said/speculated - seriously? Sheesh...

[The Drunkard]

Same thing with Danny being fire resistant which is pretty much stated in the books where her head burns but she doesn't die but JUST BECAUSE it is not said out loud that she is fire resistant there has to be funny stuff going on.

:bs:

[Leviyah]

I don't know if this idea has been expressed here before and I'm sorry if i did miss it ;).

But what if Melisandre indead misinterprets the skulls this time and they are not a sign of danger for Jon but for her?

I mean, why does Jon dominate her visions that much suddenly? Sure, it could be because he is AA but it also could be of the danger he means for her life. Someone here expressed the idea that Melisandre will die soon and that she will go in the funeral pyre like MMD did. Maybe thats why she sees the whole ashes meeting snow thing and Jons face being "l

imned in tongues of red and orange" and all the skulls surrounding Jon. So I think somehow she will end up as part of the magic of resurrecting Jon Snow and it will mean her death. She complains about no one listening to her warnings and misses herself the warning the fire gives her.

[butterbumps!]

snip

I'm not sure if this is the case for everyone, but part of the value of a thread like this isn't just about literal foreshadowings. There's symbols and metaphors that become motifs in the story, and at least I personally find value in seeing how people connect things, even if Martin had not purposefully meant to make the connections in question. It may not get us closer to the "daggers" truth or have plot significance, but these sorts of connections do identify recurring patterns and symbols that help tie the whole story together as a single work (some of the language and symbolism used in Tyrion's chapters are really similar to the ones used in Stark chapters, for example).

I don't happen to think the daggers in the dark is referring to the Kevan incident, but there is a whole "daggers in the dark" theme throughout ASOIAF that's it's own motif, and identifying examples of it is pretty interesting.

I happen to have that app, and while it does answer a great deal of questions, there's tricky language in certain places that still leaves things open for interpretation (i.e. when something is stated as being "claimed" by someone versus stated outright).

[Tall-Talker]

"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.

Anybody think this is a vision of how the Others will break through the Wall?

In one of Jon’s chapters in AGoT the Wall is described as looking like a cliff. And in this quote it’s a great grey cliff.

I don’t know exactly what "wooden wall" may denote. If it is about the Others breaking through the Wall like I think it does perhaps it means part of the Wall is breached and a makeshift wall to cover the hole is made out of wooden material.

"Flaming arrows arced above a wooden wall." In the battle of the Fist of the First Men the NW tried combating the wights with fire arrows perhaps they'll try using the same tactics.

A hundred caves could just mean lit rooms in a building, or people taking shelter in parts of the Wall given that it’s higher ground and a possible defensive position against the whitewalkers. IMO the way I read the phrase means taking shelter in the underground tunnels of Castle Black. We've already been told that they are used during winter.

If the Others are destined to terrorize Westeros they have to come down someway. Maybe this is a vision of how.

[Ragnorak]

I will reiterate my quote which no one seems to have a response to. I see these crazy stuff about skulls referencing weights and daggers in the dark referencing LF and scratching my head at the absurdity. Crack pot theories are already being mass dispelled by the new (and canon, GRRM approved) Iphon app info's that are coming out now so folks should STOP reading into every single line as a great mystery and a diversion. For one example we know for fact now that Rob named Jon his heir in the letter but because it wasn't explicitly said in the text at the time before the clarification some crazy theories poped up about who else might have been named with decent following. For another Jenye Westerling is confirmed (as the book hints at by a margin of 99%) NOT pregnant despite large crack pot theories saying the opposite. Same thing with Danny being fire resistant which is pretty much stated in the books where her head burns but she doesn't die but JUST BECAUSE it is not said out loud that she is fire resistant there has to be funny stuff going on.

The books are not that complicated guys, sometimes things are exactly what they seem.Use your imagination and cut through the fog and you can see the real facts most of the time. Stop acting like it is written by nostradamus and every single word needs to be scrutinized and deciphered.

Some folks just have too much time on their hands.

Jon is a character that stands out with regard to his reaction to prophesy compared to Dany and Cersei. Cersei seems to be on the classic course to self fulfill and Dany is too willing to attribute circumstances to prophetic fulfillment rather than analyze and learn from those circumstances. She wonders if Brown Ben Plumm is one of her betrayals rather than recognizing that he is a sellsword and that her refusal to use the dragons was paramount in a choice he put to his men and didn't even make himself. Jon sees the power that Mel possesses but is unwilling to throw away his own personal judgment in deference to prophetic hypotheticals. More importantly while he trusts her power he doesn't trust her. One aspect of Jon's story is a commentary on prophesy. Jon is a character with a history of accepting his fate (the Wall, that these are his brothers, killing the Halfhand, being LC) yet he refuses to simply accept prophesy. Cersei and Dany are two characters who denied their fates to forge a new destiny and both fully embrace the inevitability of their prophetic fates. In this regard there is a very positive subtext going on in Jon's refusal to listen to Mel.

What Jon does want from Mel is actionable intel. We can infer from her conversation with Mance that the Arya rescue had actionable intel (go to Long Lake.) He trusted in her, acted on that, and the wrong girl showed up without the aid of the men he sent at her recommendation. Throughout Jon we repeatedly see him asking Mel questions and get references to a history of consulting her and the one common thread is that she never gives him a useful answer. Consider this:

“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. You would do well to keep your wolf close beside you. Ice, I see, and daggers in the dark. Blood frozen red and hard, and naked steel. It was very cold.”

Ice? Seriously? That's prophetic? There's a 700 foot high wall of it that's 300 miles long that defines his life not to mention the whole of the ground in the North-- same with very cold. Naked steel? It is a military unit, there is always naked steel. Jon always keeps his wolf close so that isn't even really advice. He already knows he has to fear his enemies but all he can do with this warning is fear all of his allies too. The only reasonable conclusion that Jon can draw from this even if he took it as gospel is that it will take place outside or in an unheated place based on the frozen blood (and his stabbing scene had smoking/steaming blood not frozen.) This is no different than predicting someone in KL will be betrayed for gold and promises of power. There is nothing to actually act upon which is the defining characteristic of almost everything Mel tells Jon.

Mel's warnings serve the purpose of building tension in the plot as a build up to his stabbing so there is a natural impulse to connect those warnings to the stabbing. We never get a description of her vision of daggers if she actually had one and the visions that we are privy to in her own POV do not support a prediction of Jon being stabbed. She sees Jon surrounded by skulls but sees him becoming a wolf. He does not become a skull. Just prior to seeing Jon she saw skulls at what is commonly assumed to be Hardhome. It isn't unreasonable to think the skulls mean the same thing in both visions. The fires go out and only skulls remain. The fires going out seem to be death and the skulls seem to be wights or the skulls replacing the fires could mean the fires are life and the skulls are death. Jon is surrounded by skulls but limned by fire. Based on the metaphor of the previous vision the fire represents Jon being very much alive but surrounded by death (or wights.) The fire does not go out when she sees Jon and Jon does not become a skull like he becomes a wolf.

Additionally, Mel sees Bloodraven and Bran. We know she saw a girl and incorrectly identified her as Jon's sister. Here we see her getting an actual vision of Jon's brother but can't identify him despite the wolf's face and Jon becoming a wolf in her same flame gazing session. This has the effect of implying that Mel isn't seeing anything else here more accurately than she identifies Jon's siblings in her visions. It also sets up an implicit contrast between what Mel sees and knows compared to Bloodraven. Mel does not come out favorably in that contrast.

All Mel sees of Jon is that he is limned by fire, alternates between man and wolf, that he fades in and out as if concealed by a curtain, and he is surrounded by skulls. She doesn't see a giant, doesn't see smoking wounds, doesn't see spoons or numbers or anything we would associate with Marsh, doesn't see the Shield Hall, doesn't see Val, or Ser Patreck, or Selyse, or Ramsay, or Winterfell, anything in the Pink Letter or anything representing the pull of his family. So with regard to Mel seeing the specific danger to Jon of this stabbing incident, I don't see any evidence of it in the text of Mel's visions that we're privy to. If she did see something off screen, she never communicated it to Jon in any way that he could reasonably act upon.

[RoamingRonin]

Anybody think this is a vision of how the Others will break through the Wall?

In one of Jon’s chapters in AGoT the Wall is described as looking like a cliff. And in this quote it’s a great grey cliff.

I don’t know exactly what "wooden wall" may denote. If it is about the Others breaking through the Wall like I think it does perhaps it means part of the Wall is breached and a makeshift wall to cover the hole is made out of wooden material.

"Flaming arrows arced above a wooden wall." In the battle of the Fist of the First Men the NW tried combating the wights with fire arrows perhaps they'll try using the same tactics.

A hundred caves could just mean lit rooms in a building, or people taking shelter in parts of the Wall given that it’s higher ground and a possible defensive position against the whitewalkers. IMO the way I read the phrase means taking shelter in the underground tunnels of Castle Black. We've already been told that they are used during winter.

If the Others are destined to terrorize Westeros they have to come down someway. Maybe this is a vision of how.

What chapter/book is that quote from?

It's possible that the "wooden wall" is the Wall without its magic wards. Without the magic to hold it up, it becomes as useless as wooden wall...

[Tall-Talker]

What chapter/book is that quote from?

It's possible that the "wooden wall" is the Wall without its magic wards. Without the magic to hold it up, it becomes as useless as wooden wall...

I forget the page but it's the first Jon chapter at the Wall, when he breaks Grenn's wrist. It's also the chapter when he gets word that Bran woke up,. In the chapter the Wall is described as a blue-white cliff. If you consider the Others come out at night the Wall may look grey instead of blue-white.

[Tall-Talker]

Anybody think this is a vision of how the Others will break through the Wall?

In one of Jon’s chapters in AGoT the Wall is described as looking like a cliff. And in this quote it’s a great grey cliff.

I don’t know exactly what "wooden wall" may denote. If it is about the Others breaking through the Wall like I think it does perhaps it means part of the Wall is breached and a makeshift wall to cover the hole is made out of wooden material.

"Flaming arrows arced above a wooden wall." In the battle of the Fist of the First Men the NW tried combating the wights with fire arrows perhaps they'll try using the same tactics.

A hundred caves could just mean lit rooms in a building, or people taking shelter in parts of the Wall given that it’s higher ground and a possible defensive position against the whitewalkers. IMO the way I read the phrase means taking shelter in the underground tunnels of Castle Black. We've already been told that they are used during winter.

If the Others are destined to terrorize Westeros they have to come down someway. Maybe this is a vision of how.

Sorry when I wrote:

"And in this quote it’s a great grey cliff".

I meant in the Mel quote I cited above my post.

[Lady of Long Lake]

The books are not that complicated guys, sometimes things are exactly what they seem.Use your imagination and cut through the fog and you can see the real facts most of the time. Stop acting like it is written by nostradamus and every single word needs to be scrutinized and deciphered.

But.....sputtering.....it's FUN to analyze everything! Don't you want us to have any fun? :crying:

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I will reiterate my quote which no one seems to have a response to. I see these crazy stuff about skulls referencing weights and daggers in the dark referencing LF and scratching my head at the absurdity. Crack pot theories are already being mass dispelled by the new (and canon, GRRM approved) Iphon app info's that are coming out now so folks should STOP reading into every single line as a great mystery and a diversion. For one example we know for fact now that Rob named Jon his heir in the letter but because it wasn't explicitly said in the text at the time before the clarification some crazy theories poped up about who else might have been named with decent following. For another Jenye Westerling is confirmed (as the book hints at by a margin of 99%) NOT pregnant despite large crack pot theories saying the opposite. Same thing with Danny being fire resistant which is pretty much stated in the books where her head burns but she doesn't die but JUST BECAUSE it is not said out loud that she is fire resistant there has to be funny stuff going on.

The books are not that complicated guys, sometimes things are exactly what they seem.Use your imagination and cut through the fog and you can see the real facts most of the time. Stop acting like it is written by nostradamus and every single word needs to be scrutinized and deciphered.

Some folks just have too much time on their hands.

The books are incredibly rich and complex and, as a cursory glance at the Moments of Foreshadowing will show, GRRM does seem to include a lot of foreshadowing, layers of meaning, subtext and other nuggets of intel in his stories. Apart from the implication that anyone who analyzes theses books is wasting their time just being flat-out rude on its own, it also sells these books short by assuming that there's nothing to analyze. If you look at these books and are only capable of digesting what you're told at face value, not only are you selling yourself short, I also dare say that you're going to be quite shocked and/or disappointed in the end when the "flat-out" stuff ends up being a red herring and the subtle analysis ends up being correct. And how people choose to spend their time is no one's business but their own, and I'm pretty sure they don't need you judging them for it.

If you'd rather not participate, don't. I really don't care and from the looks of it you wouldn't contribute that much anyway. But snarking on others for doing it is uncalled for.

I'm not even going to touch the ridiculous "Dany is fireproof" nonsense. Fifty times is enough.

[DaveRoid]

The books are incredibly rich and complex and, as a cursory glance at the Moments of Foreshadowing will show, GRRM does seem to include a lot of foreshadowing, layers of meaning, subtext and other nuggets of intel in his stories. Apart from the implication that anyone who analyzes theses books is wasting their time just being flat-out rude on its own, it also sells these books short by assuming that there's nothing to analyze. If you look at these books and are only capable of digesting what you're told at face value, not only are you selling yourself short, I also dare say that you're going to be quite shocked and/or disappointed in the end when the "flat-out" stuff ends up being a red herring and the subtle analysis ends up being correct. And how people choose to spend their time is no one's business but their own, and I'm pretty sure they don't need you judging them for it.

If you'd rather not participate, don't. I really don't care and from the looks of it you wouldn't contribute that much anyway. But snarking on others for doing it is uncalled for.

I'm not even going to touch the ridiculous "Dany is fireproof" nonsense. Fifty times is enough.

I am all for rational to the point analysis of things that are strongly hinted in the text. For example the Jon Targaryan theories and yes the facts about Danny that are practically shouted out load. What I am not for is stuff like Rob naming theon for succession in his letter and things like that that have zero evidence in the text.

Folks that are here are here mostly for ever dwindling topics of discussion before the next books and what better way to continue it than ridiculous speculations? so enjoy the show.

Regardless someone has to keep the ignorance to a manageable level from time to time and I will contribute regardless of your wishes.

But.....sputtering.....it's FUN to analyze everything! Don't you want us to have any fun? :crying:

knock your self out my lady :crying:

I am sometimes to the point at the expense of fun lol.

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Folks, please direct criticism to the post and the topic and leave out the meta stuff about whether or not ideas are open to debate.

That goes for everyone.

[/MOD]

[The-Spiders-Little-Bird]

Rather like gazing into the Palantir. I think there's something to be said for her visions always being a misdirection. I believe the Red God will become a central element in the last books, and that he may, in fact, not be an alltogether benevolent force.

[evita mgfs]

I tend to think Martin is a strategic writer who spends great time developing his prose POV’s, employing many literary techniques deliberately and perhaps some subconsciously. The fact that he is writing a fantasy that takes place in a Middle Ages-like environment speaks to the fact that he must have a command of that time period in multiple regards in order to create a believable storyline, just as he admittedly incorporates elements of history and multiple mythologies in his work.

He may not be as James Joyce and write with a meticulous meanness, even using punctuation symbolically or deliberately, but he is like Fitzgerald, who enjoyed developing multiple motifs and language patterns for a variety of purposes, enriching his works with an element of scholastic appeal. Joyce wrote for the educated audience whereas Fitzgerald wrote for the popular audience, so Fitzgerald’s works are more accessible to a wider range of readers yet they are also deeply symbolic for those who wish to analyze and look for a deeper range of meaning.

In Gerard Beirne’s “Dear Deadbeat – A Literary Agony Column”, he addresses a “window” as a symbol in a literary work, yet what he says can apply to any symbol a writer employs:

“But what of the literary significance of the 'window'? Of course it acts as a metaphor. Remember if mentioned once the 'window' is an image, if mentioned more than once, it becomes a symbol.

So metaphor and symbolism. So much depends on the intent of the particular story. Windows provide a glimpse out into another world or a glimpse in. They separate with fragility one world from another. On a higher level they may separate chronos from kairos.”

http://deardeadbeat.blogspot.com/2007/07/windows-and-symbolism.html

So, my conclusion is that Martin is a master of metaphor, symbol, and motif, and he weaves them in his works fluidly. His works appeal to first time readers on one level, then further appeal to those readers who are looking for more scholarly fair as well.

Although I meant the above citing as applicable to Martin’s use of symbols as a whole in his works, it just so happens that Martin also employs the “window” symbolically, for Ned opens his windows in WF to look out at the stars and darkness as he considers accepting the office of Hand of the King. Arya does not wish to join Sansa in the wheelhouse for it has no windows, and Arya rejoices when she is permitted to leave the HoB&W as a new identity because it has no windows. [These are but a few of many windows, or lack there of, that have a symbolic significance in the novels.]

The window also connects to Mel’s visions in her flames – for Martin references “curtains” parting like during a stage show, and even some windows have “shades”, “blinds”, and “curtains”. So the staging area of Mel’s visions is like a “window”, for many theatrical stages are designed much like a window with side curtains, a valance, and even curtains as backdrops to hide scenery or stage settings for another scene. According to the wiki on stages, “Since the Italian Renaissance, the most common stage used in the West has been the proscenium stage which may also be referred to as a picture frame stage. The primary feature is a large opening known as the proscenium arch through which the audience views the performance.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_(theatre)