red comet in ACOK who got it right

[Jasta11]

A continuity error? Exactly how did you come by that conclusion, because I've missed that part. Unless GRRM flat out said once that the chapters were not in chronological order, I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that.

The dragon-magic link probably exists, sure, but that doesn't mean the comet is about dragons either. Magic everywhere is in resurgence, including those that seemingly have no connotations with dragons whatsoever (Old Gods mostly) beyond the ''Ice and Fire'' shtick that we still don't exactly know what it means. I'm not dismissing it as a possibility, but it's not spelled out in full in the books either.

Also, you're asking for evidence you haven't really provided for yourself. There's a very possible link re: Dany/dragons/comet but it's far from 100% defined either. The comet might also mean more than one thing, and none of those meanings might be ''more important'' than the others somehow.

Plus, I'm pretty it's not supposed to be this scientific. Weighting exactly who fits the comet slightly more because of exact color or the precise timing they saw it seems like being lost in details to me. George said it; he likes readers to interpret things their own way. While in some cases it means arriving at a ''right'' guess (Jon's parentage for example, albeit even that is not confirmed yet), in others I'm certain it means there's no ''right'' answer and any reader's or any character's interpretation is as good as any other's. Especially since the comet is never said to directly affect any event. Dany uses it to inspire herself, but again causality =/= causation.

[Elkrider]

I thought that the comet signified the rise of magic--all magic--in the world again. If magic waxes and wanes as part of a millennia long cycle, then a comet with a long orbit could show up every time magic is on the rise again.

It's a harbinger of change, and practically everyone's in-story interpretations, while localized and unique, reflect that. From Ned's death to the hatching of dragons, those events have caused and are causing massive changes that will shape the next era.

[Hodor's Dragon]

A continuity error? Exactly how did you come by that conclusion, because I've missed that part. Unless GRRM flat out said once that the chapters were not in chronological order, I'm pretty sure you cannot prove that.

I wrote about it in detail in this thread, within the last few pages. I don't wish to repeat it all, but the basis is that the comet was mentioned in a list as "the comet," and with no description, although it had never been previously mentioned. In other words, continuity error is the only thing that makes sense. Either a previous passage was removed or the order of chapters was changed. Even if it's not a continuity error, it was described in a way that seems specially designed to be ignored by reader (i.e., no description, part of a list).

The dragon-magic link probably exists, sure, but that doesn't mean the comet is about dragons either. Magic everywhere is in resurgence, including those that seemingly have no connotations with dragons whatsoever (Old Gods mostly) beyond the ''Ice and Fire'' shtick that we still don't exactly know what it means. I'm not dismissing it as a possibility, but it's not spelled out in full in the books either.

Also, you're asking for evidence you haven't really provided for yourself. There's a very possible link re: Dany/dragons/comet but it's far from 100% defined either. The comet might also mean more than one thing, and none of those meanings might be ''more important'' than the others somehow.

Well, I've taken a pretty good shot at it, and I suspect you just haven't read what I wrote. Since it took a little work to put the evidence together, I'd rather just rely on what I already wrote than say it all again (especially since I'm at work. . . ). But I feel pretty safe in asserting that I've given the best evidence in this thread linking the comet to a particular character. Feel free to put in the evidence on behalf of another character/institution.

Plus, I'm pretty it's not supposed to be this scientific. Weighting exactly who fits the comet slightly more because of exact color or the precise timing they saw it seems like being lost in details to me.

I would agree if it were close, but it's not. The association with Dany is strong and I've shown it; in fact, I'm surprised that so many people are denying it, because it seems very obvious to me. Once again, I'm inviting others to put the alternate evidence on the record here.

George said it; he likes readers to interpret things their own way. While in some cases it means arriving at a ''right'' guess (Jon's parentage for example, albeit even that is not confirmed yet), in others I'm certain it means there's no ''right'' answer and any reader's or any character's interpretation is as good as any other's. Especially since the comet is never said to directly affect any event. Dany uses it to inspire herself, but again causality =/= causation.

[Dr. Pepper]

I thought that the comet signified the rise of magic--all magic--in the world again. If magic waxes and wanes as part of a millennia long cycle, then a comet with a long orbit could show up every time magic is on the rise again.

It's a harbinger of change, and practically everyone's in-story interpretations, while localized and unique, reflect that. From Ned's death to the hatching of dragons, those events have caused and are causing massive changes that will shape the next era.

As to the first point, it would be a little late in its arrival. The Others have already been around, wargs are around, Beric's been resurrected once or twice, etc.

To the second point, I agree that the in-story interpretations make it indicative of change. Things aren't the same from that moment forward. We don't know what everyone thought of the previous comet, but Rhaegar thought it was significant for his newly conceived son. Of course that didn't work out so well, but it did act as a harbinger of change.

[Whitering]

As to the first point, it would be a little late in its arrival. The Others have already been around, wargs are around, Beric's been resurrected once or twice, etc.

To the second point, I agree that the in-story interpretations make it indicative of change. Things aren't the same from that moment forward. We don't know what everyone thought of the previous comet, but Rhaegar thought it was significant for his newly conceived son. Of course that didn't work out so well, but it did act as a harbinger of change.

Better to think of it like a signal in investing. Up or down, you look for signals that will change the price of a stock, pushing it up or down. The comet was a strong buy signal on magic, it doesn't mean there wasn't already magic.

[Jon_Samwell_Snow]

Do you want me to do some research on meanings of comets in medieval times?

[Jasta11]

So you just assume it's a continuity error. Who says that Martin has to provide a detailed description? It's a comet, visible with medieval means, it's not like there are dozens each day. Law of conservation of detail says that it's the same comet, why bother adding it in otherwise? Dany is not the first to see it and that's that.

As for the rest, we're going in circles. You believe your evidence is the strongest, I just don't, and since few people so far have confirmed of agreeing with you, I will assume it's because not a lot of people agree your evidence is that strong at all. So with all that, I'm going to go by the author's own words, that it's a portent open to a wild variety of interpretations, with some a bit more solid than others but no judgement can be cast because it's too muddy and vague.

As an aside, I also like the suggestion that it's generally an harbinger of change. All the events at the end of AGoT, magical and otherwise, are probably the most influential in the series. The comet could be interpreted as an herald of a new era or something along those lines, of which magic is a part but not the whole.

[Jon_Samwell_Snow]

So you just assume it's a continuity error. Who says that Martin has to provide a detailed description? It's a comet, visible with medieval means, it's not like there are dozens each day. Law of conservation of detail says that it's the same comet, why bother adding it in otherwise? Dany is not the first to see it and that's that.

As for the rest, we're going in circles. You believe your evidence is the strongest, I just don't, and since few people so far have confirmed of agreeing with you, I will assume it's because not a lot of people agree your evidence is that strong at all. So with all that, I'm going to go by the author's own words, that it's a portent open to a wild variety of interpretations, with some a bit more solid than others but no judgement can be cast because it's too muddy and vague.

As an aside, I also like the suggestion that it's generally an harbinger of change. All the events at the end of AGoT, magical and otherwise, are probably the most influential in the series. The comet could be interpreted as an herald of a new era or something along those lines, of which magic is a part but not the whole.

I was thinking the same thing. It does have to do something with magic just something else coming to Westeros and Essos.

[Hodor's Dragon]

So you just assume it's a continuity error. Who says that Martin has to provide a detailed description? It's a comet, visible with medieval means, it's not like there are dozens each day. Law of conservation of detail says that it's the same comet, why bother adding it in otherwise? Dany is not the first to see it and that's that.

It's a very odd way to write if it's not a continuity error. I'd say beyond odd and into outright wrong: if I were editing Martin's work I would draw a big red circle around that phrase (and by the way, yes I have edited fiction for money, although it's not my profession; I have a grad degree in Fiction Writing). Long blood-red comets visible in the sky are pretty doggoned dramatic things, I think we can agree on that. To drop in a mention of "the comet" with no description at all when the comet has never been mentioned in the book before? Really? You think he wrote it that way on purpose? It makes no sense at all. Why would he do that?

In fact, I think it's incorrect, and it certainly doesn't adhere to the style manual. You don't call something "the" thing unless people know what it is. You can talk about "the sun" and "the moon" because people already know what the sun and the moon are. You can refer to "the door" of a house because all houses have doors, many have exactly one, and you can assume when somebody says "the door" that they're talking about a house with one door. Or you can talk about "the parents" in a family because each family has one set.

You get my drift. You just don't use the word "the" to refer to an unusual but non-unique item that hasn't been already identified. If you are writing about a zebra you see in the street, and you're pretty doggoned surprised to see a zebra in your street, you would call it "a zebra," as I did here, and not "the zebra" unless you've already identified it by mentioning it. ("You won't believe what I saw on the sidewalk this morning! A zebra! I came out the door and the zebra was just standing there eating Mrs. Smith's roses!")

I feel pretty solidly that it's an error, but again, even if it's not, it's totally buried (undescribed and part of a list which is about as buried as it can get), whereas it's quite a dramatic event in the Dany chapter.

As for the rest, we're going in circles. You believe your evidence is the strongest, I just don't,

Have you read what I wrote yet? When you wrote about what I said twice earlier, both times it was clear that you hadn't because your batting average in describing what I had said was under .500 if not .000. You're still free to hold any beliefs you wish about my writing, but if you haven't actually read my writing, I would call the value of those beliefs into pretty serious question. (But that's just me.)

and since few people so far have confirmed of agreeing with you, I will assume it's because not a lot of people agree your evidence is that strong at all.

Come on, either read my stuff and say something substantial about it or just please stop characterizing my writing that you haven't read. "Other people haven't agreed with you" is, I'm sorry, weak. Make your own points.

[Jasta11]

Why do you get so defensive? Do I need to cherry pick every single sentence you made in your previous posts and make a thread of its own to analyze it? You speak of the dramatic effect of the comet, of it's significance to blood and fire, of the fact it comes about the same time as the dragons, of the link it has with Dany since she used it in her decision making. I see that evidence and tell you, simply put, that it's not strong enough to say the comet is first and foremost about Dany. It's a possibility, but it's far from the only one. The comet comes at the same time as a bevy of events, there's magic before it and there's magic after it. There aren't dragons before it, but there also isn't full blown civil war, or Red Priests growing in power, or Kings popping out left and right, or what have you.

And, for the last time, the author says that the comet was about signs and portents, open to all kinds of interpretation. This clashes with your belief that it has a set meaning buried in the text. I believe the author of the text over you, whatever degrees you may have. Now this thread has become increasingly pointless, and I'm out of it. Good day.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Why do you get so defensive? Do I need to cherry pick every single sentence you made in your previous posts and make a thread of its own to analyze it?

I think it's appropriately defensive when my points are mischaracterized. I will always defend against that (if I have time). I asked you repeatedly not to characterize my writing unless you actually have read it, but you wouldn't comply. Do you think that's asking too much? I sure don't. I think I've done well to stay polite under that circumstance.

You speak of the dramatic effect of the comet, of it's significance to blood and fire, of the fact it comes about the same time as the dragons, of the link it has with Dany since she used it in her decision making.

Good, thanks, I see you've at least read a fair bit of what I wrote. I did make several other points, though, at least one of which I think deserves special mention here: she was actively looking for a sign before she saw the comet. When I'm reading fantasy novels, I don't ignore signals like look-for-a-sign-see-a-big-red-comet-5-minutes-later.

I see that evidence and tell you, simply put, that it's not strong enough to say the comet is first and foremost about Dany.

Fair enough conclusion, and I don't entirely disagree. My point, though, which I've repeated probably about a dozen times, is different and more limited: it is, simply, that the author intended us to associate the comet with Dany. I did not say and would not say that the author does not intend us to associate it with anybody else; that's an entirely separate proposition. I've probably said 5 times in this thread, from early on, that I did not intend to rule out associating the comet with other people as well.

However, I would say that Dany's association is the strongest I can see, but I'm not wedded to that conclusion: that's where I ask other folks to come in and give me reasons to think it's associated with somebody else. I haven't seen enough of that to significantly impact my thinking.

It's a possibility, but it's far from the only one. The comet comes at the same time as a bevy of events, there's magic before it and there's magic after it. There aren't dragons before it, but there also isn't full blown civil war, or Red Priests growing in power, or Kings popping out left and right, or what have you.

And, for the last time, the author says that the comet was about signs and portents, open to all kinds of interpretation. This clashes with your belief that it has a set meaning buried in the text.

This is not "my belief." I have said no such thing. Really, try using direct quotes when you're replying to someone's writing or be more careful in your paraphrasing. This is exactly why I'm responding to you so energetically: you just keep on and keep on saying I've said things that I haven't said, and it's kinda against my religion to let that go (again, when I have time to respond).

Yes, sure, the author intends us to react to the writing in certain ways; it's not just random words and symbols on the paper. Unfortunately for the intention of this and all authors, the actual meaning of the writing is not set by the author's intention, it's set by the interaction between the author's words and the reader's frame of mind. And here? I think it goes without saying that when Martin writes about things like comets and prophecies and signs and portents he wants the reader to use his/her own brain power to interpret them, and obviously when people do that, they are going to come up with very different interpretations.

All well and good, but the fact that the author wants people to figure out something like the overall meaning of a comet individually doesn't mean that everything about the comet is ambiguous and open to individual interpretation or that there is nothing about the comet that the author wants to come through loud and clear. And I'm sorry, I don't see any uncertainty in the idea that Martin intends us to associate the comet with Dany for the numerous reasons I've stated.

Farewell and thanks for the conversation if you're actually gone. But if you intend to reply, please don't say that I've drawn any wider conclusion than the one I just stated, which is, again, that Martin intends us to associate the comet with Dany. That's precisely and all of what I mean to say, and if you have to add any words to that sentence, you're probably not correctly characterizing me.

I believe the author of the text over you, whatever degrees you may have.

That would be smart if we disagreed, but we don't, except in the alternate universe where I said the comet "has a set meaning within the text."

Now this thread has become increasingly pointless, and I'm out of it. Good day.

Toodles.

[Jon_Samwell_Snow]

Everyone can agree or disagree. It is not pointless. We were wondering about the comet in the sky in the beginning of CoK and its meaning. Some of people think it is a sign of dragons or other things to come.

[sj4iy]

Everyone can agree or disagree. It is not pointless. We were wondering about the comet in the sky in the beginning of CoK and its meaning. Some of people think it is a sign of dragons or other things to come.

^This. Martin purposely obfuscated the meanings in all of these prophecies to make them work in more than one way. There's no way to say whether anyone is right or wrong at this point. And there's even the possibility that this particular comet might not mean anything at all because it's not like this is the first comet we've heard about in the story. What if one of those comets was the one that meant something to the prophecy and this one didn't? We simply don't have enough information yet to make any definitive judgments.

[Jon_Samwell_Snow]

^This. Martin purposely obfuscated the meanings in all of these prophecies to make them work in more than one way. There's no way to say whether anyone is right or wrong at this point. And there's even the possibility that this particular comet might not mean anything at all because it's not like this is the first comet we've heard about in the story. What if one of those comets was the one that meant something to the prophecy and this one didn't? We simply don't have enough information yet to make any definitive judgments.

Thank you! :bowdown:

He gives a little bit of information. Heck, he foreshadows a few things too.

[Skoboe]

Here's one from outside the box;

The comets we see (if you're lucky enough) can have a relatively short orbit duration, such as Halley's Comet at 76 years, or can be up to 250,000 years (Comet West). And there is nothing in the laws of physics preventing orbit durations being in the millions of years...we just haven't seen one yet that can be modelled out that far.

GRRM has said that the weird weather in Westeros is magically driven, right? We also have, while not the classic good vs evil, a couple of opposing factions that are starting to show their hands...and right now Winter is winning.

Now, drawing on many other fantasy works (and we know GRRM gives nods to many of his favourite authors), there are times when the "Gods" (for want of a better word) go to war and nearly destroy the planet, then come to an agreement where they don't act directly...Tolkien, Eddings, even Weiss & Hickman to name a few use this formula.

In Westeros and Essos, there are races/beings/entities that predate the history as told by the Maesters by millennia...chances are that if the Red Comet is in the skies now, it has been before, possibly seen several times with the same time between each visit.

Last time there was major magic played out, a continent was split in two! What if the powers that be, after seeing this destruction, called a temporary cease-fire and decided to step back and let mankind sort their shit out for a while?

What if, instead of the comet being an omen...it's simply an alarm clock to signify the end of the cease-fire?

[Jon_Samwell_Snow]

Here's one from outside the box;

The comets we see (if you're lucky enough) can have a relatively short orbit duration, such as Halley's Comet at 76 years, or can be up to 250,000 years (Comet West). And there is nothing in the laws of physics preventing orbit durations being in the millions of years...we just haven't seen one yet that can be modelled out that far.

GRRM has said that the weird weather in Westeros is magically driven, right? We also have, while not the classic good vs evil, a couple of opposing factions that are starting to show their hands...and right now Winter is winning.

Now, drawing on many other fantasy works (and we know GRRM gives nods to many of his favourite authors), there are times when the "Gods" (for want of a better word) go to war and nearly destroy the planet, then come to an agreement where they don't act directly...Tolkien, Eddings, even Weiss & Hickman to name a few use this formula.

In Westeros and Essos, there are races/beings/entities that predate the history as told by the Maesters by millennia...chances are that if the Red Comet is in the skies now, it has been before, possibly seen several times with the same time between each visit.

Last time there was major magic played out, a continent was split in two! What if the powers that be, after seeing this destruction, called a temporary cease-fire and decided to step back and let mankind sort their shit out for a while?

What if, instead of the comet being an omen...it's simply an alarm clock to signify the end of the cease-fire?

I agree with you. It's time for Winter to come. It's knocking on Westeros' door.