Melifeather Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I'm not getting how you have that take from the following passage: Clearly Old Nan is saying that the "Others" rode pale dead horses and lead hosts of the slain and dead servants. The hosts of the slain and dead servants are clearly the Wights. So she's not calling the Wights Others, she's calling their masters Others. (and note to VOTFM, Bran doesn't correct her on that point). I agree. :agree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmaid7 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Old Nan agreed... I just don't see how you can read that line and get what you're getting from it. Sorry, no offense, but I just can't see the basis for your argument in that text. TOJ the "agreement" based on the flow of the conversation was for the benefit of Bran based on what he knows and accepts the Others to be. Plus you are not being offensive by not seeing something of gleening something from a conversation different from me.This also a matter of sense,as it doesn't make sense for GRRM to have a character like Nan to drop a "mispoken" term that is used only twice in the series.What's to point as it adds nothing and takes aswy nothing if that term means nothing. I continue to disagree with the alternative and wil leave it up to the upcoming books to prove me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey family reunion Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I'm not getting how you have that take from the following passage: Clearly Old Nan is saying that the "Others" rode pale dead horses and lead hosts of the slain and dead servants. The hosts of the slain and dead servants are clearly the Wights. So she's not calling the Wights Others, she's calling their masters Others. (and note to VOTFM, Bran doesn't correct her on that point). I wonder if perhaps the hosts of the slain may be wights but the dead servants may be something else, something more akin to Coldhands or even Patchface. We've seen no evidence of Wights devouring anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTowerOfJoy Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Also, on another note, I was just re-reading some of the legends and it occurred to me the LH most likely wasn't AA- b/c it is mentioned how he left with a sword, a horse, a dog and 12 companions... and that it was so cold that when we went to use his sword, it shattered (sound familiar?). So this sword clearly was not Lightbringer then... and it also wasn't obsidian. Which means at the time of the LH, people still didn't know how to kill the WWs, and that was toward the end of the long night. Even though the CotF had been giving them obsidian weapons for years. Didn't anyone ever try to use one?? Without the Children's tribute, I would buy that it never occurred to anyone to use obsidian as a weapon, but by the time they sent the LH to find the Children, it might have occurred to someone to try using the Children's weapons that they already had sitting around. Weird. Or maybe... the WWs weren't what the LH was worried about? :cool4: I think you're confused here. The Last Hero set out to find the children, so he couldn't have had any obsidian from the children already. My guess is that the Last Hero found the Children, somehow convinced them to help him defeat the Others, and was told about Obsidian, and also told that he'd need a new sword to defeat them (ie Lightbringer), thus I think the Last Hero BECOMES Azor Ahai once he meets the children and later forges the sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmaid7 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I'm not getting how you have that take from the following passage: Clearly Old Nan is saying that the "Others" rode pale dead horses and lead hosts of the slain and dead servants. The hosts of the slain and dead servants are clearly the Wights. So she's not calling the Wights Others, she's calling their masters Others. (and note to VOTFM, Bran doesn't correct her on that point). She is also said the Others were "cold dead things that were blood thirsty" which is the Wights am i right or wrong about that? We have yet to see WWs leading any dead to attack humans, am i right or wrong about that? My point is to show the stories are inconsistent the characteristics and myths surrounding both these creatures have been muddled together to the point that current characters like Grenn are making statements as if THEY ARE ONE IN THE SAME.That is the problem and it is a major one.Why because it may prove in the long run that their relationship is NOT a master servant one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTowerOfJoy Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Dazed and confused by the loss of two characters who are still alive in Dance, and after hearing Kit Harrington say in an interview that he's not sure he'll have a part next season! I imagine that's just to not spoil episode 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTowerOfJoy Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Does obsidian have energy, or is it more that it breaks the spell? Is fire defeating ice or do they negate each other? It's referred to as "frozen fire" in a couple of places, but I think it's supposed to be a little "magical". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTowerOfJoy Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I'm mostly disappointed that it was only half the battle at the Wall. Are they really going to cram the grand finale into 15 minutes in the last episode? Or are they moving Tyrion's escape to the next season? They better not.... !! I don't see them wrapping everything up in one episode, I"m a little worried. But as far as people shining, I agree they changed things quite a bit (although I did love that Sam was so brave! ;)). I think I need to reread this part; I can't remember, did Slynt really hide during the battle? Ser Alliser looked pretty badass, it was nice to see that even though he is a bit of an asshole he really is a very capable fighter. Oh and did Jon really ride out there to kill Mance? I thought he only rode out to negotiate with him after Stannis wiped the floor with the wildlings? Or am I misremembering (entirely possible)? Yeah, if we're actually going to finish ASoS, there's a LOT that has to happen in the last episode. Tyrion's escape. The Second battle at the wall, conversations w/ Stannis and Mel and the election of the new LC. (this seems like it would take a couple of episodes by itself). Bran and the 3EC. LS needs an appearance. Mention of Gregor's "poisoning" Arya and the Hound, and Arya leaving for Braavos. I was really surprised we didn't get the Charge last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTowerOfJoy Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Not a fan of the last episode and that battle is one of my favorite parts of ASOS. I can understand building up new storylines in some of the less eventful books, but ASOS?!?!?! Sansa has been fast-forwarded, and Arya is at the Eyrie? C'mon! Agreed on Alliser tho, almost found myself liking him in this one haha I loved the battle, and while it did stray from the books, being that it was two separate events, I really enjoyed it, as they way it was done in the show actually makes a lot more sense than in the books. Why attack seperately when you can attack at the same time? My complaint was only that we didn't get to Stannis's Charge, and I'm worried whether there's enough time in episode 10 to get to the real end of ASOS. I'm worried they're going to move some of those events into season 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTowerOfJoy Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 So I've been thinking, if the CotF were in some way responsible for the LN then it was clearly not a success. Given that they live a pretty long time they are more than capable of waiting and trying again. So what do you do in that situation if you are a singer? Well you might start by building a Wall and forcing the Starks to take the title of king. Anyone who wants to kneel can come over to the southern side, you want to be free? Enjoy the cold. Now with a decent percentage of the population located north of the Wall you are going to need some sort of force to mke sure the "free" folk don't just climb the wall or sail round it, enter the NW. Phase three of your plan begins, do absolutely nothing for thousands of years. Become legend, then myth, then bedtime fables. You make the world as unprepared as possible for another LN. When the operation begins you start by attacking the free folk. Nothing too major just enough to get them together and get them moving. You herd them toward the wall, eliminating on the way a NW ranging which could have disrupted your plans, and when they reach the wall, one of two things will happen. Either the watch kills all the wildlings and the Others have 100,000 new wights or the wildlings take Castle Black and destroy the watch. In which case, the Others just saunter through later on. Stannis has obviously thrown a wrench into this plan as the wildlings have been allowed through the wall and yet, the Wall still stands, defended by the watch. In fact, more castles are now garrisoned and the effective manpower of the watch has increased dramatically. So they help create a wall to later subvert it? Doesn't make any sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTowerOfJoy Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 She is also said the Others were "cold dead things that were blood thirsty" which is the Wights am i right or wrong about that? We have yet to see WWs leading any dead to attack humans, am i right or wrong about that? My point is to show the stories are inconsistent the characteristics and myths surrounding both these creatures have been muddled together to the point that current characters like Grenn are making statements as if THEY ARE ONE IN THE SAME.That is the problem and it is a major one.Why because it may prove in the long run that their relationship is NOT a master servant one. Not sure I remember the blood thirsty bit, but certainly she said they were "cold dead things", which while we know GRRM said they're not dead, I'm not sure the people that saw them would realize they weren't dead. And they certainly are cold, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melifeather Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Yeah, if we're actually going to finish ASoS, there's a LOT that has to happen in the last episode. Tyrion's escape. The Second battle at the wall, conversations w/ Stannis and Mel and the election of the new LC. (this seems like it would take a couple of episodes by itself). Bran and the 3EC. LS needs an appearance. Mention of Gregor's "poisoning" Arya and the Hound, and Arya leaving for Braavos. I was really surprised we didn't get the Charge last night. I have a feeling that Stannis will come during the first episode of the next season. I think they'll show Jon with Mance, but leave it as a cliffhanger. I think we'll see Brienne and Pod interecepted by Lady Stoneheart. Tyrion will get to kill Tywin, Bran will find the cave, but may not see Bloodraven until next season. Gregor will sicken and be given to Qyburn, the Hound will stay on the isle while Arya gets on a ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTowerOfJoy Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I wonder if perhaps the hosts of the slain may be wights but the dead servants may be something else, something more akin to Coldhands or even Patchface. We've seen no evidence of Wights devouring anyone. Well the Wights are certainly dead, so I'm not seeing a distinction there, I think it was just two different terms for the same thing, ie the Wights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I got chills during the 'saying of the vows' scene last night. It seems like they finally used (in another place) the bit Sam did to pass through the wall. Not to take anything away from Grenn, but I think stating the vows inside the wall, in the passage between the two realms was a really good idea, magic wise. The wall defended itself and its own, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTowerOfJoy Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Right?!? It was a weird feeling, lol. I'm so used to hating him! Right. :thumbsup: That's how he gets to be in the tent during the battle. Exactly! I was predicting such a strong end to the season- Battle at the Wall for episode 9 (with the glorious arrival of Stannis to finish it off, which obviously did NOT happen), and then they would've had the whole hour in the finale to focus on everyone else. I was hoping they'd go ahead and kill off the Hound... b/c I had this vision of the last scene of the season being Arya handing the coin to the boat captain, whispering valar morghulis as the picture fades... but alas, I doubt there will be time for this, with everything else that needs to happen. The Hound looked pretty perky in the preview still, not like he was about to die of an infection and need the gift of mercy. I suspect the Dany scene will be the farmer bringing her the child's bones, that was quite a shocker in the book (for me anyway). And yes, they need to show Tyrion's little killing spree... AND Bran and co arriving at the tree. I completely agree with you, they could have skipped Missandei's love affair (though it's kind of cute, in its own way) or the whole mess at Craster's..... it was entertaining but unnecessary, IMO. And yes, where is UnCat?? She's been dead for weeks (months?) at this point. Might be they'll just let her stay dead... which may be a hint that she won't be all that important? If they don't bring her back next week, it's not going to happen IMO. They can't forget about her for a whole season and then be like oh, and this character that died in season 3 is now back from the dead a year later... I agree, it seems like a ton to pack in one episode, which makes me think we'll get a few cliff hangers, including maybe not getting Stannis's charge until next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTowerOfJoy Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I have a feeling that Stannis will come during the first episode of the next season. I think they'll show Jon with Mance, but leave it as a cliffhanger. I think we'll see Brienne and Pod interecepted by Lady Stoneheart. Tyrion will get to kill Tywin, Bran will find the cave, but may not see Bloodraven until next season. Gregor will sicken and be given to Qyburn, the Hound will stay on the isle while Arya gets on a ship. Not sure how Brienne will already be captured by LS, what on earth would she do all next season? You could have the one hanging scene I suppose, and then she could show up and meet Jaime at some point, but there wouldn't be much else there, unless while she's captive, they bring in some Freys and hang them or something I suppose. I think the 3EC actor was cast for this season, so I think we'll at least get to see him, though I'm not sure he'll say a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Not sure how Brienne will already be captured by LS, what on earth would she do all next season? You could have the one hanging scene I suppose, and then she could show up and meet Jaime at some point, but there wouldn't be much else there, unless while she's captive, they bring in some Freys and hang them or something I suppose. I think the 3EC actor was cast for this season, so I think we'll at least get to see him, though I'm not sure he'll say a word. Brienne and Pod are on the road a few days behind Sandor and Arya. with them turning around, they are undoubtedly converging. And if Hot Pie is in contact with the Brotherhood, he would have tipped them off to it as well. Brienne and Sandor will clearly have an epic sword fight on the docks, interrupted by the Brotherhood. Arya escapes in the confusion, and after Brienne "kills" Clegane, she's captured by the brotherhood and taken to lady stoneheart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey family reunion Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Well the Wights are certainly dead, so I'm not seeing a distinction there, I think it was just two different terms for the same thing, ie the Wights.I think there may be. The Wights and Coldhands while both may be dead, they are certainly not the same. Coldhands appears to have retained his intellect, and does in fact operates more like a loyal servant than as a mindless drone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 wolfmaid7, on 08 Jun 2014 - 05:32 AM, said:Just to restate BC, I'm not saying there is another third party involved that's not it at all, I'm just saying there is precedence whereby the human Wights were the Others of lengend.They are what came for the first time and because humans of the day had no clue the mysteries of this land because they never experienced the previous long night.Nan's story and the seemless way the White Walkers are atributed even though they are not on the scene, even involved points to them being blamed for what The First Men couldn't explain in terms of what happened to their loved ones.Exactly, how did they know that Popsicles raised the dead if that is something that can't be validated visually? I'm not getting how you have that take from the following passage:-TOJ TOJ, I don't get the "human wight" theory either... just to clarify. Old Nan nodded. "In that darkness, the Others came for the first time," she said as her needles went click click click. "They were cold things, dead things, that hated iron and fire and the touch of the sun, and every creature with hot blood in its veins. They swept over holdfasts and cities and kingdoms, felled heroes and armies by the score, riding their pale dead horses and leading hosts of the slain. All the swords of men could not stay their advance, and even maidens and suckling babes found no pity in them. They hunted the maids through frozen forests, and fed their dead servants on the flesh of human children." Clearly Old Nan is saying that the "Others" rode pale dead horses and lead hosts of the slain and dead servants. The hosts of the slain and dead servants are clearly the Wights. So she's not calling the Wights Others, she's calling their masters Others. (and note to VOTFM, Bran doesn't correct her on that point). Of course not, she was already corrected and names them "Others" appropriately. That is my position as well, that Old nan is referring to a group of Others that are unique, the masters of both WW and Wights. Just to be clear, I am not a proponent of wolfmaids theory of the Long Night Others actually being human wights. As we have seen wights are clumsy, slow, unorganized and do not ride mounts of any kind. I don't think they use weapons at all, but I may be wrong on that count... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 Not sure I remember the blood thirsty bit, but certainly she said they were "cold dead things", which while we know GRRM said they're not dead, I'm not sure the people that saw them would realize they weren't dead. And they certainly are cold, so... Indeed and the reason why GRRM found it necessary to emphasise that they are not dead, was to correct the impression given by Old Nan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.