ren-butt Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 In light of the latest episode of the season, some astute readers and internet sleuths have noticed a correlation between some older synopses/reviews of A Game of Thrones and the revelation that the Others can turn human babies. It turns out that early reviews seem to use the word "Neverborn" rather than "Others" to refer to the Others. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when and where this word was first used, although it seems to come directly from the publisher. It shows up on Powell's website and on Amazon. The kingdom of the royal Stark family faces its ultimate challenge in the onset of a generation-long winter, the poisonous plots of the rival Lannisters, the emergence of the Neverborn demons, and the arrival of barbarian hordes Of course, sometimes what you read in a review or on a dust jacket can be pretty far off from what's actually in the book, but this difference is a bit on the nose, don't you think? Assuming that the Others cannot procreate sexually and must do so through other means, they would never be born, in a certain sense. If "Neverborn" is what they were originally called in the book, it would support that theory. From my understanding, most early reviews are written by people that have been given Advance Reader Copies of the book. This makes me wonder if maybe "Neverborn" is used in the ARC and was later changed to "Others" before publication. It doesn't appear to be used in the first edition copies. It also doesn't appear on the dust jacket for the ARC. If it's in there, it's in the text itself. The problem is, obviously, gaining access to an ARC in order to confirm or deny this change. Easier said than done. These copies are rare and expensive. I know some of you have to have this copy or know of someone who does. If you do, I would love to hear from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moondancer Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Have you been spoiled via HBO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blizzardborn Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Sounds like a stretch to me. Even babies who are turned were still born at one point. Granted their genesis as WWs/Others doesn't involve a birth process, but they'd still have to be born as humans first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Sounds like a stretch to me. Even babies who are turned were still born at one point. Granted their genesis as WWs/Others doesn't involve a birth process, but they'd still have to be born as humans first. Well, everyone is born at some point. I don't see it as a stretch. They aren't the same creatures/persons they were when they were human, they are something else, so "Neverborn" would make sense. If that's a stretch, how about Shakespeare having Macduff supposedly fit the "no man of woman born" prophecy just because he was pulled out his mother's stomach in the medieval version of Caesarian section? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamWesterosiWallace Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Sounds like a stretch to me. Even babies who are turned were still born at one point. Granted their genesis as WWs/Others doesn't involve a birth process, but they'd still have to be born as humans first. Yet still, people called Robb the "Young Wolf", and he wasn't a wolf at all. They aren't literally neverborn, they just didn't get to live their lives as babies because they were ice-zombified with poorly-cleaned nails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.