Reasons why Lightbringer is NOT a literal sword

[The Human Abstract]

Show me the rules and limitations of magic in this world that Martin has created. Because as far as I know, there are none.

If someone simply plunged a newly made sword into their lover's chest and it became magical, you would think that George had jumped the shark, and it would be terrible writing. It just doesn't work.

To me, the two most likely interpretations are:

1) Lightbringer is a literal sword of some sort, but the story has become exaggerated over the years and "legendary" in nature.

2) Lightbringer is not a literal sword, and the story is metaphorical.

3) The story is true and the sword is quite magical, but the actual true "cause and effect" have been lost over the year.s

1 & 2 seem most likely to me, but -- given he author's love of symbolism -- I tend to favor 2.

[Mithras]

His enemies will tremble before him, and their wives will weep tears of blood and rend their flesh in grief. The bells in his hair will sing his coming, and the milk men in the stone tents will fear his name.

I am sorry but this is no saving. This is rape and plunder on a gigantic scale. It is not about uniting men, it is about killing all the men that do not join/bend knee to TSTMTW. There is no universal sense of men vs. apocalypse in this myth. The khalassar of TPTWP do not seem to need saving; more like they need a leader to lead them to rape and plunder. We know what "making people his herd" means for a khal. Look at the Lamb Men.

AA and the LH saved people from an apocalyptic event in their own way. In the case of the LH, it is very clear. During the time of AA, darkness laid heavy on the world. This naturally gives the idea that there was an inbalance in favor of darkness and AA corrected it by probably bringing balance. The nature of such a problem interests all the men.

Therefore, it is meaningful to assume that the LH and AA might share a common ground but TSTMTW has nothing to do with them.

[BearQueen87]

If someone simply plunged a newly made sword into their lover's chest and it became magical, you would think that George had jumped the shark, and it would be terrible writing. It just doesn't work.

To me, the two most likely interpretations are:

1) Lightbringer is a literal sword of some sort, but the story has become exaggerated over the years and "legendary" in nature.

2) Lightbringer is not a literal sword, and the story is metaphorical.

3) The story is true and the sword is quite magical, but the actual true "cause and effect" have been lost over the year.s

1 & 2 seem most likely to me, but -- given he author's love of symbolism -- I tend to favor 2.

First, it's not "someone," it's "THE HERO." The hero and his magical sword is a giant trope and that's why so many people think that it won't be a literal sword here in ASOIAF because people tend to believe that GRRM is breaker-of-all-the-tropes. So it's not shark jumping so much as keeping with fantastical traditions. But just because GRRM does break tropes to an extent doesn't mean he has to break them all or that he can't subvert that trope in another way.

I don't know how it could be terrible writing when so many other fantasy stories do it to people's delight.

So while i agree that LB might be a non-literal sword, I don't think we can safely say it isn't a literal sword based on what constitutes good writing in our own subjective mindset.

[The Human Abstract]

First, it's not "someone," it's "THE HERO." The hero and his magical sword is a giant trope and that's why so many people think that it won't be a literal sword here in ASOIAF because people tend to believe that GRRM is breaker-of-all-the-tropes. So it's not shark jumping so much as keeping with fantastical traditions. But just because GRRM does break tropes to an extent doesn't mean he has to break them all or that he can't subvert that trope in another way.

I don't know how it could be terrible writing when so many other fantasy stories do it to people's delight.

So while i agree that LB might be a non-literal sword, I don't think we can safely say it isn't a literal sword based on what constitutes good writing in our own subjective mindset.

Well I didn't mean to be so definitive in my original remark. I hope I have clarified my terms a bit.

Yes, the author can do whatever he chooses and I am sure he will figure out a way to make it work.

However, I do believe one of the three scenarios I have listed is pretty likely to be the case.

Yes it can be a magical sword, literally. And if so I propose 1 as the most likely case, but maybe 3.

[sj4iy]

If someone simply plunged a newly made sword into their lover's chest and it became magical, you would think that George had jumped the shark, and it would be terrible writing. It just doesn't work.

To me, the two most likely interpretations are:

1) Lightbringer is a literal sword of some sort, but the story has become exaggerated over the years and "legendary" in nature.

2) Lightbringer is not a literal sword, and the story is metaphorical.

3) The story is true and the sword is quite magical, but the actual true "cause and effect" have been lost over the year.s

1 & 2 seem most likely to me, but -- given he author's love of symbolism -- I tend to favor 2.

That doesn't answer my question. Where are the rules that tell us what can and can't happen concerning magic in Martin's world? Because as far as I know, there are none. Without any rules, nothing is out of the realm of possibility. Absolutely nothing. I don't think tempering a sword by murdering your loved one is any less 'feasible' than creatures made of ice controlling the dead. Or dragons being born from stone eggs in a funeral pyre while their human 'mother' is completely unharmed. Or a fool spouting prophecies after being found alive when he had drowned a few days prior. Or a priestess being able to 'glamour' two men to look like one another. Or a man being brought back to life seven times by a drunken priest. I could go on and on and on and on and on about 'unfeasible occurrences' in the text, because we have no rules. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything.

Now, do I think the legend of AA is exactly as it is told? Not necessarily. But I have nothing to counter with- no evidence to disprove it. And I can't disprove it based on feasibility because this story is absolutely full of completely unfeasible events...because there are no rules. It's fantasy. And if the story tells me there's a legendary flaming sword, I see no reason why that isn't possible within the confines of the story.

[Mithras]

And if the story tells me there's a legendary flaming sword, I see no reason why that isn't possible within the confines of the story.

The story also equates dragon to flaming sword. The story also calls the comet as the Red Sword.

[butterbumps!]

His enemies will tremble before him, and their wives will weep tears of blood and rend their flesh in grief. The bells in his hair will sing his coming, and the milk men in the stone tents will fear his name.

I am sorry but this is no saving. This is rape and plunder on a gigantic scale. It is not about uniting men, it is about killing all the men that do not join/bend knee to TSTMTW. There is no universal sense of men vs. apocalypse in this myth. The khalassar of TPTWP do not seem to need saving; more like they need a leader to lead them to rape and plunder. We know what "making people his herd" means for a khal. Look at the Lamb Men.

AA and the LH saved people from an apocalyptic event in their own way. In the case of the LH, it is very clear. During the time of AA, darkness laid heavy on the world. This naturally gives the idea that there was an inbalance in favor of darkness and AA corrected it by probably bringing balance. The nature of such a problem interests all the men.

Therefore, it is meaningful to assume that the LH and AA might share a common ground but TSTMTW has nothing to do with them.

but this constitutes saving?:

Azor Ahai returned … and her triumph over darkness will bring a summer that will never end … death itself will bend its knee, and all those who die fighting in her cause shall be reborn …”

Seriously, you can't cherry pick AA's attributes to render him some form of universal hero who happens to be Jon and declare that cultural deviations of his form and purpose don't matter. Especially not if you want to play the "StMtW is just a Dothraki thing" game.

"End of the earth/ world" has an "apocalyptic" ring to it, if you really want to keep playing it this way. And lo and behold, which architectural wonder is constantly referred to as "the end of the world," and the thing apparently preventing "apocalypse" in the more figurative sense of "end of the world."

[sj4iy]

The story also equates dragon to flaming sword. The story also calls the comet as the Red Sword.

I never said it couldn't. I was simply illustrating why one can't use 'realism' or 'feasibility' to make determinations in this particular story.

[BearQueen87]

His enemies will tremble before him, and their wives will weep tears of blood and rend their flesh in grief. The bells in his hair will sing his coming, and the milk men in the stone tents will fear his name.

I am sorry but this is no saving. This is rape and plunder on a gigantic scale. It is not about uniting men, it is about killing all the men that do not join/bend knee to TSTMTW. There is no universal sense of men vs. apocalypse in this myth. The khalassar of TPTWP do not seem to need saving; more like they need a leader to lead them to rape and plunder. We know what "making people his herd" means for a khal. Look at the Lamb Men.

AA and the LH saved people from an apocalyptic event in their own way. In the case of the LH, it is very clear. During the time of AA, darkness laid heavy on the world. This naturally gives the idea that there was an inbalance in favor of darkness and AA corrected it by probably bringing balance. The nature of such a problem interests all the men.

Therefore, it is meaningful to assume that the LH and AA might share a common ground but TSTMTW has nothing to do with them.

That's the Dothraki expectation of what their savior/hero figure will do. But when the actual prophecy is explained, by a non-Dothraki, it's not the rape and plunder parade you image it to be:

"The stallion is the khal of khals promised in ancient prophecy, child. He will unite the Dothraki into a single khalasar and ride to the ends of the earth, or so it was promised. All the people of the world will be his herd."

There's no mention of blood or rape or plunder. This is what an archetypical hero would do, Dothraki or not. He unites his people, he brings everyone together as one "herd." Note what they call him: "King of Kings" That's a term that is ascribed to many heroes, including Christ in the Christian mythos and--I don't know--the Prince that was Promised. And with the mention of "herd" you've got the shepherd/sheep imagery going.

And "to the ends of the earth" sounds apocalyptic-y to me...

[The Human Abstract]

That doesn't answer my question. Where are the rules that tell us what can and can't happen concerning magic in Martin's world? Because as far as I know, there are none. Without any rules, nothing is out of the realm of possibility. Absolutely nothing. I don't think tempering a sword by murdering your loved one is any less 'feasible' than creatures made of ice controlling the dead. Or dragons being born from stone eggs in a funeral pyre while their human 'mother' is completely unharmed. Or a fool spouts prophecies after being found alive when he had drowned a few days prior. Or a priestess being able to 'glamour' two men to look like one another. Or a man is brought back to life seven times by a drunken priest. I could go on and on and on and on and on about 'unfeasible occurrences' in the text, because we have no rules. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything.Now, do I think the legend of AA is exactly as it is told? Not necessarily. But I have nothing to counter with- no evidence to disprove it. And I can't disprove it based on feasibility because this story is absolutely full of completely unfeasible events...because there are no rules. It's fantasy. And if the story tells me there's a legendary flaming sword, I see no reason why that isn't possible within the confines of the story.

Oh absolutely I see your point. This particular story, however, involves someone taking what, without context, seems a completely irrational action that would destroy a normal sword. It seems a very strong candidate for either symbolism or for being a legend which will be clarified in the future.

[Mithras]

but this constitutes saving?:

Azor Ahai returned … and her triumph over darkness will bring a summer that will never end … death itself will bend its knee, and all those who die fighting in her cause shall be reborn …”

Seriously, you can't cherry pick AA's attributes to render him some form of universal hero who happens to be Jon and declare that cultural deviations of his form and purpose don't matter. Especially not if you want to play the "StMtW is just a Dothraki thing" game.

I can dump all the BS of Benerro away and I suggest you to do the same. Above is an interpretation, not the actual wording of AAR prophecies. One thing we know from interpretations made by characters inside the story is that they are always wrong.

[sj4iy]

Oh absolutely I see your point. This particular story, however, involves someone taking what, without context, seems a completely irrational action that would destroy a normal sword. It seems a very strong candidate for either symbolism or for being a legend which will be clarified in the future.

But we know it's not a 'normal sword'. He spends 30, 50, 100 days and nights working on it. There's clearly something significant about that.

It could very well be symbolism. I am completely open to that possibility. But I also think it is just as possible for it to be an actual sword.

[BearQueen87]

I can dump all the BS of Benerro away and I suggest you to do the same. Above is an interpretation, not the actual wording of AAR prophecies. One thing we know from interpretations made by characters inside the story is that they are always wrong.

You mean how the Dothraki interpret a prophecy concerning TSTMTW?

[butterbumps!]

I can dump all the BS of Benerro away and I suggest you to do the same. Above is an interpretation, not the actual wording of AAR prophecies. One thing we know from interpretations made by characters inside the story is that they are always wrong.

Oh my good lord. This "pillage and rape" you keep harping on wrt tStMtW isn't even stated in the prophesy but something that YOU are imposing. What the Red Pope says about it's OWN messiah should be taken a hell of a lot more seriously as it pertains that the attributes you, as a reader, are trying to impose on this other figure.

The StMtW is a promised prince who unites his people, eliminates rivals to power, and goes to the ends of the world. If you want to insist that AA is just a universal good guy who totally applies to Westeros and the Others, without any attention whatsoever to what people who actually subscribe to his religion say about him, then you really need to rethink this StMtW business.

[Mithras]

You mean how the Dothraki interpret a prophecy concerning TSTMTW?

How Jorah summarizes TSTMTW to Dany is also an interpretation. The words of the crone in VD do not sound like interpretation, rather the actual wording of the ancient prophecy.

[butterbumps!]

How Jorah summarizes TSTMTW to Dany is also an interpretation. The words of the crone in VD do not sound like interpretation, rather the actual wording of the ancient prophecy.

Which doesn't talk about rape or pillage, but overcoming the "milk men" (aka white guys like the Westerosi) in their "stone tents" (aka castles), and uniting everyone. And you don't believe this is applicable to the situation in Westeros because?

[BearQueen87]

How Jorah summarizes TSTMTW to Dany is also an interpretation. The words of the crone in VD do not sound like interpretation, rather the actual wording of the ancient prophecy.

Why would Jorah be interpreting any prophecy, let alone a Dothraki one? Does that sound like pragmatic no nonsense Jorah Mormont? He's just telling Dany that prophecy he knows/has heard (and doesn't match what the Crones and the actual Dothrki believe) when she prompts him because she doesn't fully understand what the Dothraki are talking about.

[Mithras]

Oh my good lord. This "pillage and rape" you keep harping on wrt tStMtW isn't even stated in the prophesy but something that YOU are imposing. What the Red Pope says about it's OWN messiah should be taken a hell of a lot more seriously as it pertains that the attributes you, as a reader, are trying to impose on this other figure.

The StMtW is a promised prince who unites his people, eliminates rivals to power, and goes to the ends of the world. If you want to insist that AA is just a universal good guy who totally applies to Westeros and the Others, without any attention whatsoever to what people who actually subscribe to his religion say about him, then you really need to rethink this StMtW business.

On the contrary, everything said by such a douchebag Pope should be branded as garbage and the reality behind their twisted religion should be sought in other sources.

It is you who impose savior role to TSTMTW whereas the text clearly suggests the contrary. I already said why the ends of the world means the shores of the Narrow Sea. You also defy logic if you think that Dany will lead all her Dothraki to the Wall.

[Mithras]

Why would Jorah be interpreting any prophecy, let alone a Dothraki one? Does that sound like pragmatic no nonsense Jorah Mormont? He's just telling Dany that prophecy he knows/has heard (and doesn't match what the Crones and the actual Dothrki believe) when she prompts him because she doesn't fully understand what the Dothraki are talking about.

So you claim that Jorah's account is true whereas the crones of the VD (ultimate authority among the Dothraki) talked garbage during the ceremony?

[butterbumps!]

On the contrary, everything said by such a douchebag Pope should be branded as garbage and the reality behind their twisted religion should be sought in other sources.

It is you who impose savior role to TSTMTW whereas the text clearly suggests the contrary. I already said why the ends of the world means the shores of the Narrow Sea. You also defy logic if you think that Dany will lead all her Dothraki to the Wall.

Yea, I know what you mean. The Apostles and Popes really fucked up in supporting the belief that Christ is the Christian messiah (retroactively none the less), in light of how he doesn't conform to the Hebrew one Christ is derived from.

And, um, no, I'm not the imposing a messiah status onto the StMtW. In much the same way the Reds see AA as a savior hero, the Dothraki see the StMtW as their hero messiah.

Can you just take a step back and explain why we should ignore what the Reds believe about their own messiah, but not the StMtW?