Heresy 116

[TheButcherCrow]

That was the show and there's no suggestion of anything like that number in the books. I think this was just a way of ramping up Craster's significance for non readers ahead of the recent reveal, which was itself ramped up for the sake of impact.

I thought it might have been the show, I haven't read Clash for ages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb75OHM8E5Y

In this vid GRRM reveals the origins of the Iron Bank, basically they are called the Iron Bank because they use an old iron mine as a super vault. What else did they find in the mine I wonder ?

[Black Crow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb75OHM8E5Y

In this vid GRRM reveals the origins of the Iron Bank, basically they are called the Iron Bank because they use an old iron mine as a super vault. What else did they find in the mine I wonder ?

Hmmm... round these here parts ironstone tends to be quarried, not mined..

[Urrax2]

...First cousins are "acceptable" to us too, if not too common ...

Actually, that's not universal by any means.

"Twenty-four states prohibit marriages between first cousins, and another seven permit them only under special circumstances. Utah, for example, permits first cousins to marry only provided both spouses are over age 65, or at least 55 with evidence of sterility. North Carolina permits first cousins to marry unless they are "double first cousins" (cousins through more than one line). Maine permits first cousins to marry only upon presentation of a certificate of genetic counseling. The remaining nineteen states and the District of Columbia permit first-cousin marriages without restriction."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20020408.html

[Black Crow]

Notwithstanding our present scruples however it was very common in mediaeval times, if only to keep property within the family as in the case of Alys Karstark. I would strongly suspect that in the case of House Stark this is also GRRM's explanation as to why there are so few Starks outside the immediate Winterfell family. Bran may once have been confident that he and Rickon would grow up to be Robb's bannermen but I suspect in time he would have learned otherwise.

[Urrax2]

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.

[JNR]

As JNR has pointed out before we are told a great many things that may not turn out to be true.

Perhaps one of the more obvious examples is the business of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. The up front story is that he abducted her by force and equally forcibly had his wicked way with her. Do we believe it? Probably not and there is as we know a whole industry out there arguing that what really happened was very different. This isn't the place to debate those theories or the interpretations placed on the textual evidence. The point is that it exists and provides a tangible foundation for the debate.

I suggest that in the Craster's sons business, a similar process is being played out. We are told at the outset that the white walkers are a mysterious race from the Ice

Largely agree, except that I don't think the books say the white walkers are a race.

They only suggest the Others came for the first time in the Long Night. The books also give us a fairly good idea when the Long Night happened relative to the timeline; it was long after the First Men had come to Westeros, and also long after the Pact -- time enough for there to be hundreds of petty kingdoms distributed across the continent.

I also agree with you that they are not a race and that this is why GRRM says he "doesn't know if they have a culture."

[JNR]

Well, if the women are in power, then they probably aren't being abused. I could be wrong, but I don't think that, in the books, it is ever explicit that craster beats his wives. We observe craster threaten his wives, but no abuse is ever actually seen to take place.

True. However, on the show the wives state flat-out that "Craster beat us and worse... the Night's Watch beat us and worse," so they are equating the treatment they got in these two cases. We know for sure the Watch raped them. It follows Show Craster also raped them.

Obviously, that whole Craster's Keep scene and dialogue doesn't exist in the books, so this isn't a problem for Wives Were in Charge theories if the show is a separate reality.

So no new theory should ever be presented or published because the possibility exits that it might be challenged by someone?You're unlikely to be related to Charles Darwin are you?

That's a good comparison, yes. Darwin was reluctant to publish for the same reasons I am. He knew, for sure, the theory was so huge and so full of novelty it would be attacked, and so he never published until Alfred Russell Wallace was on the verge of publishing essentially the same ideas... more than twenty years later.

Theories that do well on the forums tend to be those with small ideas that explore older, very established theories in new ways, reinforcing or illuminating them, instead of contradicting them.

Here's an example. In my time on the forums, I've seen a guy trot out a theory of Lightbringer that (IMO, obviously) was bang on the money. He made a logical case, backed it up with ample evidence, presented it clearly, and in short, just destroyed all competing theories.

And he got nowhere... because Apple Martini had already popularized the (IMO incorrect) theory that Lightbringer is the Night's Watch.

I think the point was more that if it isn't an orthodoxical theory it is ignored and belittled rather than being challenged or discussed.

Just so.

At least that makes Jon Non Regis consistent since he won't tell us what he expects to happen, either.

Oh, I don't know what will happen in a plot sense. (AtS is much more confident in that department than I am.)

My thinking largely concerns the past (Long Night, Others, ancient history of Westeros, etc), and was inspired by evidence distributed across all the published books, rather than trying to extrapolate what GRRM will decide to do next.

I will say that I think GRRM routinely drops hints about his future plot in his ancient myths. So, for instance, if you think Lann the Clever maps to Tyrion, you might extrapolate that Tyrion eventually inherits Casterly Rock. A similar case could be made for Bran's apparent parallels to Brandon the Builder.

[Black Crow]

Theories that do well on the forums tend to be those with small ideas that explore older, very established theories in new ways, reinforcing or illuminating them, instead of

My thinking largely concerns the past (Long Night, Others, ancient history of Westeros, etc), and was inspired by evidence distributed across all the published books, rather than trying to extrapolate what GRRM will decide to do next.

I will say that I think GRRM routinely drops hints about his future plot in his ancient myths. So, for instance, if you think Lann the Clever maps to Tyrion, you might extrapolate that Tyrion eventually inherits Casterly Rock. A similar case could be made for Bran's apparent parallels to Brandon the Builder.

On the whole I'd tend to agree. I'm happy to make hopeful predictions as to the immediate consequences of a particular action ["it'll all end in tears" is usually pretty safe], but have no patience with theories that X will happen and then Y and so to Z and when A finds out that B... This is GRRM's story and he's writing it.

That being said I would agree up to a point that a lot of answers to what's really going on lie in the past. I'm not on the whole a believer in foreshadowing or "mapping" at least not on the scale sometimes assumed on this forum [i speak widely] but this is moving towards the culmination of an Auld Sang so we need to look to the past - and I'm talking way before Robert's Rebellion and the nonsense surrounding the tower of joy - to figure out what's really going on and why. And that's why I find the white walkers so fascinating because as Craster's sons their origin and purpose lies within the story not battering on the outside.

[redriver]

True. However, on the show the wives state flat-out that "Craster beat us and worse... the Night's Watch beat us and worse," so they are equating the treatment they got in these two cases. We know for sure the Watch raped them. It follows Show Craster also raped them.

Obviously, that whole Craster's Keep scene and dialogue doesn't exist in the books, so this isn't a problem for Wives Were in Charge theories if the show is a separate reality.

That's a good comparison, yes. Darwin was reluctant to publish for the same reasons I am. He knew, for sure, the theory was so huge and so full of novelty it would be attacked, and so he never published until Alfred Russell Wallace was on the verge of publishing essentially the same ideas... more than twenty years later.

Theories that do well on the forums tend to be those with small ideas that explore older, very established theories in new ways, reinforcing or illuminating them, instead of contradicting them.

Here's an example. In my time on the forums, I've seen a guy trot out a theory of Lightbringer that (IMO, obviously) was bang on the money. He made a logical case, backed it up with ample evidence, presented it clearly, and in short, just destroyed all competing theories.

And he got nowhere... because Apple Martini had already popularized the (IMO incorrect) theory that Lightbringer is the Night's Watch.

Just so.

Oh, I don't know what will happen in a plot sense. (AtS is much more confident in that department than I am.)

My thinking largely concerns the past (Long Night, Others, ancient history of Westeros, etc), and was inspired by evidence distributed across all the published books, rather than trying to extrapolate what GRRM will decide to do next.

I will say that I think GRRM routinely drops hints about his future plot in his ancient myths. So, for instance, if you think Lann the Clever maps to Tyrion, you might extrapolate that Tyrion eventually inherits Casterly Rock. A similar case could be made for Bran's apparent parallels to Brandon the Builder.

I was never a fan of the NW=Lightbringer theory but at least I can respect the fact that Apple Martini was brave enough to post it.

And if you expect me to wander blindly in to one of your traps then I suggest you think again.

[Harlan]

That's a good comparison, yes. Darwin was reluctant to publish for the same reasons I am. He knew, for sure, the theory was so huge and so full of novelty it would be attacked, and so he never published until Alfred Russell Wallace was on the verge of publishing essentially the same ideas... more than twenty years later.

Theories that do well on the forums tend to be those with small ideas that explore older, very established theories in new ways, reinforcing or illuminating them, instead of contradicting them.

Here's an example. In my time on the forums, I've seen a guy trot out a theory of Lightbringer that (IMO, obviously) was bang on the money. He made a logical case, backed it up with ample evidence, presented it clearly, and in short, just destroyed all competing theories.

And he got nowhere... because Apple Martini had already popularized the (IMO incorrect) theory that Lightbringer is the Night's Watch.

Ok. You have a theory of some kind that you like. This means that you must decide what to do about your theory. I have taken the liberty of outlining a few of your options and their potential outcomes below.

1. Action : You don't present your theory. Outcome : No one ever knows your theory. Your theory never becomes accepted. There is no outward indication that you even have a theory. When the series is completed, no one will ever know that you saw the ending coming. For all intents and purposes, you don't have and never had a theory.

2. Action : You present your theory. Outcome : Some number of people will like and endorse your theory. Some number of people won't. If your theory is actually correct, then those who don't endorse your theory will be proven wrong.

....I'm afraid that I really don't see the downside to presenting. It should be obvious to you that not presenting a theory because other people might dismiss said theory is stupid. People are already dismissing your theory, largely because they don't know what it is. Have some courage and stand by your ideas...

There are currently many theories related to lightbringer floating around in this very thread. The nights watch=lightbringer theory, while popular, is not hegemonic and, to the best of my knowledge, has never caused the outright dismissal of any other theories. So I'm forced to ask, what is this lightbringer theory that you think was unduly dismissed?

[redriver]

Ok. You have a theory of some kind that you like. This means that you must decide what to do about your theory. I have taken the liberty of outlining a few of your options and their potential outcomes below.

1. Action : You don't present your theory. Outcome : No one ever knows your theory. Your theory never becomes accepted. There is no outward indication that you even have a theory. When the series is completed, no one will ever know that you saw the ending coming. For all intents and purposes, you don't have and never had a theory.

2. Action : You present your theory. Outcome : Some number of people will like and endorse your theory. Some number of people won't. If your theory is actually correct, then those who don't endorse your theory will be proven wrong.

....I'm afraid that I really don't see the downside to presenting. It should be obvious to you that not presenting a theory because other people might dismiss said theory is stupid. People are already dismissing your theory, largely because they don't know what it is. Have some courage and stand by your ideas...

There are currently many theories related to lightbringer floating around in this very thread. The nights watch=lightbringer theory, while popular, is not hegemonic and, to the best of my knowledge, has never caused the outright dismissal of any other theories. So I'm forced to ask, what is this lightbringer theory that you think was unduly dismissed?

There's 21 pages,if the theory gains any traction,wherein someone may say something derogatory to the theory.That is,like,totally unacceptable.

[Black Crow]

Can I please suggest we stick to discussing the text rather than each other.

This isn't the wider forum. If anyone has a theory, then post away and damn both the torpedoes and Apple Martini. Above lets have an end to "I disagree because I have an alternative theory but I'm not prepared to explain what it is". The whole point of Heresy is that we think about things and are prepared to discuss the alternatives.

[addicted to snow]

And if you expect me to wander blindly in to one of your traps then I suggest you think again.

Well, when the blind wander, they usually wander blindly… Just kidding of course, as you are not physically blind...

However, I do not see how JNR's theory or lack of theory has any bearing upon this thread… 90% of the people who read these post have already formulated opinions on where the book is going &if I have learned one thing here at Heresy it is that those opinions are not typically changeable (unless a group leader says "change").

[addicted to snow]

^^ i understand that view point but my thinking was rather along the lines of that we have only ever heard mention of one alleged female ww in the books. further if we assume crasters boys are in some way being transformed into wws why no girls? of course we only have the story of the nights king that suggests he (allegedly) saw a female ww from atop the wall.... is she the reason why we have heard of no female wws since then???

I did not interpret the Female seen from atop the wall to be a Female Other… She could have been human with pale white skin, white clothes, and blue eyes - Exactly how Val is described with she returns with Tormund.

[TheButcherCrow]

Well, when the blind wander, they usually wander blindly… Just kidding of course, as you are not physically blind...

However, I do not see how JNR's theory or lack of theory has any bearing upon this thread… 90% of the people who read these post have already formulated opinions on where the book is going &if I have learned one thing here at Heresy it is that those opinions are not typically changeable (unless a group leader says "change").

yeah and 82.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot ;) It is true, people fall in love with their own theories but speaking personally, I've changed my own theories 4 times this week based on ideas posted here. In general, I find people are willing to listen if the theory makes any sort of sense either textually or meta-textually. If people aren't convinced by a theory, maybe look at the theory rather than the thread :dunno:

[redriver]

I did not interpret the Female seen from atop the wall to be a Female Other… She could have been human with pale white skin, white clothes, and blue eyes - Exactly how Val is described with she returns with Tormund.

Did she not have red cheeks?On her face I mean?

[addicted to snow]

One of the issues with the idea of a "deal" being hatched at any point in time is a language barrier which seems to be a major problem,i mean its not like if Popsicles knocked on the door and they sat at a table and signed in blood.The other is there is a clue in the drop off itself.Per second hand info from Jon and Sam,Craster puts the babies in the woods in the freezing cold. I don't think he waits around to see anything.Its seems as it is 'exposure' that developed into a ritualized event.

Wolfmaid7… I think you could be spot on with this idea…

I could have started off as exposure, but then some group or entity started collecting the babies… I'm inclined to think that it was the CotF of Bloodraven who watch for children to be exposed & then send their associates to collect the babies. If these associates were dressed like Val was dressed when she returned with Tormund, then Craster & his wives could easily have misinterpreted the collectors to be Others (especially if they have never seen an Other before).

[addicted to snow]

Did she not have red cheeks?On her face I mean?

Difficult to identify cheek color from atop the wall.

[redriver]

Difficult to identify cheek color from atop the wall.

But you can be certain they are white?

[Black Crow]

Difficult to identify cheek color from atop the wall.

I think he means Val, but I agree with your earlier post in that I have very strong doubts that the lady in question was a white walker. I don't think that Val's a white walker either, but I do think that she knows a lot more than she's said so far.