addicted to snow Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 My take on the 93 letter is not to dismiss it as "useless" on one basis and one basis only.If one can find elements,clues,themes of its context 'still' present in the series then those things are still in play. Long before the 93 letter came out there were certain things deduced from the series illuminated/highlighted/revealed whatever your label by Heretics (good thing we have a guide) and what the letter has done is validate those thoughts.To reiterate what the letter has done is validate that certain aspects remain in the series else we wouldn't have been able to point them out.Its grown in the telling yes,other elements have gotten added of course. Something i've said quite frequently here and that is there's more than one throne to sit in this story and thus "the game of thrones" doesn't only center around a patriarchy nor is it specific to the iron throne. In my opinion NOTHING is validated by the 1993 letter discussing GRRM's early plans... As secretive as GRRM is, we don't even know if he was shooting it straight in the 1993 synopsis. Assuming that he was shooting it straight, it it clear to me that the scope of his tale has grown & evolved over the decades to the point that it has little relevancy to speak of... In my opinion, the only means of validating a theory is when it is confirmed by a reliable witness/narrator in the print of the ASOIAF Series itself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmaid7 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 In my opinion NOTHING is validated by the 1993 letter discussing GRRM's early plans... As secretive as GRRM is, we don't even know if he was shooting it straight in the 1993 synopsis. Assuming that he was shooting it straight, it it clear to me that the scope of his tale has grown & evolved over the decades to the point that it has little relevancy to speak of... In my opinion, the only means of validating a theory is when it is confirmed by a reliable witness/narrator in the print of the ASOIAF Series itself... And you are entitled to your opnion but the FACT remains.If elements in the series current was unearth and highlighted prior to any knowledge of the 93 letter.Then the 93 letter comes out and the same elements are in the letter then he has not changed those. He maybe doing something badass with them that no one sees coming,but it doesn't change that they are there...That's my point.So you can't say its useless. e.g. The letter says Ban and Jon are bitter enemies. Prior to the letter some of us pointed out clues that are pointing to this actually happening based on the themes we saw. The clues are still there in this series,the letter only confirms that what we percieved as clues to this conclusion was right.Why because its still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew. Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I wouldn't call the letter useless, but it's obvious that a great deal has changed, so by that standard I don't find it a valid source to cite when supposedly disproving the ideas of another. In other words saying "that can't happen, because there's no hint of it in the 1993 letter" is unsound, because there are all sorts of significant things missing from the letter: Tywin, Littlefinger, Varys, the CotF, Cersei, Stannis, etc. Thus, with Jon, I'm not convinced that the absence of any information about any particular character outcomes proves that that outcome won't happen. In a letter that is, by and large, giving a very rough synopsis of the first arc of a three arc story, why in the world would GRRM say "Oh, and by the way, at the end Jon will sit the Iron Throne/Wield Dawn/Lead the Others as the Nights' King/etc.?" As a sideways example, there's not so much as a hint in the letter that Tyrion will ever be lord of Casterly Rock, so does that mean that such a scenario is off the table? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ravenstark Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Could Patchface be one of the many Bloodraven's avatars? Melisandre says she sees him in her fires with skulls around, the admen thing she sees when looking at Bloodraven. And he is prophetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmaid7 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I wouldn't call the letter useless, but it's obvious that a great deal has changed, so by that standard I don't find it a valid source to cite when supposedly disproving the ideas of another. In other words saying "that can't happen, because there's no hint of it in the 1993 letter" is unsound, because there are all sorts of significant things missing from the letter: Tywin, Littlefinger, Varys, the CotF, Cersei, Stannis, etc. Thus, with Jon, I'm not convinced that the absence of any information about any particular character outcomes proves that that outcome won't happen. In a letter that is, by and large, giving a very rough synopsis of the first arc of a three arc story, why in the world would GRRM say "Oh, and by the way, at the end Jon will sit the Iron Throne/Wield Dawn/Lead the Others as the Nights' King/etc.?" As a sideways example, there's not so much as a hint in the letter that Tyrion will ever be lord of Casterly Rock, so does that mean that such a scenario is off the table? I think not. Ofcourse a great deal has changed,you will get no arguement here and in fact " the tale has grown in the telling" is a fixture here.I get the sense that this is about Rhaegar being Jon's father or not as it may relate to the letter and if its relevant.You and BC will have to battle that out...lol. My idea and whole thought about Jon's parentage is very different and from what i see it will be important because of people like LF,Cersie,Varys and a crap load of people that are in the story.It all depends on the perspective of the characters.So like i said, the game of thrones doesn't only include the iron throne. Nothing in that letter excludes Rhaegar or any other canidate ,but what i think BC is trying to say is Jon's parentage was/is only important as a stone for getting Jon in Arya's pants. BC you can correct me if i'm wrong. I sum it up as this: The element that was there in the letter that most people could see in the series is that Jon wasn't Ned's son.That's it.Everything else is part of what had grown in the telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted to snow Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 e.g. The letter says Ban and Jon are bitter enemies. Prior to the letter some of us pointed out clues that are pointing to this actually happening based on the themes we saw. The clues are still there in this series,the letter only confirms that what we percieved as clues to this conclusion was right.Why because its still there. Here, allow me to use your example to prove that you are wrong about the letter... As you say, the letter suggest that Bran & Jon are Bitter Enemies... Well, the Bran that you & I know from the ASOIAF Series will NEVER be Bitter enemies with Jon or anyone else... Once Jon becomes corrupted & is the Night's King, he & Bran will be on opposing sides to one another, and I believe that Bran is the "knarled hand" that grabs Jon after Jon cuts off Rob's head in a dream, but Bran will never be bitter enemies with anyone... If Bran can loose Winterfell to Theon Greyjoy & not be bitter... If Bran can loose his legs so that Jamie, Cersei, and their children can live; yet not be bitter... Then there is a zero percent chance that he can ever be considered "Bitter" Enemies with his half brother Jon Snow... Reasons such as this make a compelling argument that perhaps Bran's character or Jon's Character have be replaced by someone else, or perhaps that particular storyline has been omitted altogether from the 1993 synopsis (if the synopsis was ever true to begin with)... --- Bran & Jon will definitely not be on the same side in the end... Bran is a Stark... Jon is an Evil Bastard... Still, my suggestion would be to wait until your theories are confirmed in the actual book series before taking a victory lap... Taking victory laps from dubious 1993 letters or non-cannon material can be problematic at best & result in one's foot being inserted into their mouth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted to snow Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 For all we know, GRRM wrote the 1993 letter in 2014, had it poorly redacted & then made public by his peoples... GRRM hates for people to figure his story out & this could easily be subterfuge to confuse people like us who analyze his series... If this is the case, then it has been a great success!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly Wren Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I like the catch made in H175: the absence of Benjen. My views on Theon's dream: 1. Is the dream, Theon's dream? and therefore should the setting and charactors be seen from his perspective? if so, to me, then the guests at the feast are purely the people as Theon knew them or of them, and the dream becomes an illustration of his guilty conscience. Alternatively: 2. is the dream a subconscious feed from the weirnet? if so, what is the purpose? and who is driving this perspective? The problem I have with #2 is that I cannot see what it would achieve to give Theon this vision or "knowledge", as we later see, Theon has very little interaction with any of the main charactors (whom the wiernet maybe trying to reach and/or influence) until much later and at which time (ADWD) he is a broken man given to muttering and mumbles. The conclusion I can make is that the dream is for the benefit of the reader. But what are we supposed to see/read? ETA: spelling I agree--for me, the dream is more about Theon's guilt than a portent. What are readers "supposed" to see? Not sure. But as was pointed out elsewhere, the dream is preceded by another dream--of Theon's being chased by giant wolves with heads of children. Surrounded by smiling trees. Think Theon's "conversion" to the old gods of the Starks is fairly horrifying. And, given that he's hearing Bran--am wondering what his reactions will be to whatever Bran ends up doing with his capacity via tree. Will Theon be Bran's lackey? Acolyte? Is this how others war "converted" to the old gods? Guilt over dead "relatives" speaking through the trees? Or is it just not a good idea for me to write posts when I'm tired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 Ofcourse a great deal has changed,you will get no arguement here and in fact " the tale has grown in the telling" is a fixture here.I get the sense that this is about Rhaegar being Jon's father or not as it may relate to the letter and if its relevant.You and BC will have to battle that out...lol... There is of course absolutely no question but that the story has grown and has branched in different directions since that original sales pitch, but my argument remains that the story as outlined is very different from the return of the king so earnestly desired by some. The underlying theme is very clear; its about the destruction of house Stark, the triumph of Danaerys Targaryen and then as Queen her rallying of everyone, Stark, Lannister and Uncle Tom Cobley and all against the horror from the North. All the way through its an ensemble piece so adding a return of King Jon Targaryen as the chosen one to save the day is not only going to be a cliche but will run counter to the ensemble; to all working together and will make as much sense as Maelys the Monstrous' second head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly Wren Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Could Patchface be one of the many Bloodraven's avatars? Melisandre says she sees him in her fires with skulls around, the admen thing she sees when looking at Bloodraven. And he is prophetic. I'm not a big fan of "Bloodraven controlling many, many things" arguments. But Patchface--Bran's turned Hodor into a sort of avatar. Is Patchface something similar (minus the carrying)? Really bought the idea that Patchface is tied to the Drowned God. And the fact that Mel sees Patchface surrounded by skulls and blood--might be the cave of skulls. But an avatar? Or is Patchface just seeing things sent to him and singing about them in almost-gibberish? Like a less coherent Ghost of Hight Heart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 I agree--for me, the dream is more about Theon's guilt than a portent. What are readers "supposed" to see? Not sure. But as was pointed out elsewhere, the dream is preceded by another dream--of Theon's being chased by giant wolves with heads of children. Surrounded by smiling trees. Think Theon's "conversion" to the old gods of the Starks is fairly horrifying. And, given that he's hearing Bran--am wondering what his reactions will be to whatever Bran ends up doing with his capacity via tree. Will Theon be Bran's lackey? Acolyte? Is this how others war "converted" to the old gods? Guilt over dead "relatives" speaking through the trees? Or is it just not a good idea for me to write posts when I'm tired? No, I think that may be a pretty good example of what we've discussed before about the old powers fighting back by messing with men's dreams. Its very nicely explained, especially when you consider that in truth Theon never saw Lyanna, Lord Rickard or any of the others around the periphery, which is why we can't attribute the dream to his guilty conscience alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly Wren Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Just on a personal level, I really hope GRRM doesn't go the route of having Littlefinger - who was, what, like 14 at the time? - helping to mastermind some of the events of RR. If we're looking for culprits who were looking to stir the pot, and force the Stark-Arryn-Baratheon-Tully bloc to act irrationally, I think Varys or Tywin are more likely. Or, if one wants to be a bit more crackpot, we do have some evidence that there was another party in the midst of all of this, also causing trouble - Lady Dustin's "grey rats," the maesters, whom she suggests were influencing the alliance Rickard was forming. It may be the case that this ties into Marwyn's similar comment about "grey sheep," and the idea that some element of the Citadel might actually want to see the Targaryens marginalized and destroyed. Given their widespread presence in noble households, and the fact that they're a primary source of news, I think the maesters could pretty easily use information (or misinformation) to instigate hostilities. I agree re: Littlefinger. The idea that he's been behind everything would annoy me no end. Especially if it came in the form of a monologue like Lyssa's reveal re: Arryn's death. As to "stirring the pot"--am assuming you all have discussed the possibility of the Elders of the alliance--IE: Jon Arryn or Hoster Tully--possibly encouraging the overreaction. Just because it's an alliance doesn't mean they can't manipulate each other. Not when they get such a lovely windfall like Lyanna's disappearance. Might as well use it. Did they want Brandon to do what he did? Maybe not. But, in this completely hypothetical scenario about fictional dead people--if they wanted "power," must have known rebellion was a potential way to get it. Messy, dangerous, unpredictable--but a method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 I'm not a big fan of "Bloodraven controlling many, many things" arguments. But Patchface--Bran's turned Hodor into a sort of avatar. Is Patchface something similar (minus the carrying)? Really bought the idea that Patchface is tied to the Drowned God. And the fact that Mel sees Patchface surrounded by skulls and blood--might be the cave of skulls. But an avatar? Or is Patchface just seeing things sent to him and singing about them in almost-gibberish? Like a less coherent Ghost of Hight Heart? My problem with the Drowned God is that thus far we have no other real indication of involvement and that the Old Powers might make rather more sense from a continuity point of view. That being said I agree as to Bloodraven, or rather would suggest that if he has any involvement it is as a conduit for the old powers rather than as an active player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 I agree re: Littlefinger. The idea that he's been behind everything would annoy me no end. Especially if it came in the form of a monologue like Lyssa's reveal re: Arryn's death. As to "stirring the pot"--am assuming you all have discussed the possibility of the Elders of the alliance--IE: Jon Arryn or Hoster Tully--possibly encouraging the overreaction. Just because it's an alliance doesn't mean they can't manipulate each other. Not when they get such a lovely windfall like Lyanna's disappearance. Might as well use it. Did they want Brandon to do what he did? Maybe not. But, in this completely hypothetical scenario about fictional dead people--if they wanted "power," must have known rebellion was a potential way to get it. Messy, dangerous, unpredictable--but a method. Agreed, which is exactly why I'm arguing that Lyanna is appearing in the dream as another victim of what's been going on rather than the ultimate cause of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerTarod Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I agree--for me, the dream is more about Theon's guilt than a portent. What are readers "supposed" to see? Not sure. But as was pointed out elsewhere, the dream is preceded by another dream--of Theon's being chased by giant wolves with heads of children. Surrounded by smiling trees. Think Theon's "conversion" to the old gods of the Starks is fairly horrifying. And, given that he's hearing Bran--am wondering what his reactions will be to whatever Bran ends up doing with his capacity via tree. Will Theon be Bran's lackey? Acolyte? Is this how others war "converted" to the old gods? Guilt over dead "relatives" speaking through the trees? Or is it just not a good idea for me to write posts when I'm tired? nope. Good post. I see now that I took the dream (under discussion) in isolation and if i read your post correctly, this dream, in the context of Theon's progression, I can now see it as be seen as option #2 where Theon maybe becomes a vehicle for the Old Gods. Thank you Sly Wren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfmaid7 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Here, allow me to use your example to prove that you are wrong about the letter... As you say, the letter suggest that Bran & Jon are Bitter Enemies... Well, the Bran that you & I know from the ASOIAF Series will NEVER be Bitter enemies with Jon or anyone else... Once Jon becomes corrupted & is the Night's King, he & Bran will be on opposing sides to one another, and I believe that Bran is the "knarled hand" that grabs Jon after Jon cuts off Rob's head in a dream, but Bran will never be bitter enemies with anyone... If Bran can loose Winterfell to Theon Greyjoy & not be bitter... If Bran can loose his legs so that Jamie, Cersei, and their children can live; yet not be bitter... Then there is a zero percent chance that he can ever be considered "Bitter" Enemies with his half brother Jon Snow... Reasons such as this make a compelling argument that perhaps Bran's character or Jon's Character have be replaced by someone else, or perhaps that particular storyline has been omitted altogether from the 1993 synopsis (if the synopsis was ever true to begin with)... --- Bran & Jon will definitely not be on the same side in the end... Bran is a Stark... Jon is an Evil Bastard... Still, my suggestion would be to wait until your theories are confirmed in the actual book series before taking a victory lap... Taking victory laps from dubious 1993 letters or non-cannon material can be problematic at best & result in one's foot being inserted into their mouth... Ats erm you haven't proven anything. You just told me your opinion on what you think.I think there"s a twist Bran and Jon and to me its about perception. What Jon would be percieved as doing vs what Bran will be doing. Furthermore your not in opposite to what im saying. No matter what side of the fender you put them on.For a time they'll be on opposite sides which is the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly Wren Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 My problem with the Drowned God is that thus far we have no other real indication of involvement and that the Old Powers might make rather more sense from a continuity point of view. That being said I agree as to Bloodraven, or rather would suggest that if he has any involvement it is as a conduit for the old powers rather than as an active player. I was thinking about this. Ghost of High Heart has "visions." But they aren't all that helpful and she's miserable. They seem more helpful to readers than characters. Same with Patchface. So, are people like this "conduits," or just sensitive the the innate magic of Martinlandia? Are they being "sent" visions or are they just picking things up? We've got Bran having visions in the tree. Some seem helpful. Some just intriguing. Not sure what will help or not at this point. Same with Dany in the House of the Undying. So, seems like visions are interactions with collective memory. And maybe what will be (or never be with the Undying). But do they need to be "sent" or just "picked up on" from the collective consciousness? Can't see we have any evidence the old gods are "sending" everything that's getting seen. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly Wren Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 nope. Good post. I see now that I took the dream (under discussion) in isolation and if i read your post correctly, this dream, in the context of Theon's progression, I can now see it as be seen as option #2 where Theon maybe becomes a vehicle for the Old Gods. Thank you Sly Wren I, too, tend to read the dream in isolation. Didn't remember the wolf dream with the trees until someone else pointed it out. But am wondering if Theon might become a vehicle for the old gods per se or just for Bran. For a Stark connected to the old gods. So his involvement in the story will be more specific. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew. Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 All the way through its an ensemble piece so adding a return of King Jon Targaryen as the chosen one to save the day is not only going to be a cliche but will run counter to the ensemble; to all working together and will make as much sense as Maelys the Monstrous' second head. This assumes that any end point where Jon is sitting the Iron Throne - or is AAR - necessitates that he be a lone hero whose actions are of disproportionate influence, relative to the rest of the ensemble, which is not the case. I'm not trying to argue for an outcome where Jon is the king, since I think that's not going to happen, I'm just annoyed by the unsound logic being used to support that conclusion--selective interpretation of questionable materials, representing the opposite viewpoint in the most cliche, and un-nuanced terms possible, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted to snow Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I was thinking about this. Ghost of High Heart has "visions." But they aren't all that helpful and she's miserable. They seem more helpful to readers than characters. Same with Patchface. The Ghost of High Heart doesn't really have Visions... She has Green Dreams just like Jojen... Her & Jojen's powers are frequently underestimated by readers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.