Heresy 75

[Black Crow]

Welcome to the latest edition of the thread which takes an unorthodox look at the Song of Ice and Fire, the secret conflict underlying the Game of Thrones. By any standards 75 iterations of a single thread amounting to some 30,000 posts has to be something of an achievement. Not everybody contributing at the present time has been here from the very beginning, but I have to thank all of you, including those I disagree with, for making this thread what it is.

We call it Heresy because we began back in November 2011 by challenging the orthodoxy that the Song of Ice and Fire is simply about Jon Snow turning out to be Azor Ahai and defeating the Others and that the children of the forest are the good guys. Instead as the story has progressed we have come to see a much darker world and that the Starks’ place in it may not be as straightforward as once it seemed as the world of Faerie moves closer to the realms of men. Instead we try to look below the surface at a second, far more complex conflict within those other realms which may have little or nothing to do with the struggle for the Iron Throne.

Some of us suspect that the children are not the cuddly tree-huggers they pretend to be, for the Pact agreed long ago on the Isle of Faces was a singularly one-sided one which saw the children surrender their lands and it saw them surrender their weapons, 100 pieces of dragonglass every year. And in the end Men still broke the Pact; by cutting down the weirwoods, slaughtering the children and driving the survivors beyond the Wall to face extinction.

There the weirwood faces of the white walkers in the HBO show may point to a connection with the children already admitted but not yet explained by GRRM, and now as Qhorin Halfhand warned, the Old Powers are awakening, the trees have eyes again - and Gendel’s children are always hungry.

The role of the Starks is therefore equally ambiguous. They were once kings not of the North but of Winter, and may be again in the person of Jon Snow.

And then of course there’s the Wall itself, which dominates the story and is apparently the magical hinge or boundary between the Realms of Men and the Otherlands beyond. It was raised and maintained by great and dark magic, and may well be the cause of the Long Night. Moreover it may originally have been built by the Children not to protect Westeros but the Otherlands. It is, according to Ygritte, made of blood. Perhaps then the Wall must come down to achieve a resolution of the conflict and restore the balance of the seasons and everything else, for to quote Janet Clouston: “Blood built it, Blood stopped the building of it, and Blood will bring it down”

This is the Song of Ice and Fire; and the Others and the rest of the Old Powers together represent only one side of a conflict that has been waged since time began.

All of these theories are just that and matters of controversy rather tenets of faith. We think we’re reaching a better understanding of what’s really going on, and recent discussion has been looking closely at whether there is more to the assassination attempt on Bran than meets the eye and whether there is a deeper significance to the differences between Jon’s direwolf and the others, but as heretics we neither promote nor defend a particular viewpoint, in fact we argue quite a lot which is what makes this thread cycle so much fun.

If you’re already actively involved in the Heresy business it needs no further introduction, but if you’re new to the game please don’t be intimidated by the fact there are 74 earlier threads. We’re very good at talking in circles. We’re also friendly and we don’t mind going over old ground again, especially with a fresh pair of eyes, so just ask.

All that we do ask of you as ever is that the debate be conducted by reference to the text, with respect for the ideas of others, and above all great good humour.

[King of Winters]

Carrying on one of my theories from 74:

I think the NW was made as a neutral party to defend the Wall against any men that wanted to break the [second] Pact and go beyond the Wall, and that the reason there's a Stark on the Wall is that the Kings in the North made deal with the white walkers that they would stay on their land, and to seal the deal they would make sure there's a Stark on the Wall to make sure nobody would break the Pact. And this could be where their other title "King of Winter" by making a pact with the white walkers, bringers of cold (winter).

[avernite]

I'm not sure that we have any real evidence of it being defended against "intrusion" from the north. There's certainly nothing as to the blue-eyed lot coming knocking and the usual fate of Wildling incursions seems to have been to get safely over the Wall but then defeated to the south of it.

What the Wall has very successfully done is prevent the large scale recolonisation of the lost kingdoms beyond it.

I still disagree with that last part; given the climate we have seen of the lands North of the Wall, it's fairly similar to northern Scandinavia or northern Canada (after all, Winterfell, which is half a continent south, has snow in summer; this would put the Wildlings in Greenland or Antarctica by the half-a-continent standard). That, all on its' own, is sufficient to keep any large scale recolonisations away. Especially when winter can take a few years.

It may be the Wall serves to bring the cold further south, but I don't think that's obvious; given the map of the world and its' climates as we know it, it's quite consistent for the lands of the north to be freezing cold.

[LynnS]

LynnS, on 06 Oct 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Oddly, the Ghost of High Heart tells Thoros and company about the Red Wedding. She tells him to check his fires and he will see the same thing. But not on her hill since the place is still strong with the old gods and his ability will be blocked.

Snowfyre Chorus said:
I had noticed that too, LynnS. Thought it was very telling.

*************************************

What does it mean that both the red lot and the children access the same source of information? And that Thoros fires won't be effective in close proximity to the weirwood stumps and that the red lot doesn't sleep because it gives access in a dream state to night terrors? Mel is different because the wall is a source or gate. Do you have to have one foot on either side of the wall to access the source.

[redriver]

LynnS, on 06 Oct 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Snowfyre Chorus said:

I had noticed that too, LynnS. Thought it was very telling.

*************************************

What does it mean that both the red lot and the children access the same source of information? And that Thoros fires won't be effective in close proximity to the weirwood stumps and that the red lot doesn't sleep because it gives access in a dream state to night terrors? Mel is different because the wall is a source or gate. Do you have to have one foot on either side of the wall to access the source.

They don't access the same source of information.Where in the name of Jaysus did you come up with that nonsense?

[Urrax]

They don't access the same source of information.Where in the name of Jaysus did you come up with that nonsense?

Well, I think the idea was that they can get the same information through their respective modes of access.

[redriver]

Well, I think the idea was that they can get the same information through their respective modes of access.

Perhaps,but the Ghost of High Heart tells Thoros that he won't be able to see her visions in his fires on High Heart because the old gods/weirwoods rule.His flames are useless there?

Edit-Was she wrong?

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Carrying on one of my theories from 74:

I think the NW was made as a neutral party to defend the Wall against any men that wanted to break the [second] Pact and go beyond the Wall, and that the reason there's a Stark on the Wall is that the Kings in the North made deal with the white walkers that they would stay on their land, and to seal the deal they would make sure there's a Stark on the Wall to make sure nobody would break the Pact. And this could be where their other title "King of Winter" by making a pact with the white walkers, bringers of cold (winter).

I have wondered in this general direction as well, though not in terms of the NW being neutral, per se.

Perhaps the original mission of the NW was not to guard against invasion from the north (after all, the Wall prevents that rather well), but instead to prevent human settlers from crossing the boundary from the south?

[Urrax]

Perhaps,but the Ghost of High Heart tells Thoros that he won't be able to see her visions in his fires on High Heart because the old gods/weirwoods rule.His flames are useless there?

Edit-Was she wrong?

Not wrong, it was as if she could get through to her contact because she used Verizon, whereas it was a dead spot for him and his AT&T.

[Urrax]

I have wondered in this general direction as well, though not in terms of the NW being neutral, per se.

Perhaps the original mission of the NW was not to guard against invasion from the north (after all, the Wall prevents that rather well), but instead to prevent human settlers from crossing the boundary from the south?

Can't see why anybody from the south would want to settle north of the Wall. They didn't even settle in the Gifts.

[LynnS]

They don't access the same source of information.Where in the name of Jaysus did you come up with that nonsense?

Poor choice of words... Let me rephrase. The Ghost of High Heart tells them about the red wedding. She tells Thoros that he can confirm that by checking his fires. She gets her intel from dreams and he gets his intel from fires. What is the source of the intel? Does it matter if someone tells you on the phone or if you view it through a telephoto lens? Who or what gives them access to the information? Does R'hllor send the visions? Does the Greenseer send the dreams? Are they antagonists? Are they one in the same?

She doesn't seem particularly disturbed by Thoros. But she is frightened by the smell of death around Arya and dark heart whomever that might be.

[Harlan]

Can't see why anybody from the south would want to settle north of the Wall. They didn't even settle in the Gifts.

The only reason people don't settle the gift is that the wall exists. Follow me here. The wall produces a division in people which resulted in two divergent cultures (wildlings and northerners). The Wildlings have a culture which encourages raids so they routinely go south of the wall to attack those who live just south of the wall. People don't like getting attacked so they abandon the gift. Hence, the gift isn't populated because the wall exists.

If the wall hadn't existed, there would be more people living in the gift and the kingdom of the north would likely have expanded farther north, potentially controlling all lands east of the frostfangs (including the lands of the haunted forest) Though this region which is very far north would likely be less populated than the region now reffered to as the north.

[King of Winters]

I have wondered in this general direction as well, though not in terms of the NW being neutral, per se.

Perhaps the original mission of the NW was not to guard against invasion from the north (after all, the Wall prevents that rather well), but instead to prevent human settlers from crossing the boundary from the south?

Well people can still climb over it if nobody is guarding the region of the Wall, so it would have had to have had guards (NW) guarding the Wall to make sure nobody tried to cross the Wall.

And other than the Wildlings' ancestors not wanting to kneel and going North, I can't see why anyone would want to go to the North, where it's cold, to an even colder place.

[Urrax]

...If the wall hadn't existed, there would be more people living in the gift and the kingdom of the north would likely have expanded farther north, potentially controlling all lands east of the frostfangs (including the lands of the haunted forest) Though this region which is very far north would likely be less populated than the region now reffered to as the north.

Fair enough. But on that theory it sounds as if the Wall was to protect the wildlings (and the Popsicles?) against the southerners. Doesn't the conventional explanation make more sense, that it was to defend against another invasion by the Popsicles, and it was built where it was because that was the narrowest place north of the Neck, thus unfortunately locking the wildlings out?

[jon rr stark]

Carrying on one of my theories from 74:

I think the NW was made as a neutral party to defend the Wall against any men that wanted to break the [second] Pact and go beyond the Wall, and that the reason there's a Stark on the Wall is that the Kings in the North made deal with the white walkers that they would stay on their land, and to seal the deal they would make sure there's a Stark on the Wall to make sure nobody would break the Pact. And this could be where their other title "King of Winter" by making a pact with the white walkers, bringers of cold (winter).

Yes the Stark on the wall must have a reason. one could be to ensure loyality of the NW as the starks were no doubt heavily involved in setting it up in the first place, or as a guarantor that men will stick to the 'new' pact. The one thing that could be trusted was a stark because the only thing in the north with real power is the starks. Also perhaps because the starks were the one thing both sides of the wall

[JonNonRegis]

I'm not sure that we have any real evidence of [the Wall] being defended against "intrusion" from the north.

• The Watch, which lives on the south side

• The 19 castles on the south side of the Wall

• The Black Gate, only accessible to the Watch

• The long history of the Watch fighting wildlings

• The oath of the Watch

• The ward in the Wall that prevents Coldhands from passing the Wall or, apparently, any wight -- and wights are known to have come from the north

Here is the list of evidence that the CotF defended the Wall against incursion from the south:

•

The contrast is striking.

I also point out, again, how peculiar it is the CotF would have spent thousands of years building the Wall, only apparently to ignore it, and not even migrate north of it.

[Black Crow]

The basic heretical theory on this one is that the lands beyond the wall were once upon a time more heavily populated than at present - hence the kingdom of the Thenns as far up north as you can go without falling off the edge of the world, the Fist of the First men, the graves up the Milkwater and the simple fact that the aforementioned Thenns wouldn't have needed to establish themselves so far north is the land to the south of them hadn't already been settled.

Then came the Long Night effectively wiping out everything north of the Neck (except the Thenns who got overlooked in their hidden valley), but leaving scattered survivors - broken men and women whose kings had died or deserted them. Over time what we now know as the North recovered to a degree under the Starks, but that recovery halted at the Wall.

[Black Crow]

• The Watch, which lives on the south side

• The 19 castles on the south side of the Wall

• The Black Gate, only accessible to the Watch

• The long history of the Watch fighting wildlings

• The oath of the Watch

• The ward in the Wall that prevents Coldhands from passing the Wall or, apparently, any wight -- and wights are known to have come from the north

Here is the list of evidence that the CotF defended the Wall against incursion from the south:

•

The contrast is striking.

I also point out, again, how peculiar it is the CotF would have spent thousands of years building the Wall, only apparently to ignore it, and not even migrate north of it.

That's not evidence of the Wall being defended against anybody. We have a Wall which is literally too high and too long to be defended properly and indeed we have not one story in the archives or in song of it being attacked. Mance is very much the first. The Wildlings simply try to get around, under or over it when the watch aren't looking.

Yes there are 19 castles along the southern side, but not all of them have been manned at the same time and the Night Fort is twice as old as the others. Now whether the Night Fort was there at the very beginning - or just the Black Gate - that's a long time for there to be no castles on the Wall. At the very least it implies that for half its existence there were no castles and presumably therefore no defenders.

Hence the heretical theory that in King Sherrit's time there was only the Night Fort, guarding the portal to the otherlands beyond, and that the Watch as we know it only took over the Wall after the Andals came, slaughtered the children and drove the survivors beyond the Wall, after cutting a deal with Stark of Winterfell.

[King Tyrion VIII]

That'll be the Blackwater rush...

Seriously though, I think the Blackwater GRRM may have had in mind was the one in County Armagh, where the English were defeated by Tyrone at the battle of the Yellow Ford.

Although there's obviously no direct connection it sounds a bit like Tywin's victory on the Green Fork of the Trident.

You could be right Ser.

[Urrax]

Let me see if I have the heretical order of events straight.

1. CotF live in Westeros.

2. First Men invade. Warfare ends with the Pact.

3. Popsicles appear, supported by wights. They build the Wall, magic used in its construction causes the Long Night, during which they march south as far as the Neck. When Wall completed, they go back north of it (perhaps driven by Azor Ahai etc.) and are not seen again.

4. Andals invade, war with First Men and CotF, burn weirwoods, establish Seven Kingdoms. CotF retreat north of the Wall, Night's Watch organized to hold them, wildings, Popsicles back.