R + L = Lightbringer -- Updated with Part II

[Frey family reunion]

I'd agree with butterbumps in so far as saying you can't find one of the mythologies that GRRM is referencing and assume that GRRM is retelling the myth's story in his book (something that I'm probably often guilty of). The problem is that GRRM is often subverting the myth (or story) or he is referencing a number of mythologies with one of his characters or storylines, or he is only referencing a particular part of the mythological story as opposed to the whole story.

I do think these myths can provide clues as to Martin's endgame however, along with his own foreshadowings, and symbolism he's sprinkled throughout the book.

[butterbumps!]

I do think these myths can provide clues as to Martin's endgame however, along with his own foreshadowings, and symbolism he's sprinkled throughout the book.

Well, I'd argue the opposite, actually. I don't think anything borrowed can give us an endgame, precisely because Martin's filtering those seeds through his own framework such that they'll yield different logical conclusions to their beginnings.

But part of what I like about this essay, and the broader acknowledgement of Martin's borrowing seeds from other sources, is the meta critique about perspectives I think Martin's making here. Along the lines of how humans in the collective have archetypal notions of universal good and evil, and by extension, a notion of a universal hero (and his weapon) meant to overcome that evil, yet what's good and evil vary from group to group. The definitions of good and evil might be different, and the manifestations of this power struggle are flavored divergently, but it always comes back to this very core construct of good versus evil, i.e. "the only story" (yes, a Rust Cohle reference (heh). As it always comes back to this core struggle, every story is essentially the same, so finding cross parallels in each cultural manifestation of this is inevitable.

Instead of the parallels, it's the differences that matter-- those divergent manifestations that show us that despite the collective archetypal assumptions of good versus evil, good and evil is all a matter of perspective, and in this story, which is structurally nothing but a collection of perspectives, it's what different that's key in making that point. As in, everyone believes their concept of good and evil are universal; the kick here, and I think where Martin is going with this, is that there is no such thing as good and evil-- only power. (so, by extension, looking as these hero figures as anything more than figureheads representing certain interest groups might be falling into the very trap Martin seems to be critiquing.)

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Well, I'd argue the opposite, actually. I don't think anything borrowed can give us an endgame, precisely because Martin's filtering those seeds through his own framework such that they'll yield different logical conclusions to their beginnings.

But part of what I like about this essay, and the broader acknowledgement of Martin's borrowing seeds from other sources, is the meta critique about perspectives I think Martin's making here. Along the lines of how humans in the collective have archetypal notions of universal good and evil, and by extension, a notion of a universal hero (and his weapon) meant to overcome that evil, yet what's good and evil vary from group to group. The definitions of good and evil might be different, and the manifestations of this power struggle are flavored divergently, but it always comes back to this very core construct of good versus evil, i.e. "the only story" (yes, a Rust Cohle reference (heh). As it always comes back to this core struggle, every story is essentially the same, so finding cross parallels in each cultural manifestation of this is inevitable.

Instead of the parallels, it's the differences that matter-- those divergent manifestations that show us that despite the collective archetypal assumptions of good versus evil, good and evil is all a matter of perspective, and in this story, which is structurally nothing but a collection of perspectives, it's what different that's key in making that point. As in, everyone believes their concept of good and evil are universal; the kick here, and I think where Martin is going with this, is that there is no such thing as good and evil-- only power. (so, by extension, looking as these hero figures as anything more than figureheads representing certain interest groups might be falling into the very trap Martin seems to be critiquing.)

I love this comment; it gets to the essence of Martin's project, I think, and highlights a certain inevitable irony to any "parallel storylines" analysis we might make as readers. I'm not sure I agree with you entirely, Butterbumps, regarding the exclusive relevancy of Martin's "primary source" text - but I'd love to see further discussion and/or debate on the issue.

That said, my opinion - and take it as you will, since you don't know me from Adam - but with respect to Schmendrick, my opinion would be that such a conversation deserves its own thread. I doubt that Schmendrick would mind our using his theory as an example for reference, but I think you are pointing out a larger critique that is not directed at his theory in particular... so it might be unfair treat the issue in depth under his topic heading. (Just my two cents.)

[butterbumps!]

That said, my opinion - and take it as you will, since you don't know me from Adam - but with respect to Schmendrick, my opinion would be that such a conversation deserves its own thread. I doubt that Schmendrick would mind our using his theory as an example for reference, but I think you are pointing out a larger critique that is not directed at his theory in particular... so it might be unfair treat the issue in depth under his topic heading. (Just my two cents.)

I couldn't agree more with your opinion-- I was so tentative about how to approach a discussion about it here, because I don't have problems with the conclusions drawn from the OP's framework (just the framework), so I'd feel like a complete jerk to write something in disagreement that's in disagreement in the first place because the OP and I are prioritizing different questions/ methods. Especially because I'm not disagreeing with discussion that's happening here, but rather how to apply it-- I'd be fighting the hypothetical.

I'm not sure if I'm in a position to start that conversation myself anytime soon (limited time, and I'd been working on a completely unrelated thread), but I'd join the discussion if anyone else wanted to open it.

[Frey family reunion]

Well, I'd argue the opposite, actually. I don't think anything borrowed can give us an endgame, precisely because Martin's filtering those seeds through his own framework such that they'll yield different logical conclusions to their beginnings.

But part of what I like about this essay, and the broader acknowledgement of Martin's borrowing seeds from other sources, is the meta critique about perspectives I think Martin's making here. Along the lines of how humans in the collective have archetypal notions of universal good and evil, and by extension, a notion of a universal hero (and his weapon) meant to overcome that evil, yet what's good and evil vary from group to group. The definitions of good and evil might be different, and the manifestations of this power struggle are flavored divergently, but it always comes back to this very core construct of good versus evil, i.e. "the only story" (yes, a Rust Cohle reference (heh). As it always comes back to this core struggle, every story is essentially the same, so finding cross parallels in each cultural manifestation of this is inevitable.

Instead of the parallels, it's the differences that matter-- those divergent manifestations that show us that despite the collective archetypal assumptions of good versus evil, good and evil is all a matter of perspective, and in this story, which is structurally nothing but a collection of perspectives, it's what different that's key in making that point. As in, everyone believes their concept of good and evil are universal; the kick here, and I think where Martin is going with this, is that there is no such thing as good and evil-- only power. (so, by extension, looking as these hero figures as anything more than figureheads representing certain interest groups might be falling into the very trap Martin seems to be critiquing.)

I don't disagree with your analysis, but my point really isn't that Martin is using the blueprint of archetypal morality tales in the construction of his story. I agree that he is deviating from the good vs evil themes you see in most fantasy genres, to include a more realistic portrayal of the good and evil inside most people, and the idea that good intentions can lead to evil results, while an inherently evil action can sometimes lead to good results. But my own personal interest in the books isn't in how he is subverting the traditional morality tales of archetypal myths.

I'm much more interested in the books as a mystery story. And I also think that Martin writes these books much like a mystery (albeit an extremely long and complicated one). And I think his use of myths and literature ect. are being placed within the series (along with other repeating patterns, symbols ect.) as clues, so the reader can try and decipher the outcome of the various mysteries within the tale.

[The guy from the Vale]

Well, I'd argue the opposite, actually. I don't think anything borrowed can give us an endgame, precisely because Martin's filtering those seeds through his own framework such that they'll yield different logical conclusions to their beginnings.

But part of what I like about this essay, and the broader acknowledgement of Martin's borrowing seeds from other sources, is the meta critique about perspectives I think Martin's making here. Along the lines of how humans in the collective have archetypal notions of universal good and evil, and by extension, a notion of a universal hero (and his weapon) meant to overcome that evil, yet what's good and evil vary from group to group. The definitions of good and evil might be different, and the manifestations of this power struggle are flavored divergently, but it always comes back to this very core construct of good versus evil, i.e. "the only story" (yes, a Rust Cohle reference (heh). As it always comes back to this core struggle, every story is essentially the same, so finding cross parallels in each cultural manifestation of this is inevitable.

Instead of the parallels, it's the differences that matter-- those divergent manifestations that show us that despite the collective archetypal assumptions of good versus evil, good and evil is all a matter of perspective, and in this story, which is structurally nothing but a collection of perspectives, it's what different that's key in making that point. As in, everyone believes their concept of good and evil are universal; the kick here, and I think where Martin is going with this, is that there is no such thing as good and evil-- only power. (so, by extension, looking as these hero figures as anything more than figureheads representing certain interest groups might be falling into the very trap Martin seems to be critiquing.)

While I largely agree with your overall point, bumps, I feel the need to point out that power exists the same way good or evil do - inside our own heads. If there's no such thing as good or evil, there's no such thing as power either. Indeed, Varys' riddle makes this quite explicit, more explicit than the good v. evil part.

Still, I think that while the extratextual evidence Schmendrick has collected really amounts to nothing for the textual analysis, the textual evidence he has collected means that he's essentially on a good track - whether Lightbringer turns out to be Jon or the Watch, the idea of Lightbringer as a metaphorical weapon is strengthened by this analysis, mythology-mining notwithstanding.

[Jô Maltese]

While I largely agree with your overall point, bumps, I feel the need to point out that power exists the same way good or evil do - inside our own heads. If there's no such thing as good or evil, there's no such thing as power either. Indeed, Varys' riddle makes this quite explicit, more explicit than the good v. evil part.

Still, I think that while the extratextual evidence Schmendrick has collected really amounts to nothing for the textual analysis, the textual evidence he has collected means that he's essentially on a good track - whether Lightbringer turns out to be Jon or the Watch, the idea of Lightbringer as a metaphorical weapon is strengthened by this analysis, mythology-mining notwithstanding.

:agree: - Yep, hence my 'Dany as a possible Lightbringer comment' on part I, triggered by Schmendrick's excellent work.

[butterbumps!]

While I largely agree with your overall point, bumps, I feel the need to point out that power exists the same way good or evil do - inside our own heads. If there's no such thing as good or evil, there's no such thing as power either. Indeed, Varys' riddle makes this quite explicit, more explicit than the good v. evil part.

Still, I think that while the extratextual evidence Schmendrick has collected really amounts to nothing for the textual analysis, the textual evidence he has collected means that he's essentially on a good track - whether Lightbringer turns out to be Jon or the Watch, the idea of Lightbringer as a metaphorical weapon is strengthened by this analysis, mythology-mining notwithstanding.

I should have repeated the term "power struggle" there rather than "only power." I was trying to make the point of saying it's not really a fight between good and evil so much as an illustration of when sides compete for power-- I think that still stands. It's what both the game and the song are essentially about.

That particular post of mine wasn't meant to be a critique on the OP's essay though. I agree that the broader discussion of Lightbringer itself benefits from this analysis, and I applauded the research-- I'm not looking to stymy the discussion on it or anything.

[Onna Lewyys]

I'd agree with butterbumps in so far as saying you can't find one of the mythologies that GRRM is referencing and assume that GRRM is retelling the myth's story in his book (something that I'm probably often guilty of). The problem is that GRRM is often subverting the myth (or story) or he is referencing a number of mythologies with one of his characters or storylines, or he is only referencing a particular part of the mythological story as opposed to the whole story.

I do think these myths can provide clues as to Martin's endgame however, along with his own foreshadowings, and symbolism he's sprinkled throughout the book.

I agree with you. I think as long as a person isn't arguing for a literal one-to-one correlation, and as long as it is coupled with a lot of in-universe textual analysis, it can be illuminating to consider the influence of outside texts.

[Schmendrick]

Hi everyone. Sorry I've been silent lately. I've been traveling for work and haven't had much time to post. I can see that I have a lot of great posts to respond to. Unfortunately, it's going to be a few more days before I'm back home and have the time (and consistent internet access) to type up my responses.

Meanwhile, I did want to quickly throw out there that I don't mind at all if you'd like to expand on your theory/response/critique, butterbumps! I'm interested to read your thoughts. As it happens, I originally had a somewhat over-long passage at the beginning of the Mithras section in Part II, discussing the limited predictive value of that section. I cut it (along with a lot of other stuff) to shorten the section's length. My feeling is that extra-textual evidence (other than statements by George himself) is never enough on its own to support a theory related to the plot. And the value of extra-textual evidence is generally significantly less than the value of evidence that wholly resides within the four corners of the book where it's found. At the same time, though, I don't think that George is random or haphazard in his references to real-world myths and legends (with the exception of some one-off examples). It means something that he's repeatedly referencing Mithras "the light bringer" in Jon's chapters. On their own, these references aren't worth much, but when coupled with the textual support that forms the backbone of this theory, I think they become viable secondary pieces of evidence.

To put it another way, I'm not suggesting that any of the extra-textual evidence we've been discussing has any value at all as a primary source of evidence that, say, X will happen. Instead, I think that if there's enough textual evidence suggesting that X will happen (and admittedly, I haven't yet presented all of my textual evidence), then extra-textual evidence can fairly be used to support the textual evidence (and thus indirectly support the conclusion that X will, indeed, happen). Edit: So, for example, when I argue in Part III that Jon is one of the dragons that will be awakened from stone, I'll rely on the text to support my argument. But I'll also throw in a reminder that Mithras was born from a stone egg, because I think the repeated Mithraic references in Jon's chapters make that connection relevant.

My general rule, in presenting the case for Jon-as-Lightbringer, is to use a legal definition of "evidence." Anything that makes the proposition more likely than in its absence is fair game. I think the Mithras stuff (and the rest of the extra-textual evidence I use) makes the proposition that Jon is Lightbringer more likely than in its absence. But one of the reasons I've presented this theory in discreet sections is that I think the evidence is relatively modular. You could dismiss a whole section (or a large portion of it) and still buy into the overarching theory that Jon is Lightbringer. That will be even more true once I post Part III.

[The Penultimate Targaryen]

This theory was one of my favorites to read. Thanks, Schmendrick!

[Lady Arya's Song]

Schmendrick,

One of the absolutely best OP and threads I have ever read on this forum. Thank you for the detail and the time you have devoted to providing additional texts. I printed off everything, which ended up being 30 pages for my husband to read. We are such fans of this series and your threads deserved real paper. lol

I have wondered if the NW or Jon was lightbringer for a while and it was just a real delight to read your thread. Also a big thanks to others who added such insights.

One of the little bits of interesting detail added by Paper Waiver? If so thank you!

Jon making a hilt for his dragon glass dagger. A rather crude hilt made of hemp which if I remember correctly he thinks is ugly but it will serve. I immediately thought of one of the washerwomen (Frenya)? who had a hempen rope tied about her waist and was considered rather ugly by Theon however she was for sure serving Jon and Mance in trying to free Arya (Jeyne) I believe the last information we had was about her fighting six guardsmen as Theon and Jeyne were fleeing.

I also noticed that Tyrion is associated with hempen rope in many of his adventures. He pillows his head on a hempen rope on the Shy Maid. Another ugly person but being used by (BR?) to further the story and to perhaps help Lightbringer in the end. I agree that George has written this story so that various characters could end up being a hand or a help to a future king.

This has reminded me of Jon's conversation with Maester Aemon about tools ie men, made out of different metal but all are needed in their various ways to further the black brothers in their watch and also for the realm itself. Ugly and crude hempen rope but servicable still is needed to further the realm. I loved seeing that connection thanks Paperwaiver.

Also I really enjoyed your analysis of Kraken and dark flame lion and griffin and sun's son and mummer's dragon to the three attempts to forge lightbringer. Brilliant!

Looking forward to part III.

[Lady of Dragonstone]

Checking in on this thread to see if Part III has been uploaded -- I can't wait.

As an aside, I do like the point that butterbumps! made, and this is the kind of thinking I usually apply to theories that reference outside sources. I prefer textual foreshadowing instead of outsourced parallels, but this theory has several different sources of evidence material. Just superb.

[furiousmoose0]

Just checking in

[Han Snow]

Part 3?

Schmendrick?

*crickets*

[Onna Lewyys]

I'm going to reread the thread this weekend and see if there's something I want to discuss more while we wait for Part III (which better still be coming!).

[furiousmoose0]

I think our savante has abandoned us. Unfortunately real life takes priority to a forum....even one as great as this.

[Onna Lewyys]

:frown5:

I failed too. I'll try again tomorrow.

[furiousmoose0]

:frown5:

I failed too. I'll try again tomorrow.

Liked your re-read idea I'll do the same. We can reconvine tomorrow lol

[J. Stargaryen]

The sound of laughter made Viserys lift his eyes. “Khal Drogo,” he said thickly, his voice almost polite. “I’m here for the feast.” He staggered away from Ser Jorah, making to join the three khals on the high bench.

Khal Drogo rose, spat out a dozen words in Dothraki, faster than Dany could understand, and pointed. “Khal Drogo says your place is not on the high bench,” Ser Jorah translated for her brother. “Khal Drogo says your place is there.”

Viserys glanced where the khal was pointing. At the back of the long hall, in a corner by the wall, deep in shadow so better men would not need to look on them, sat the lowest of the low; raw unblooded boys, old men with clouded eyes and stiff joints, the dim-witted and the maimed. Far from the meat, and farther from honor. “That is no place for a king,” her brother declared.

- AGoT, Daenerys V

Recall where Jon was seated during the feast at Winterfell in Robert's honor.

A singer was playing the high harp and reciting a ballad, but down at this end of the hall his voice could scarcely be heard above the roar of the fire, the clangor of pewter plates and cups, and the low mutter of a hundred drunken conversations.

[...]

Ghost ripped into it in savage silence. His brothers and sisters had not been permitted to bring their wolves to the banquet, but there were more curs than Jon could count at this end of the hall, and no one had said a word about his pup.

[...]

“Don’t you usually eat at table with your brothers?”

“Most times,” Jon answered in a flat voice. “But tonight Lady Stark thought it might give insult to the royal family to seat a bastard among them.”

“I see.” His uncle glanced over his shoulder at the raised table at the far end of the hall. “My brother does not seem very festive tonight.”

- AGoT, Jon I

There are a few more parallels as well. Big feasts with important guests (Robert, etc., Khals Jommo and Ogo) in a lord/khal's hall.

• Jon and Viserys both had too much to drink.
• They both also cry;
• get laughed at;
• cause a scene;
• which in turn silences the previously loud feast.
• Oh, and they both "wrenched free" from someone's grasp.

A singer was playing the high harp and reciting a ballad, but down at this end of the hall his voice could scarcely be heard above the roar of the fire, the clangor of pewter plates and cups, and the low mutter of a hundred drunken conversations.

[...]

Jon had started drinking then, and he had not stopped.

[...]

Jon trembled. “I will never father a bastard,” he said carefully. “Never!” He spat it out like venom.

Suddenly he realized that the table had fallen silent, and they were all looking at him. He felt the tears begin to well behind his eyes. He pushed himself to his feet.

“I must be excused,” he said with the last of his dignity. He whirled and bolted before they could see him cry. He must have drunk more wine than he had realized. His feet got tangled under him as he tried to leave, and he lurched sideways into a serving girl and sent a flagon of spiced wine crashing to the floor. Laughter boomed all around him, and Jon felt hot tears on his cheeks. Someone tried to steady him. He wrenched free of their grip and ran, half-blind, for the door. Ghost followed close at his heels, out into the night.

- Jon

From the lurch in his step, she could tell at once that Viserys had found his wine…

[...]

“Where is my sister?” Viserys shouted, his voice thick with wine.

[...]

[Y]ou had only to look at him to know that he was drunk.

Ser Jorah went to him swiftly, whispered something in his ear, and took him by the arm, but Viserys wrenched free. “Keep your hands off me! No one touches the dragon without leave.”

[...]

Dany glanced anxiously up at the high bench. Khal Drogo was saying something to the other khals beside him. Khal Jommo grinned, and Khal Ogo began to guffaw loudly.

[...]

“Is place,” Khal Drogo answered, in the Common Tongue that Dany had taught him, “for Sorefoot King.” He clapped his hands together. “A cart! Bring cart for Khal Rhaggat!”

Five thousand Dothraki began to laugh and shout. Ser Jorah was standing beside Viserys, screaming in his ear, but the roar in the hall was so thunderous that Dany could not hear what he was saying. Her brother shouted back and the two men grappled, until Mormont knocked Viserys bodily to the floor.

Her brother drew his sword.

[...]

Viserys laughed. “They can’t kill us. They can’t shed blood here in the sacred city… but I can.” He laid the point of his sword between Daenerys’s breasts and slid it downward, over the curve of her belly. “I want what I came for,” he told her. “I want the crown he promised me. He bought you, but he never paid for you. Tell him I want what I bargained for, or I’m taking you back. You and the eggs both. He can keep his bloody foal. I’ll cut the bastard out and leave it for him.” The sword point pushed through her silks and pricked at her navel. Viserys was weeping, she saw; weeping and laughing, both at the same time, this man who had once been her brother.

[...]

It had grown so silent in the hall that she could hear the bells in Khal Drogo’s hair, chiming softly with each step he took.

- Viserys

And that's not all, because GRRM strengthens this connection further by having Viserys subtly reminding us of the ToJ. You might have noticed this in the 'green' quote.

He laid the point of his sword between Daenerys’s breasts and slid it downward, over the curve of her belly. “I want what I came for,” he told her. “I want the crown he promised me. He bought you, but he never paid for you. Tell him I want what I bargained for, or I’m taking you back. You and the eggs both. He can keep his bloody foal. I’ll cut the bastard out and leave it for him.”

Dany is a pregnant woman, like Lyanna was. Viserys wants what was "promised" to him, and "bastard."

Viserys smiled and lowered his sword. That was the saddest thing, the thing that tore at her afterward… the way he smiled. “That was all I wanted,” he said. “What was promised.”

Now compare that to Ned's recollection about his final moments with Lyanna.

“He could hear her still at times. Promise me, she had cried, in a room that smelled of blood and roses. Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister’s eyes. Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black.

- AGoT, Eddard I

All Lyanna wanted was for Ned to agree to her promise. Notice the similar phrasing: the way he smiled; the way she had smiled.

---

FYI, the colors used in these last two posts only correspond to each other; not with the 'color key' earlier in the post.