Jump to content

the trees have eyes

Members
  • Content count

    1,607
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About the trees have eyes

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,805 profile views
  1. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    Look, pal, if you keep jabbing at me I will jab back. If you breach certain norms of behaviour and make false accusations in public you will get called out for it. Saying you don't care is of little interest to me if your actions speak differently and your conduct is in bad faith: it calls for a response. If you could have taken your own advice we would have never got into this conversation. I invite you to do so and approach disagreement maturely. Hopefully that's not too hsyterical for you. I'm sure he's duly grateful. But easy on the insults, champ. Some yougsters find the easy route to deal with differing opinions and not getting their own way is to start name calling but I thought you were older. Whether you are banned or not (good heavens) depends on your conduct but if a discussion that doesn't go the way you want it to makes you dig your heels in and risk getting banned then it seems you don't take your own advice. You were talking about perspective a moment ago, remember? Good for you. I think. If your words could be taken at face value. I am sure you didn't miss the point where I told you I never contacted a mod so to see you reiterate it really sums up your m.o.: deliberate distortion, even pretence you did not hear what the other person said, in order to construct an argument you are comfortable tackling. It's dishonest but it's how you choose to behave. I guess it's all in where we're standing. I have debated in good faith but you choose to see it otherwise. But a word of advice in a non-hysterical and non-lecturing sort of way: don't interact the way you have with me or LB and then talk about being bullied, you haven't a leg to stand on. I can only take this as dishonest and deliberately malicious as you are repeating on a public forum an accusation I have said is not true. If only you had not put in that inflammatory edit I would quite happily have let this lie And you tell me to respect someone's request to leave them alone after you open it up all up again? That is hypocrisy. This is how you would like to think of it and I guess if that conceit makes you comfortable then go ahead and wallow in it but this is a public forum and everyone can make their own mind up about what is rational, supported or contradicted and what deserves further consideration. Like you said, we're talking about a work of fiction on the internet so get some perspective.
  2. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    You have a lot to say for someone who doesn't. Nonetheless, you should avoid false or malicious accusations. And when made aware of such the decent thing to do is retract or apologise....
  3. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    Wait a minute, you edited this didn't you, just when I thought you were prepared to let it go............ And your edit is defamatory and requires a rebuttal so: 1) I never contacted a moderator so you are plain wrong there in making a typically unfounded and inflammatory accusation. 2) All my opinions are derived from the text and do not directly contradict it. You may disagree but of course the rub is I found your arguments to be distortions, semantic obfuscations, supposition or attempts at distraction and to largely rely on an intrepretation of one character, Bloodraven, that rested on material outside the text 3) You made me repeat myself over and over so to allege that I required (but was not worthy of the respect of) repeated explanations is ironic and a glaring distortion Your conduct and insults are unpleasant and, however keen you may believe your comprehension is, simply portray you in a bad light. Having reread a lot of this thread since the dust has settled I found your treatment of Lady Blizzardborn for disagreeing with you to be appalling and you to have approached disagreement with her in the same way you did with me, in a patronising, insulting and aggressive manner that rests on the false belief in your superior understanding. I advised you to take a look in the mirror at how you have approached dsicussion in this thread and what you accuse others of and seeing your edit would advise you to do so again....
  4. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    Fair enough. I feel we could have got there sooner but there we are Fine. You don't have to debate me. I've ignored users periodically when I've found them exasperating for one reason or another. The function is there for a reason That on the other hand sounds accusatory but I won't bite. Good day to you
  5. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    I feel you still insist on disingenuous arguments and are really reduced to attempting semantic sleight of hand. Bran has no idea how to be a greenseer or what it means. We know this because he is a pov throughout the story and we have witnessed his journey, first learning to be a warg and then being taught as much as possible by Jojen before being taken to the cave, again by Jojen, to be under the tutelage of a far greater teacher. Yes, his blood gives him the potential but he has to learn, this is kind of the entire focus of his arc with the need to open his third eye and to travel to meet his tutor, an untrained apprentice can't do anything. At the moment he is a warg, now he is learning to be a greenseer. You understand all this but are raising empty objections for the sake of being argumentative. There is only so many times I am prepared to repeat myself. If you choose not to agree, fine, just say so and I'll accept that, but pretending you can't possibly fathom why the Children call Bloodraven the last greenseer, say because he has been the only remaining greenseer for the last 50 or so years, is plain silly. Particularly as I've siad it half a dozen (proably a lot more) times Not at all. My argument has remained the same throughout. You are wilfully misunderstanding here. This is not really an accusation you can make in good faith. Sorry, if you want uncritical acclaim start a fan group or a closed discussion group you can censor to your satisfaction. This is a public forum for discussing the author's work and I'll take part as I see fit. I have attempted to engage with you constructively and in good faith but have increasingly found your responses unreasonable and to deliberately misunderstand or misrepresent simple and clear points I make and I now doubt you are interested in discussion, just in quashing disagreement by whatever tactic first springs to mind and that increasingly to be disingenuous use of semantic arguments. I understand you have put a lot of thought and time into this theory but you have to be prepared to listen and engage in good faith with people who don't see the shapes in the shadows you do. My misconceptions? Well, fair enough, fire away. This shows either an ignorance of what i have consistently and repeatedly argued throughout this thread (that the child greenseers are no longer capable of independent action and have "gone into the tree") or, what I suspect, a deliberate attempt to distort my argument to allow you a quick rejoinder. This is bad faith on your part. And another semantic twist with Bran. He is starting to learn to be a greenseer but he has a long way to go yet. Our poor little eight year old Bran has to ask of the weirwood paste "will this make me a greenseer?", so little does he know! And yet you have seized on this as if it's a trump card to make the children's referral to Bloodraven as the last greenseer seem utterly beyond comprehension. It's not, it has a remarkably straightforward explanation, one you seem to find too "sheeple" I guess, but that's on you.... Fact or opinion? You have a negative opinion of Bloodraven and Cat, the former driving your rather incredible theory, the latter being something you kept banging on about despite it being off topic and almost entirely wrong in my opinion but you seem to like dangling the bait out to see if I'll bite. I keep saying I'm not interested. How about we leave it at that? The gracious thing to do would be to ignore this but I guess I'm not that gracious. Everything you say describes your approach to a T and I think you need to take a long look in the mirror and accept how you have approached this discussion rather than projecting what you are dong on to me. It must be comforting to make spurious arguments and employ the semantic tricks and disingenuous confusion you have while you absolve yourself of all those things and blame the other guy but it's not reality. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but you should always shoot straight and play fair because people respect that even if they don't agree or even get along. I take nothing away from the author's skill but I simply do not see the cave as a trap. That leads to a different intrepreation of pretty much everything, most pertinently whether the Children and Bloodraven are lying about everything (not in my opinion) or are genuine (just so in my opinion), and by extension whether there is anything particularly confusing about the moniker they give Bloodraven. I also don't find the English to be tricksy or ambiguous and find no issue with the "last" meaning the "last one left" / "the only remaining one" and not "the final one who can never be followed by another". Last does not have to and rarely does mean "final forever" in English. Anyone who has ever joined a queue will understand this well enough. All that may be untirely unnecessary explanation and besides the point but I'm explaining things I wouldn't ordinarily feel the need to at the moment. As to the paradox of time travel. Weeelllllllll.....there's thousands of years of human history and a million years of Children's history (allowing for Leaf's cavalier approach to mathematics) and I think we have been given an enormous cast of characters who have been shown again and again the importance of making their own choices, not blindly following a path so I'm uneasy both with the idea of recycling or blurring an earlier dark ages one with our own or in reducing any of our characters to puppets on leading strings. Equally I find the paradox of time travel to be too large and powerful a factor to introduce into a story of this complexity: why not change other things or fix his legs, why would the child greenseers not have changed their fate? The trees will grant visions but I think there will be a limited capacity to act through time - Bran may speak tree but all the other party will hear is the rustling of the leaves. As to reaching Theon: I read that as something he has done since reaching the cave and starting his training, not as something he would have had an inkling of how to do when he was merely a warg slipping Summer's skin and running with the wolves. I also think that his ability to speak to Theon is of huge importance (and will need to be throttled back in story to avoid becoming too powerful) but that it will not be something allowing him to change the past, merely to tap into the memories and visions that the weirnet acts as a repository of. Given Leaf (or maybe Jojen) says that a weirwood will not die of natural causes and will last effectively forever that is a huge racial memory and experience (both children and First Men) which coupled with skinchanging and vision and communication through the trees in the present will make him a hugely important actor. Please, not the "last" thing again . Bran has been on a path to become a greenseer since AGOT. Bloodraven will not be the "final one of all time" and I both doubt Bloodraven has any particualrly great significance - greenseers being exceptionally rare it was probably a last chicken in the shop kind of thing for the children - and agree that I expect Bran to be of far greater power. Otherwise Bloodraven would be the pov whose story we were following not Bran.
  6. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    Well if he is already a greenseer what is he doing in the cave? If he's already a greenseer he doesn't need any training does he? His blood gives him the potential to become a greenseer just like it gave him the potential to be a warg but he needed to form the bond with Summer and learn to slip his skin, and then he needed to be taught by Jojen and now by Bloodraven, he had to open his third eye and now he needs to learn how to see through the trees and all the rest of it. His entire arc is about his journey. So stop making ridiculous and disingenuous objections. This is absurd stuff
  7. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    We don't know when the Children started calling Bloodraven the last greenseer only that they refer to him that way in the current timeline. I don't see any merit in your objection or your attempt to make a twisted pretzel out of something straightforward. No there doesn't. It looks like you are caught up on the English language os seeing shapes in the shadows. No. He is a warg with some understanding of what that means who is embarking on the very first steps of his training to be a greenseer. He is nowhere near a greenseer yet, merely an apprentice starting out. You can't be serious with this. Only if you deliberately misunderstand it. When Bran turns up at the cave Bloodraven is and has been for some time the last greenseer. I understand you disagree but you surely must comprehend and to keep claiming it doesn't make sense and pretending bafflement is silly. Pure conjecture entirely unsupported by anything in the text and grounded in a stubborn insistence on denying the clear and simple meaning of "last greenseer". This is how any conspiracy theory starts: a refusal to accept a straightforward premise leads to adopting a wildly implausible one based on that refusal and a wrong fork in the decision tree leads down the rabbit hole. At one point they are warned about the dangers of the cave A Dance with Dragons - Bran III The caves were timeless, vast, silent. They were home to more than three score living singers and the bones of thousands dead, and extended far below the hollow hill. "Men should not go wandering in this place," Leaf warned them. "The river you hear is swift and black, and flows down and down to a sunless sea. And there are passages that go even deeper, bottomless pits and sudden shafts, forgotten ways that lead to the very center of the earth. Even my people have not explored them all, and we have lived here for a thousand thousand of your man-years." If you have ever been in a large cave system you'll know how dangerous it is, how easy to get lost in the dark or take a wrong turning. It's actually quite straightforward advice and both the Reeds explore as does Bran through Hodor. A Dance with Dragons - Bran III As Hodor he explored the caves. He found chambers full of bones, shafts that plunged deep into the earth, a place where the skeletons of gigantic bats hung upside down from the ceiling. He even crossed the slender stone bridge that arched over the abyss and discovered more passages and chambers on the far side. The Children warn them of the danger but make no attempt to stop them exploring so I think your implication that the children are hiding something is off the mark. I know you want to see deception and concealment here but there is no guard or friendly guardian who actually stops or tries to dissuade them. If you want to argue that the child greenseers gain immortality when they hook themselves into the weirnet and retain the capacity for independent action eternally then you have to ignore, not misinterpret, the explanation of the process from Leaf, Bloodraven and even Jojen, Leaf's talk of looming extinction and the description of Bloodraven as the last greenseer which you absolutely refuse to accept. If you simply want to argue that the other greenseers are still active despite what we are told and what we see then there's not much point in this as if the Children calling Bloodraven the last greenseer and explaining that even he is mostly gone into the tree isn't clear enough for you nothing will be. Yes indeed, and that is because Bloodraven, the last greenseer, is himself mostly gone into the tree. The others are further along and he is close to joining them. Not at all, you are deliberately inverting it's meaning as you tried to do with the port calling the kettle black. It makes no sense for Leaf to assist Bloodraven and tell them that he is lingering "for us", i.e., the children, if his aim is malevolent. Why would the children hook him into the weirnet and asssit him if he intended them harm? Clearly this is not what she is saying and you must know that. Because they call him the last greenseer . Because he is the only one we see talk or act. Because Bloodraven is the one who has been reaching out to Bran since AGOT not some child of the forest He is mostly gone into the tree. He is not far behind them. It's a difference of degree and not that great either. I wouldn't be surprised if Bloodraven becomes incapacitated in TWOW after or even during Bran's training (like Yoda passes on before Luke finishes his training). A flower respones to sunlight by opening it's petals and tracking the sun. That is a little short of the bar required for an intelligent, self-aware and communicative being to pass on arcane knowledge and monitor his student's progress. Come back to me when Bran and Hodor crash the annual greenseer party or debate the finer points of magic with one of them. Or when Bran asks the children and they say, "oh, yeah, we have loads of greenseers, we call Bloodraven the last greenseer for shit and giggles". This is disingenuous. I have explained any number of times that the state of the child greenseers who have been absorbed into the weirnet is anomalous and to debate whether they are in symbiosis with the tree or gradaully absorbed, or alive in some sense is pointless and that what matters is they have transformed to the extent that they have lost the ability for independent action as part of their journey into the tree as is explained to us by all of Jojen, Leaf and Bloodraven. For you to pretend confusion after all the times I have stated or restated this cannot be an argument in good faith. Did they do anything a plant couldn't? Did any of them look capable of training Bran? A Dance with Dragons - Bran III One was full of singers, enthroned like Brynden in nests of weirwood roots that wove under and through and around their bodies. Most of them looked dead to him, but as he crossed in front of them their eyes would open and follow the light of his torch, and one of them opened and closed a wrinkled mouth as if he were trying to speak. That's the sum of it. Flowers tracking the sun. One who opened his mouth as if trying to speak but did he? No, he wasn't able to. It's simple enough unless you are inexplicably perplexed by why the children call Bloodraven the last greenseer. Well, yes, that is what she means and it's what she says and explains. She didn't learn the Common tongue to chat with Meera, she learned it "for him". LOL. Ok, I'll grant you that. Is your serious contention that Leaf means she was born in the time of the likely mythical and never existed dragon Urrax or are you just keen on scoring a point? Do you have nothing else to do with your life? I have said repeatedly I am not interested in rehashing the catnapping but you seem determined to open a whole new shitstorm with contentious and ignorant assertions. Blaming Cat for the Wot5K, it's like being stuck with "that guy" on a long bus trip. Give it a rest.......
  8. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    Well, you wanted quotes so... A Dance with Dragons - Bran III The last greenseer, the singers called him, but in Bran's dreams he was still a three-eyed crow. When Meera Reed had asked him his true name, he made a ghastly sound that might have been a chuckle. "I wore many names when I was quick, but even I once had a mother, and the name she gave me at her breast was Brynden." I wonder why this might be if the other greenseers are active? It simply doesn't make sense. Given Bran and Hodor can and do explore the cave and find other throned singers it would be an odd lie to tell if it was so easily found out. Unless of course, those guys are so far absorbed into the tree that they no longer function independently. And then we see the process and have it explained to us A Dance with Dragons - Bran III "Your uncle may have been named for me. Some are, still. Not so many as before. Men forget. Only the trees remember." His voice was so soft that Bran had to strain to hear. "Most of him has gone into the tree," explained the singer Meera called Leaf. "He has lived beyond his mortal span, and yet he lingers. For us, for you, for the realms of men. Only a little strength remains in his flesh. He has a thousand eyes and one, but there is much to watch. One day you will know." We can agree that most of Bloodraven has gone into the tree, I hope. And he lingers for a reason, for the children, for Bran, for the realms of men. As to the other greenseers and how active / independent they might be: A Dance with Dragons - Bran III "Only one man in a thousand is born a skinchanger," Lord Brynden said one day, after Bran had learned to fly, "and only one skinchanger in a thousand can be a greenseer." "I thought the greenseers were the wizards of the children," Bran said. "The singers, I mean." "In a sense. Those you call the children of the forest have eyes as golden as the sun, but once in a great while one is born amongst them with eyes as red as blood, or green as the moss on a tree in the heart of the forest. By these signs do the gods mark those they have chosen to receive the gift. The chosen ones are not robust, and their quick years upon the earth are few, for every song must have its balance. But once inside the wood they linger long indeed. A thousand eyes, a hundred skins, wisdom deep as the roots of ancient trees. Greenseers." So, allowing for some mathematical inaccuracy, one in a million is a greenseer and their lives are shorter than normal except they can be preserved in the weirnet. To what extent they are alive or not once absorbed, or retain independent action once absorbed into the Godhood, or during the process of absorption, seems where we are disagreeing. Bloodraven is called the last greenseer by the Children and even he is mostly gone into the tree, only a little strength remaining in the flesh, hence his inability to move and the faintness of his voice. The child greenseers, who have been enthroned for much longer, are fully or almost fully absorbed and part of the godhood and incapable of independent action. That is the way I read the description of the greenseers in the cave, the explanation from the Children and Bloodraven as to how the process works, their story of dwindling numbers leading to extinction and their referrence to Bloodraven as the last greenseer. Ignoring or discounting what the Children tell us - particularly as it dovetails with what we see in the cave - seems to me the wishing away of inconvenient information. It's not at all. She is replying to Meera, who does not speak the True Tongue, and nor do any of Jojen, Hodor and Bran yet she states clearly that it is "for him, for Bran". You must realise that explaining she is speaking Common for the benefit of people who don't speak her langauge is a redundant explanation and would only make sense if Meera, Jojen and Hodor spoke the True Tongue but Leaf had to speak Common for poor ignorant Bran. And she doesn't...She explains how, where and why she learned Common all as part of one statement that begins with "for him", not "for you". I think you understand what her reply to Meera signifies but are trying hard to discount it. It's the only meaning we can take from it without being confused and speculating about dragons in primordial Westeros As they have no place in any of the myths or old wives tales of Westeros and are universally understood to have arrived with Aegon the Conqueror I think the meaning is clear. If you are insisting on a calendar date you can keep this open for as long as you wish but there is only one explanation that we can come up with that fits. She is the Lady of Winterfell, she has been told by credible sources who owned the attempted murder weapon and she has grounds to make an arrest. The catnapping is just one incident on the path to war and the Starks and Lannisters were heading for conflict regardless. I really don't want to waste any more time and energy on the catnapping, it's like groundhog day and we've gone back a decade here.
  9. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    This is absurd. Be mature enough to disagree without being angry or insulting. I have laboured over the beyond obvious point about the capacity of the throned singers to do anything as we see the gradual stages of decay from the most recent, Bloodraven, to those who are nothing but bones. This is clear. The only one who speaks or acts is Bloodraven. If they are alive and active then Leaf can translate into Common for them and we can dispense with Bloodraven entirely. Except we can't because, well, they can't, and so we need him as Bran's tutor. You offer no explanation for the need for Bloodraven and Bran's involvement in the Children's plans just loudly and repeatedly insist there are competent Child greenseers popping out of the woodwork all over the place while there are oodles more chilling on the Isle of Faces while Leaf tells us they are dying out and you accuse me of trolling? They don't have any left who are able to act, hence Bloodraven's tag as the last greeneseer, I don't know why this would be so perplexing to you except you are too closely attached to your theory to be objective. I mentioned Benjen's disappearance for the obvious reason you quoted the world book as saying Bloodraven was a member of the NW for some 19 years before disappearing and yet you leaped to the unsupported assertion that he abandoned his post. I'll even give you your quote back: " Ser Brynden Rivers set sail for the Wall late in the year of 233 AC..... Bloodraven would rise to become Lord Commander of the Night's Watch in 239 AC, serving until his disappearance during a ranging beyond the Wall in 252 AC. " Disappeared during a ranging after 19 years service, hey? Eerily similar to Benjen Stark I would say. Can't fathom why I would point out that disappearing during a ranging doesn't mean you abandoned your duty? Or mention the disappearance of the First Ranger while you are raising that of the Lord Commander? Clearly you think Benjen deserted or you're just prepared to apply a double standard to blacken Bloodraven in furtherance of your argument. I don't mean to be rude, so forgive me if I am here but are you a native English speaker? Leaf is speaking to Meera, Jojen, Bran and Hodor and is replying to Meera when she explains that she speaks the Common Tongue "for him. For the Bran boy". Then she explains where and how she learned. She is not explaining she learned Common so she could chat with human visitors who just happened to drop in on a buried cave an almost unreachable distance north of the Wall. She doesn't say "for you. For our human visitors", her meaning is far greater and far more specific in that she learned to be able to talk with Bran in furtherance of their plans or visions or however you choose to phrase it. I think Leaf tells us roughly when she was born clearly enough. If she walked the realms of men for several hundred years she would know exactly how the 7K were united by Aegon the Conqueror and what "in the time of the dragon" meant in common parlance. I really don't see a reason to doubt this information, she's clearly conveying information in a way she thinks will be understood by our small party and by the reader alike. And God help us, Cat did not start any civil war or abuse any power. She was told by the Minister of Finance in the presence of the Head of MI5 that the dagger used in the assasination attempt on her son and in her wounding was owned by Tyrion which led her to arrest him pending trial. I have zero appetite for a pointless debate on this but would suggest your read the Catnapping thread by Butterbumps which was the best discussion I remember on this forum. Equating arrest on reasonable grounds with execution or murder based on realpolitik is not a good comparison to make. And what's this about friends? I guess you have it in for introverts then
  10. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    For the love of God man, discuss reasonably not with the salami slicer approach to chopping a train of thought into pieces and pretending you don't understand or reject a part of it in isolation. Now that's off my chest....... Well, to repeat myself, none of this makes Bloodraven a monster, merely a man undergoing a magical / inexplicable transformative process, or if you're quibbling over semantics, it doesn't make him an evil monster any more than Beric or Dany's dragons. There's only so many times I'm interested in making the same point and you must surely acknowledge your argument is speculative interpretation not something you can treat as fact. Quite clearly he's a man rooted in a cave and whether he's a grisly talking corpse that unsettles eight year old Bran or your projection of the Night King is up to the reader's interpretation right now. Except we don't know anything about Bloodraven in story. Your conclusions are based on extra-textual material which added some texture as all the companion novesl do but nothing is included in story for us to take note of. If GRRM wanted us to, he would. The fact that he doesn't diminishes the importance of who this guy was as a man because it's irrelevant, he's just the other human greenseer GRRM needed to be the bridge between Bran and the weirnet - except in the trap scenario you have tried to shoehorn into the story from the start. This being GRRM and not JRRT he's no Gandalf making fireworks to delight the Hobbit children but (like Mel or Mirri Maz Duur) he's GRRM's take on a wizard, and GRRM's magic is darker and costlier than JRRT's. And again, your interpretaion of Bloodraven (which I'll say again is not universally accepted) seems to colour your interpretation of the weirnet and the weirwood magic. I wonder if you subscribe to Jojenpaste and other macabre theories. Try and put aside your view of Bloodraven and look at everything we see of the children / weirwood magic in ADWD and I imagine you'll see it differently. I understand this is your interpretation I just don't happen to agree. I well remember. Could it be another example of letting personal feelings towards a character skew your assessment of what is happening? Bran's arc begins with his fall very early on in AGOT. The arrival of the Reeds, the begining of his training with Jojen and the journey north all take place long before the character was invented and you don't think that's relevant even though you argue Bloodraven has been luring Bran off course and duping everyone throughout? It's far more likely GRRM put an easter egg in so people who read the side novels could pick up on who the three eyed crow is and understand where Bloodraven went when he left the Wall. In story he is the bridge between a human child and the magic of the Children of The Forest, who he was before is irrelevant, just an easter egg for some to find. Old Nan, gone but not forgotten. RIP Story teller to small children par excellence! Much like the reader then I'm glad you agree though, weirdly, your whole argument rests on the reader understanding that Bloodraven is a bad dude, something only to be garnered (if it is to be) from those side novels. And JRRT never published the Silmarilion, which together with Unfinished Tales and The Book of Lost Tales and other fragments published by Christopher Tolkien after his father's death were different stories from a different age, which hardly contain the key to spotting a signficant plot development in TLOTR before the author deigned to explain who Sauron was on page. And yet Jojen seemed intent from the start on what his role was with Bran and what he needed to do to get Bran to his teacher. That doesn't change with the Sack of Winterfell, the sack is actually a necessary precondition as the journey would never have been possible without it. "Say, Ser Rodrik, I need to go north of the Wall to learn to be a greenseer, is that ok?" "You must be the Stark in Winterfell Prince Bran".... Of course he didn't but the main arcs were planned in broad strokes otherewise there would be no story at all. But I don't agree that the trap you see is woven into Bran's story from the start. It would be interesting to know when you decided on this and whether you believed it so before you came upon the character of Bloodraven in a side novel... Ugh. In a thread that has dealt with elitism and the general disdain the author may (he doesn't) have for his readership and whether he writes for the few cognoscenti rather than the unwashed masses it's really not nice to come across this sort of dismissive assessment of people who hold different opinions. All possible interpertations but none of them has finished his story yet so it's speculative until the author inks it in. Clearly Jaime and Theon's actions are shown and explained in story while Bloodraven's are not, and thus unknown and quite possibly irrelevant as we have not been asked to pay any attention to them. I had to go and make a cup of tea before this next bit................... You are being deliberately obtuse. Bran, Jojen and Meera explore the cave. They find plenty of guys rooted in trees who have clearly been there a long, long, time, some are merely bones, some appear dead but react to the torchlight. None attempt to communicate or appear to be capable of communication as they appear to have been absorbed into the weirnet over time. As I have said repeatedly, and you really cannot have missed this, whether they are alive or dead or somewhere in between does not matter, whether they retain a shred of consciousness or self-awareness or are completely absorbed into the weirnet does not matter, what matters is that their time has effectively passed and only Bloodraven remains as a greenseer capable of acting, hence "the last greenseer" tag. It's not cryptic, it's not hard to follow and I don't know why you persist in trying to muddy the waters or pretend confusion here. Bloodraven is only rooted in the cave because the Children allowed him to be. In all probability they guided and trained him. If there were other child greenseers they would have no need to do this. However, it appears a child greenseer saw something that prompted the Children to send Leaf to learn the Common Tongue and look for a human child, for Bran as it happens, perhaps she also found Bloodraven himself (?) and later the children enthroned Bloodraven as their own greenseers were passing on and he in turn found and summoned Bran. Too crazy for you? What the Children want is unclear but it is indeed unlikley they have any particular interest in preserving the realms of men per se, more likely they want to preserve the weirnet to keep alive the memories of the dreamers so even if they die out something remains. And yet you can't dismiss the ambiguous relationship between humanity and the Children for all the conflict either: The First Men adopted the Old Gods, The Order of the Green Men was established to protect the weirwoods, those with first men blood can be greenseers, Sam found records of the Nights Watch trading with the Chidren, not to mention the The Last Hero went looking for the Children in extremis and whatever happened the Others were contained and both humanity and the Children survived. So First Men and Children share the same gods and have a history of cooperation and here we are in the cave, Children and First Men working together agaisnt something glimpsed in the Heart of Winter while the Others rise.... A Dance with Dragons - Bran III "Where are the rest of you?" Bran asked Leaf, once. "Gone down into the earth," she answered. "Into the stones, into the trees. Before the First Men came all this land that you call Westeros was home to us, yet even in those days we were few. The gods gave us long lives but not great numbers, lest we overrun the world as deer will overrun a wood where there are no wolves to hunt them. That was in the dawn of days, when our sun was rising. Now it sinks, and this is our long dwindling. The giants are almost gone as well, they who were our bane and our brothers. The great lions of the western hills have been slain, the unicorns are all but gone, the mammoths down to a few hundred. The direwolves will outlast us all, but their time will come as well. In the world that men have made, there is no room for them, or us." She seemed sad when she said it, and that made Bran sad as well That seems pretty unambiguous. The inference is that there are no child greenseers left among the small remaining population, those in the cave passing on (as I said before), hence teh need for Bloodraven and Bran to be co-opted into the weirnet. You can dismiss this if you want but I would like a good counter-explanation for why Bloodraven was guided to the cave and accepted and why we see no active child greenseers all while Leaf talks about their looming extinction. Bran was shown something in the Heart of Winter, his powers were unwoken and untrained at this point in the story. The entire point of his arc is to be trained to oppose it in some way. The only place you differ is in arguing that he has been hijacked. Now that I don't buy. Jojen is remarkably clear on his role in guiding Bran to his tutor and remarkably determiend to undertake such a journey. And Meera does nothing to talk him out of it. They know what they need to do. Why Howland is so zen about it is a mystery but given his visit to the Isle of Faces he may know more than we do about what is going on. It is what the author shows us in the cave. That is fact. You can invent objections like they have not fully explored the cave so there could be more active greenseers or that the dreamers they find are fully compos mentis just taking a trip but this is not what the author shows us. And you have not tried to explain the children's interest in two humans if the weirnet is fully supplied and active child greenseers are leading the children. #Irony given your argument.... Explain then why Leaf tells us the children are facing inevitable extinction and the only greenseer we find active is a human plugged into the weirnet within the last hundred or so years. Why talk of extinction and then say she learned the common tongue to be able to communicate with Bran? You are ignoring the evidence from the text and treating a logical and supported argument as an asumption. That seems rather silly. I think you'll find it's not. We have not stepped foot on The Isle of Faces in story and there is no evidence there are any Children there. Howland visited the Isle to seek out the Order of the Green Men but we know nothing of this and it's quite possible he only found First Men descendents continuing their traditions. I certainly hoped we would visit the Isle and find lots of children but GRRM sent us north of the wall instead and Leaf seems to have dampened hopes for a Child sanctuary or metropolis hidden away there. You can hope but you can't point to the text to back up any claim of such. Don't be snide. If GRRM had wanted to have children on the Isle of Faces there was a simple way to incorporate them in story. Illustrating that is the purpose of my "silly hypothetical". Your pure conjecture that the Children had political divisions and were divided into factions has absolutely no basis in story. I'm sure you know but the more assumptions you make the weaker your argument looks and you are making nothing but assumptions here. You are being deliberately obtuse again. It is what the author shows us in the cave, the dreamers in the dark, barely moving an eyelid when Bran and co march through, the bones in the cave further down where they have entirely withered away. How long do you think they live? If you want to argue they are effectively immortal we'll have to agree to disagree. If you want to argue that Leaf wandered the realms of men for several hundred years but that she may have been looking for Bran the Builder (10,000 years ago right after the Long Night) rather than our Bran but that she was actually Nettles in disguise (some hundred or so years ago) then your argument doesn't stack up and you are just raising objections piecemeal for the sake of it. She actually tells us she was born in the time of the dragon so she is about 300 years old give or take. You do understand what I mean as I have repeated the argument a number of times. You may not agree but you do understand and are just being difficult. Or you want to bore me out of the discussion by making me repeat myself ad infinitum, a questionable tactic but often an effective one.... Well, if Old Nan can be immortal I guess it must be a slam dunk for you that the children are immortal. I hate to break it to you but Old Nan blurs the Brans together because she is very old and that is what happens to memory as you age. Leaf on the other hand, nowever old she may be for one of the children, is in perfect possession of her faculties and memories and you can try a bit of sleight of hand to make it look like she doesn't know which Bran she is talking about but she is very clear that it's the one in front of her: "for him". The him has to be present for that statement to make any sense. The planning very clearly involves Leaf going and learning the Common Tongue. Like she tells us. So she can assist Bran in his training. Bran's training has barely begun so it's a little early to drop too much in his eight year old crippled lap at the moment but that doesn't mean there isn't a plan and that co-opting Bloodraven is not part of it. That's what the hell I'm talking about. What are you confused about? And make your mind up! Either Leaf went looking for Brandon the Builder right after the Long Night (a bit early to be expecting the Others back surely?) or she went looking for our Bran a hundred years ago. I'm sure she would know if she had been sent out right after the Long Night or last century. Or you think there is a Leaf every couple of centuries as each greenseer thinks now is the time? Or you could just accept her word but that's too straightforward I suppose. QED. You know very well that I am proving her words relate to learning the Common Tongue in order to be able to communcate with Bran but seem determined to make me explain it once again in ever more painstaking detail. Your argument that she means she is merely speaking Common now so that Bran can understand her (and not that she learned Common to be able to communicate with him) is false as she is speaking to all of Meera, Jojen, Hodor and Bran and is replying to Meera but says it is "for him". She continues with an explanation of what she was doing and it is all one speech. She wandered because she was looking for him and she would have kept looking for him but she grew tired and homesick and turned for home. Wrong child for the job clearly, no staying power.... Well I have no idea who Nettles is as she does not appear in ASOIAF but of course I have seen references on this forum. As to what you think she was doing and what she returned with that is purely speculative. What she is doing now, on the other hand, is what she tells us she was sent to do (or at least part of it), to learn the Common Tongue to be able to talk with Bran. She was born in the time of the dragon, she was chosen to walk the realms of men, to listen and watch and learn the Common Tongue for Bran. And, nah, you can't. She says "for him" not "by him". If you want to pull some future Bran manipulating events shizzle then I'm gonna think you are grasping at straws. That thing about one assumption requiring another assumption to stand up not being the most convincing argument. As to the prophecy. Sure. That is exactly what she was sent out for, it's just the greenseer probably saw something different through the trees than others through the flames and so on. The Last Hero, Azor Ahai, an all-powerful greenseer, they're all different interpretaitons or magical / cultural / religious expressions of the same thing. Either way she got tired and gave up (!) but now Bran was sent to the cave by courier so it's all good. No, really? That's ok, so can I. But I am unconvinced for reasons stated. Bloodraven and the Children have ambiguity around them, I'll grant you, but Bran seems to be unwittingly replaying the role of the Last Hero to me, at least in outline if not in detail. I don't expect a rehash of a myth, just a different story grounded in the old one, and I hope he makes it out of the cave but I don't think it's a trap with evil intent behind it. And Old Nan is too much for me to swallow. Please do, this isn't a private debate and unless the thread is petering out, more voices freshen things up and change the paradigm - which has become rather stale. See, that's not really objective. He disappeared (so did Benjen Stark) and we have absolutely no reason to conclude he abandoned his post. Given we now know where he is and where he has been since I find it strange you would be so critical. The crime he committed involved sacrificing his personal honour for the good of the realm and earned him exile to the Wall. It is an entirely reasonable supposition that what he is doing is replacing his duty / oath to the NW with a more important duty for the Good of the Realm at the cost of being subsumed into a tree yet you are determnined to paint him as black as can be, a ghoulish figure who somehow managed to gain the children's assistance (why?) and hook himself into the weirnet to extend his lifespan and is now seeking to force his life essence into poor Bran's host body and presumably on again in time. Maybe, it could just be you are wrong about him.
  11. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    Why thank you. Given you are arguing Old Nan is something extraordinary I take that as a compliment in this topsy-turvy picture you are painting. I used monster in an explicit rejection of your argument that he is one. Magic =/= monster. Old Gods =/= monsters. Reanimated people =/= monsters, at least not in the classic or simple understanding that monsters are evil. Mindless zombies under the control of the Others, sure, but Beric was a protector and Catelyn is ambiguous. Magic has a price and its unsettling close up and Beric and Catelyn coming back from the dead is some pretty dark necromantic magic but it doesn't define them any more than the weirwood magic defines the children or Bloodraven. It's just the price to be paid. This doesn't mean what you want it to mean though. All the Stark children are wargs, none of them are monsters. Or if you prefer, they all are and most likely we need to throw Beric and Catelyn into the mix. What does that tell us about their role in the story or their aims? Nothing. You are using your conclusion as evidence for it. Case in point. Bloodraven is a grisly talking corpse, ipso facto. So, after being killed and reanimated six, seven (?) times, was Beric. Catelyn has mushrooms growing on her face. GRRM likes the macabre but I wouldn't judge the book by the cover which seems your central point about monsters. This is interesting taking it together. First up I argued that Bloodraven was not mentioned in story at all because I have no recollection of him being mentioned and clearly ascribed no significance to those mentions at all. On reread of ADWD I will likely notice any mention of him due to all these theories but having read AGOT, ACOK and ASOS at least three times and AFFC twice I genuinely do not remember him and only know who he is from this forum mentioning the side novels. So I do indeed think that GRRM could have and would have built up the figure more had he wanted us to pay any particular notice to him or draw any inferences from his back story and past behaviour but he has not which seems rather lazy or careless (and I think he is neither) if that is a smoking gun for Bran's arc and one of the major plot elements of the story. I absolutely do not think that writing a side novel half way through a major epic and expecting the readership to treat it as essential for a proper understanding of the main story is GRRM's intent or good storytelling. Quite the opposite in fact, though I note there are arguments over Bloodraven's character and aims and that your intrepretation of him is not universal (though of course it underpins your argument here). Second, if GRRM had not created the character until after the first three books were in print (this from you) to me argues against the idea that Bran has been hijacked as his path has been carefully laid out from the start and flowed naturally. It looks like you are blowing Bloodraven out of proportion and trying to reinterpret the novels to accommodate your particular view of him which I suppose is a necessary process once you head down a particular fork of the decision tree that says Bloodraven = Bad. I'm happy on the other fork of the tree until GRRM decides to introduce Bloodraven's back story into ASOIAF in a way I actually notice. And it makes his character as dark or malovelent as you claim. Oh, and if Jaime's arc (and to a lesser extent, Theon's) show that men who make awful choices cannot nonetheless make important decisions for the good of others involving some element of self sacrifice. Are you suggesting there might be dozens of active greenseers round the corner and after thousands of years the other Children aren't aware of them? Or that they know but are hiding them? If so why do they need Bloodraven or Bran? It's fairly clear that we are meant to understand that there are no active child greenseers, only Bloodraven. You may disagree but then we will have to agree to disagree on this. Whether the other greenseers are alive, symbiotic organisms or in some other inexplicable transformation into the weirnet is, as I said before, a fairly fruitless debate. The reaction to the torches suggests they are in some sense still alive but rolling an eye is about the smallest movement possible. And if they are capable of communication why do the other children need either Bloodraven or Bran? They can speak with Leaf and the other children just fine. But they are dying out, they tell Ban that themselves, and they needed Bloodraven and now Bran. For what is unclear, though since AGOT Bran was shown something north of the wall and Howland was happy enough to risk both his children to help him learn what he needs to. Bloodraven is the last greenseer and he needs to train Bran while he still can. Seems legit to me. It's what the author has shown us. It is what Leaf tells us. If there are other self aware and communicating child greenseers then they have no need of humans for their mysterious purposes. The Isle of Faces would be a good place to find other children and weirwood groves but despite the story taking us to the Riverlands and God's Eye we have seen no hint of them. Surely Bran could have gone to Court and been crippled by Jaime there and had his story arc take him to the Isle of Faces for training? The author has the final say however much sense this might make to us and he built (or grew) his weirwood nexus north of the wall. It doesn't matter how much self-awareness the enthroned children retain - a reasonable assumption would be a gradual decay (physical and mental) until absorption into the weirnet and becoming part of the godhood - and we can theorise endlessly, what matters is that there are none who are able to act, save a human, Bloodraven, who is reaching out to Bran. The others are too far gone or decayed away enitrely to nothing but bones over the millennia. I am not sure where I lost you as the fact that greenseers were always rare and the children dying out is factual and Leaf explains how and why she learned the common tongue (thanks to kiisedbyfire for providing the quote I was referencing). The evidence for the passing on or decline of the child greenseers comes from the cave and from their inclusion of humans in their weirnet. The only assumption is that the last child greenseer reached out to Bloodraven the way he has reached out to Bran but I don't know how else you want to explain how he ended up where he is. The fact that Leaf learned the common tongue in preparation for Bran means they have been planning for this for hundreds of years and planning for Bran since before Bloodraven entered into the reckoning which strongly argues agsinst him being the bogeyman just a character with a specific role in the plot. No. She is speaking the common tongue at that precise moment so all of Meera, Jojen, Bran and Hodor can understand her. It is Meera who she responds to so her meaning cannot be that she is speaking Common because everyone else would be happy conversing with her in the True Tongue but she has to speak Common "for him. The Bran boy". She learned Common so that when the time came she would be able to converse with "the Bran boy". I doubt whether the weirnet granted a greenseer a specific vision of Bran but it seems it granted a vision of a human boy they would need to be able to converse with and Leaf drew the short straw. As to spying how effective would she be at uncovering anything of use to the Children? She hardly blends in. Any intelligence garnered over two hundred years would have become obsolete before she returned home. Human politics wouldn't be of much interest once the Children had lost and been driven into isolation and decline and I'm not sure what she would have learned other than what they already knew: that men are plentiful, well-armed and warlike. It seems she went for the purpose she stated: to learn in order to be able to communicate and to look for something - and she would have been looking still if she had not got tired and homesick. The children are long lived but they are not immortal. She means our Barn, "for him", this Bran boy. And if Leaf had been looking for Bran ten thousand years ago I think you can rule out Bloodraven as the arch-manipulator. The text is the only thing really worth putting stock in though other posters - and particularly those who think differently but not too differently can be very worth listening to. Benjen Stark gets lots of mentions in the text too but whatever GRRM may have planned for him at one time I doubt we'll see him again. Gerion Lannister and Tysha get plenty of mentions too but I doubt we'll ever see them and if we do / did (Tysha as The Sailor's Wife) I don't think it will be of any great consequence. Hopefully we will find out indeed.
  12. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    None of which is within the story of ASOIAF. If GRRM wanted it to be pertinent to those reading the story he would include it in it. Most readers don't know who Bloodraven is and there are no stories Bran learned from Old Nan or his father about this marginal character. Lol, I hope you realise you are the one out on a limb here so please don't be smug or patronising. If you are going to be rooted in a cave you can't fear the dark, that's an unusual but necessary part of what is going on here. ........... The "assumptions" you rail agasint are the entirety of Bran's arc, supported by the Reeds, Leaf's story, Coldhands' role or entirely logical, e.g. how and why Bloodraven ended up in the tree . I'm following the text, you're bored with it and twisting it into something more pleasing to you. That's not ot the same thing....... As with any conspiracy theory you rely on everyone from Bran, Howland, Meera, Jojen to Sam being tricked and everyone they encounter from Bloodraven to Leaf, all the other children and Coldhands being in on it (and Old Nan somehow being or doing whatever caught your fancy). It's rather boring when you just replace one of the central plot elements with a gigantic conspiracy theory and really amounts to replacing the author's story with your own. My "assumptions" are about what the Stark children, including Bran, and Dany will do and that is vague and enitrely fluid but does involve Bran using his powers for the good of mankind. How astonishing a thought is that! Maybe you were but I was talking about magic and the price Bran might have to and Bloodraven has had to pay. You injected morality because your insertion of information about Bloodraven from outside the main story is essential to your argument but it has no bearing on the nature of the weirwood magic which is grisly to us but a neutral form of nature magic once you get past your initial revulsion. As Mirir Maz Duur would say "what is the value of life when all else is gone" [sic]. I don't think anyone would extend their life for the sake of it at that price because the quality of life isn't worth having. If on the other hand you were persuaded that there was a purpose in it and the purpose could only be fulfilled by a very few people, that you were one of if not the only one of those people, then you might accept the price. But I don't believe a person would awillingly accept it out of curiosity or attempt to cheat death when they can clearly see the fate of the other dreamers. There is no evidence that Bloodraven is immoral or evil, that the weirwood grove north of the wall is a trap and that Bloodraven is a monster trying to hijack Bran. The evidence points to Bloodraven being the last in a long line of greenseers rooted in the cave and that as the threat of the Others grows and his sentience dwindles he has reached out to Bran to pass on the torch. It is entirely your invention that either a) the cave is not what it seems and all the other dreamers were caught or b) Bloodraven is a break with the weirwood system in that he has made use of it only in order to hijack a second life in which case you have to wonder why the children are helping / serving him if the weirwood grove is about to break down or die (and not just in the short term i.e. why did Leaf come south several hundred years ago to learn the common tongue for "the Bran boy"?). If there are a number of greenseers and the others pass on then the one left is the last. That doesn't stop him from trying to train someone up. Honestly that is a pretty flimsy semantic objection. This is you projecting your ex-story view and information about Bloodraven into how you read about the weirwood magic and by extension the children. In story you don't have any reason to doubt his character or compare him with Tywin or Roose. GRRM has not put those flags in but you are reasoning off them nonetheless. Yes that is the point. Would you agree that the point is that one person is accusing another of behaviour they are in fact demonstrating and so have it thrown back at them? Why thank you. And talk about saying the same thing just with more words......Thank you for saying it back to me and commenting on my lack of undertanding. Pot kettle much? The obvious point is that Bloodraven found something more important to do but as it was in direct contradiction of his NW oath (the prison you found so shallow an idea a moment ago) he was forced to go AWOL to carry out a need (or greater duty if you prefer) in contradiction to his oath. Bran has explored the cave through Hodor and so have the Reeds. Bloodraven is the only one who retains the power of speech and of any movement at all, beyond an eyelid opening. The extent to which the other dreamers are alive, symbiotically alive as part of the tree ecosystem or absorbed into the tree can be endlessly and pointlessly debated but Bloodraven is the only one who retains self-awareness and the capacity to communnicate and act. Only one in a thousand has green dreams and only one in a thousand of those becomes a greenseer. That's one in a million. The fact that the numbers of the children have dwindled to such an extent that they are no longer able to produce a greenseer of their own (and have not for a hundred / hundreds of years ) and have been forced to co-opt a human into the weirnet speaks of their long decline, something Leaf clearly references as she does in explaining why she learned to speak the common tongue (to be clear: they have been preparing for human greenseers in the weirnet for hundreds of years). LMAO. I understand you like your theory but come on: in story Old Nan is a woman who appears on page briefly to read stories to Bran and that is it. For you to say that it is "mindblowing" that anyone could not consider her relevant to the plot is pretty astonishing. Sure she is an infodump on scary old stories blurring into myth about the Night King or the Last Hero but that makes her role one of exposition to the reader not of plot significance in her own right. Clearly the show agreed. My bet is she has fulfilled the infodumps GRRM wanted us to have early on in the story but now Jon and Bran are at or north of The Wall we'll see it all through their povs and we don't need more of Old Nan's oral history / myth to set things up. And we haven't needed it (or her) since ACOK. Sorry but there it is.
  13. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    A guy in a cave telling a child who will remain in that cave for a long time not to be afraid of the dark is ok in my book. If you want to turn that into the start of a grooming process to turn him into an amoral instrument or the next Night King that is quite the stretch. So...yeah Is it? I don't mean save the world single handedly, he will have a part to play with the other Stark children and Dany. His entire arc is about being chosen to be taught to be the next (and only) greenseer. It's hammered home how important this is with the Reeds turning up to escort him all the way beyond The Wall to meet his teacher and the difficulty and the extreme danger of the journey, particularly for a crippled child. Immediately before Bran wakes from his coma he has a vision of what is waiting in the lands of always winter. You can explicitly reject all this if you want but it's pretty obvious thematically and in broad strokes if not in fine detail. We were talking about magic not morals and how it has a price, often a terrible one. If you want to argue magic is inherently evil I guess you can forge a chain at the Citadel but it exists in world and, like any other power, it is neutral and it's influence depends on what is in the heart of the wielder. In this case being entombed in a tree would be an act of self-sacrifice (rather like one of the Shannaran stories) and heroic not immoral or evil. The only evidence is that he is sat in a cave beneath a tree filled with the corpses of previous greenseers who, by the look of it, have been hooking themselves into this weirwood grove for thousands of years. My assumption is that it is a powerful nexus and Bloodraven had no more choice in his location than Bran did and was probably called there by the last greenseer just as he has called Bran. You seem to have some settled notions about Bloodraven and to be projecting that onto the whole weirwood / greenseer system GRRM finally shows us in ADWD. I think you are splitting hairs here. The saying is to point out that they are behaving in essentially the same way. This is the whole meaning. And Ghost is white yet Jon is not an agent of The Great Other. The albinism is striking but that's really all I get out of it. A white raven for winter? Ok. The Series is all about how oaths make a prison for men that often prevents them from doing what they should. Jaime has a lot to say on that and Jon's issues at Castle Black revolve around it. Given a choice between following Nights Watch vows and being just one more sword atop a wall or following a more dangerous and important path, apparently involving a significant sacrifice, Bloodraven seems to have made the latter choice. He is the only remaining sentient dreamer and he won't last much longer. Unless you think this is the golgotha of the greenseers and all those in the cave have been trapped here unwittingly Bloodraven appears as just another greenseer following the end of life path, however macabre that is, and he is no different to the rest. Um, wow, this really is in the eye of the beholder isn't it..... Because the other interpretation is Old Nan was just an old woman of no plot significance who told stories to the children and Bloodraven is Bran's teacher, exactly as he appears.
  14. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    Given Bran is going to have to stay in the cave for months / years / permanently isn't telling a child not to be afraid of the dark more reassuring than telling him to be afraid all the time? If the fate of greenseers is to be rooted then it certainly looks sinister having him tell Bran not to fear the dark but if that is the price of magic and Bran's path to save / role in saving mankind then it's pretty bleak but it's just how GRRM has set things up. This type of sacrifice (if that's what it is) is bound to make us uncomfortable given it's not a heroic / glorious charge on the battlefield, etc... but it doesn' make it evil, just the shitty end of the stick and no mistake. Which boils down to individual interpretation and preference, i.e. we are back to whether "the pot calling the kettle black" means the two are essentially the same (which to me they are and the point of the saying) or fundamentally different. I don't watch the show but the fact they made the change either means they are butchering the story for unspecifed reasons or there is no substantive plot relevance to the crow/raven distinction. This will be in the eye of the beholder.
  15. the trees have eyes

    The Three-Eyed-Crow is Old Nan, not Bloodraven

    The quote seems clear: "he has lived beyoned his mortal span" is saying he has lived longer than his normal life span "and yet he lingers" makes it unambiguously clear he is still alive. "For us, for you, for the realms of Men" is the reason he is lingering, the motivation for him to cling to life despite living longer than he should or ordinarily would. "Only a little strength remains in his flesh" indicates he doesn't have much time left but he is still there. If he was living a second life in the tree there would be no need for her to comment on the strength remaining in his flesh and that is a direct contradiction of a second life, it's still the magically / symbiotically elongated first life.
×