Heresy 177

[Black Crow]

Mind you there's still that mystery about the apparent reverence the washermen have for Winterfell and "Lord Eddard's words". I know there's speculation that one of more of them might have been a daughter of a Stark bannerman, kidnapped long long ago, but I'm unconvinced and inclined to wonder about some deeper significance now that the trees have eyes again.

[avernite]

Mind you there's still that mystery about the apparent reverence the washermen have for Winterfell and "Lord Eddard's words". I know there's speculation that one of more of them might have been a daughter of a Stark bannerman, kidnapped long long ago, but I'm unconvinced and inclined to wonder about some deeper significance now that the trees have eyes again.

If need be, of course, it can be put down to simple history - 'the Starks in Winterfell' being about on par with 'the Wall' in terms of permanent fixtures for Wildling life.

 

It's a book, though, so probably not, but... what then does it mean?

 

Sometimes I think the Stark words are the key to the whole story, other times it just seems like a quirky cultural trait distinguishing the 'good guys' and their warning from the evil selfish people with their boasts.

[Sly Wren]

 

It never ceases to amaze me the wonderful insights other people get from different passages, and this is one I really like!

:cheers: Thanks!

 

This actually gives me hope that Sansa's story may not end with her death. She and Jon have roles to play while dead...at least that's what I am getting...

 

Either that or this is foreshadowing of their respective deaths and they have no further roles to play. :bawl:

Oh, yeah. They are not dying yet. Or, at least, Jon's not staying dead.

 

But all 4 Stark kid POV's are in an underworld now--figurative with Sansa and Arya, literal with Bran and Jon. And they are seeing and hearing things, learning from slightly shady mentors.

 

I'm not going to pretend to know who survives and who doesn't. But Sansa's not done--she's heading back to Winterfell. And I'm ready to bet my third favorite pair of shoes that Jon will rise as the next Sword of the Morning.

So--not  :bawl: . But  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh: !!!! Joy is ours.

[wolfmaid7]

Can anyone provide any foreshadowing that suggest that Craster is a Bastard Stark?

 
 
If Craster is a Stark, then GRRM will most certainly have included the foreshadowing & if it exists, it will more than likely be in his introductory paragraph - that is the way GRRM works...

Ninjered.

[addicted to snow]

As I recall, apart from speculation it would fit that the unknown man of the Nights Watch supposed to have sired him was a Stark and the fact he recognises Jon as a Stark [which may or may not be solely based on knowing Benjen], there is no evidence.

 

All that its really got going for it is the alliteration of Stark-Karstark-Craster.

 

His being a secret Stark [the uncle the family doesn't speak about] opens up a number of theories but interesting as they are they do not of themselves constitute evidence that he's a Stark. 

 

Hmmm... I don't know... One would think that GRRM might have given Craster some Stark features, or possibly a Starkish personality if the reader is meant to believe that he might be a Stark Bastard...

 

Do we even know if there was a Stark on the wall around the time of Craster's Birth? If the careful reader was meant to puzzle out that Craster is a Stark bastard, surely GRRM would have dropped the name of his supposed father by now...

 

If Craster is a Stark Bastard, then GRRM seems to have forgotten to foreshadow it...

 

--

I don't think the alliteration was intentional... It's quite clear to me that Craster was named after fishing village highlighted in my signature...

[Black Crow]

I think we're talking a little at cross purposes here; what I basically said is that the theory is plausible, but the only thing which might be considered as evidence is the alliteration.

 

The Craster-Karstark alliteration seems too close to be random, but it's intended to make us think and might well turn out to be the real red herring you're looking for.

 

It is worth noting that Craster in Northumberland is not only known for Craster kippers, but for the Craster family and their tower or keep!

[Melifeather]

:cheers: Thanks!

 

Oh, yeah. They are not dying yet. Or, at least, Jon's not staying dead.

 

But all 4 Stark kid POV's are in an underworld now--figurative with Sansa and Arya, literal with Bran and Jon. And they are seeing and hearing things, learning from slightly shady mentors.

 

I'm not going to pretend to know who survives and who doesn't. But Sansa's not done--she's heading back to Winterfell. And I'm ready to bet my third favorite pair of shoes that Jon will rise as the next Sword of the Morning.

So--not  :bawl: . But  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh: !!!! Joy is ours.

 

 

Jon's dream certainly makes it seem like he'll be reborn to fight the others in a new battle for the Dawn, but I don't think we know for sure if that is where "Sword of the Morning" got it's seemingly logical name. His Stark heritage seems to be more important than who his father is/was, so for that reason I don't see him becoming the Sword of the Morning.

 

The Dayne's sword itself does seem to have special properties. Arthur did have an undefeated record until Howland Reed did something that enabled Ned Stark to defeat him in a sword fight. And, because Ned returned the sword to the Daynes, I don't connect this sword with the Stark's original sword Ice. Not the Ice that Ned brandished, but the one that we suspect was actually made of ice and likely brandished by an Other before falling into the Stark's hands.

 

The scenerio that makes the most sense to me is that the man that became the first Stark was the man to defeat the Others. That's why the Starks are enlisted with the duty to protect the North and send family members to the Wall. And for this reason I don't think there is a connection between Ice and the Sword of the Morning. The only way the Sword of the Morning is also Ice is if the Starks are a cadet branch of the Daynes.

[MaesterSam]

Yup! But in the "not my place" scene, Jon expressly says he's not afraid of the Kings of Winter, but of what is "waiting for him." All of Winterfell is dead in that scene--it's the underworld, not Winterfell.

 

It isn't until Jon's dreaming as Ghost-Jon and sees Tree-Bran that Jon becomes less afraid of "down here in the dark" that smells like death.

 

So--Sansa's coming down a spiral stair into a black and white world--not just Winter. Death--like Jon's dream. But she goes straight in. Is embraced by the snow. 

 

And then promptly loses a chunk of time she doesn't remember later. The next thing she knows, she is kneeling in the snow. IIRC, one of the servants asks her if she isn't cold, but she is not. This is a nice parallel to Dany bathing in very hot water and not being burned. 

[Matthew.]

His Stark heritage seems to be more important than who his father is/was, so for that reason I don't see him becoming the Sword of the Morning.

 

Why not? At the beginning of the story, all Arya had was her Stark heritage, yet now she's in an Essosi religious institute/assassin's guild that she probably hadn't even heard of at the start of aGoT; Dany is the blood of Old Valyria and a Targaryen, yet her time with the Dothraki seems to have been a significant influence on her identity. It's not really a question of whats "more important," it's all important in shaping what these characters are, and what they're becoming.

Many of our characters are struggling with identity, in many cases forced to go down undesirable roads (eg, Theon, Tyrion) by factors outside of their control, and I don't see why Jon should be immune to this.

I'm not specifically saying he's going to become the Sword of the Morning - if anything, my personal suspicion is that he's headed in the opposite direction - but I think this frequent Heresy refrain of "he's a Stark, and that's what really matters" is not terribly consistent with the way GRRM has written his other characters, with the basic idea of character growth/change, or even with Jon's own character journey--where he has already been a Snow, a crow, a wildling, and a leader of men; I don't see why Night's King/autonomous wight/Sword of the Morning/Azor Ahai/etc. couldn't also be added to that list.

[Sly Wren]

And then promptly loses a chunk of time she doesn't remember later. The next thing she knows, she is kneeling in the snow. IIRC, one of the servants asks her if she isn't cold, but she is not. This is a nice parallel to Dany bathing in very hot water and not being burned. 

I'd forgotten about her losing time. Am now remembering reading theories that Sansa may have been warging without knowing it--losing herself without remembering where she went.

 

A version of the wolf dream--only awake and without memory. 

 

If she's in birds (she's hearing sound on the wind and has that nickname), and wondering what she might remember once she stops losing time.

[TheMiddleHero]

Yup! But in the "not my place" scene, Jon expressly says he's not afraid of the Kings of Winter, but of what is "waiting for him." All of Winterfell is dead in that scene--it's the underworld, not Winterfell.

 

It isn't until Jon's dreaming as Ghost-Jon and sees Tree-Bran that Jon becomes less afraid of "down here in the dark" that smells like death.

 

So--Sansa's coming down a spiral stair into a black and white world--not just Winter. Death--like Jon's dream. But she goes straight in. Is embraced by the snow. 

 

:agree: They're all in underworlds, places for potential epiphanies.

 

Kissed by fire, definitely. But the red and white--she's black and white now. Colors of the underworld.. But she's naturally red and white--talks of her own skin as ivory. Like weirwoods and Ghost.

[spoiler]The show seemed to costume her as a weirwood princess for her wedding--textured white dress topped with red hair. Maybe the costumer just likes textured white--but it seemed to me like it was meant to look like very elegant bark.[/spoiler]

 

Good stuff  :commie: What do you think of all their downstairs movements vs Dany's always upstairs and first door on the right?

 

Do you think there is significance to that in terms of the way the Stark's vs Targ's deal with the underworld?

[Sly Wren]

 

 

Jon's dream certainly makes it seem like he'll be reborn to fight the others in a new battle for the Dawn, but I don't think we know for sure if that is where "Sword of the Morning" got it's seemingly logical name. His Stark heritage seems to be more important than who his father is/was, so for that reason I don't see him becoming the Sword of the Morning.

 

The Dayne's sword itself does seem to have special properties. Arthur did have an undefeated record until Howland Reed did something that enabled Ned Stark to defeat him in a sword fight. And, because Ned returned the sword to the Daynes, I don't connect this sword with the Stark's original sword Ice. Not the Ice that Ned brandished, but the one that we suspect was actually made of ice and likely brandished by an Other before falling into the Stark's hands.

 

The scenerio that makes the most sense to me is that the man that became the first Stark was the man to defeat the Others. That's why the Starks are enlisted with the duty to protect the North and send family members to the Wall. And for this reason I don't think there is a connection between Ice and the Sword of the Morning. The only way the Sword of the Morning is also Ice is if the Starks are a cadet branch of the Daynes.

1. Re: Sword of the Morning--time for shameless self promotion: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/134981-from-death-to-dawn-jon-will-rise-and-the-sword-of-the-morning/

Basically, Jon has a break down of identity while he and Ghost search the stars in Storm Jon III. Then, when he emerges from his dark night of the soul, sees The Sword of the Morning at the start of Storm Jon IV. A partial epiphany in the stars.

 

Which also fits with his winning Longclaw. He's the only person in the novels that has won an ancestral sword via merit, not blood. Has won it out of the line of inheritance, bestowed upon him by its rightful owner, with its name and worth intact.

 

Like Dawn is only given to a worthy Dayne. Resides at Starfall until the next Sword of the Morning "rises" (Martin's words). Really think it's a mystical bestowal an Jon's it.

 

2. As for Ice vs. Dawn--I've read a lot of opinions on that, including Voice's idea. Not yet sure where I stand. But just started toying with the idea that the metals in Robb's King in the North crown are dark like Ice. Ice has fallen with the de factor King in the North--Ned. Ice is split and defiled. And only half of it is with someone who could redeem it. And now the next King in the North is fallen.

 

Am wondering if now the King of Winter rises again. The name of those who defeated the Others. With his sword--Dawn. Maybe, maybe, maybe. 

 

3. Re: Starks and Daynes: If Arthus if Jon's father, it's all easy as pie. But plenty of reason to think Rhaegar is daddy--and he has a Dayne great grandmother for his sibling-parents. Is that enough blood? No idea. But since Dawn seems bestowed on worth not on line of succession--a little blood could go a long way.

[wolfmaid7]

Why not? At the beginning of the story, all Arya had was her Stark heritage, yet now she's in an Essosi religious institute/assassin's guild that she probably hadn't even heard of at the start of aGoT; Dany is the blood of Old Valyria and a Targaryen, yet her time with the Dothraki seems to have been a significant influence on her identity. It's not really a question of whats "more important," it's all important in shaping what these characters are, and what they're becoming.

Many of our characters are struggling with identity, in many cases forced to go down undesirable roads (eg, Theon, Tyrion) by factors outside of their control, and I don't see why Jon should be immune to this.

I'm not specifically saying he's going to become the Sword of the Morning - if anything, my personal suspicion is that he's headed in the opposite direction - but I think this frequent Heresy refrain of "he's a Stark, and that's what really matters" is not terribly consistent with the way GRRM has written his other characters, with the basic idea of character growth/change, or even with Jon's own character journey--where he has already been a Snow, a crow, a wildling, and a leader of men; I don't see why Night's King/autonomous wight/Sword of the Morning/Azor Ahai/etc. couldn't also be added to that list.

Again not a homogenous Heresy belief.That being said i don't think it is wrong or that you are right.I think both assertions are correct but they are missing one fundamental piece and you raised it.It has to do with identity.Jon has been struggling with who he is this entire series and have had his identity as a Stark be important in how people saw him even if he didn't.

 

Qhorin chose him for the ranging North because he was a Stark.Alys went to him because he was a Stark and Aemon told him that the mantle fell to him because he was the blood of Winterfell....Stark. That can't be ignored,what matters though is the identity Jon chooses in the end.

 

For me while the Stark aspect is being flung in his face and certainly his father's will be too.Signs point to Jon claiming himself his own identity and standing in the power of his bastardry.

[Melifeather]

Why not? At the beginning of the story, all Arya had was her Stark heritage, yet now she's in an Essosi religious institute/assassin's guild that she probably hadn't even heard of at the start of aGoT; Dany is the blood of Old Valyria and a Targaryen, yet her time with the Dothraki seems to have been a significant influence on her identity. It's not really a question of whats "more important," it's all important in shaping what these characters are, and what they're becoming.

Many of our characters are struggling with identity, in many cases forced to go down undesirable roads (eg, Theon, Tyrion) by factors outside of their control, and I don't see why Jon should be immune to this.

I'm not specifically saying he's going to become the Sword of the Morning - if anything, my personal suspicion is that he's headed in the opposite direction - but I think this frequent Heresy refrain of "he's a Stark, and that's what really matters" is not terribly consistent with the way GRRM has written his other characters, with the basic idea of character growth/change, or even with Jon's own character journey--where he has already been a Snow, a crow, a wildling, and a leader of men; I don't see why Night's King/autonomous wight/Sword of the Morning/Azor Ahai/etc. couldn't also be added to that list.

 

I agree that the Stark kids are struggling with identity, but I am expecting them to embrace their true selves after they've discovered that they cannot (and won't want to) change who they are. In a corny sort of way, they are like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz where they learn that they always had the power to return home.

 

I don't expect Arya to remain a faceless "man", because that would mean forfeiting being Arya Stark. She'll learn how to lie believably, but she will remain Arya and be reunited with Needle and go back to Westeros as Arya Stark.

 

I don't expect Dany to remain with the Dothraki. At the end of Dance she's reunited with the Dothraki and she may very well take over that khalisar, but I expect her to return to Westeros as a Targaryen.

 

Jon has been denying himself his Stark identity this whole time and trying to make his own place in the world as Jon Snow, but I am expecting that his death will earn his place as a true Stark....not as a Dayne.

 

Before Sly Wren's post about Sansa a page or so ago, I was thinking Sansa was a goner and a non-player since her wolf was dead. She never asserted herself as a Stark, because she assumed she'd marry into the Lannisters (basically she did finally with Tyrion, but thought it would be Joffrey), and now that she's with Littlefinger she's entertaining his plans for her with Harry the Heir, but the "snowflake communion" is making her realize that she doesn't need to look to a marriage to make her place in the world...she can remain a Stark and find purpose that way.

[Sly Wren]

Why not? At the beginning of the story, all Arya had was her Stark heritage, yet now she's in an Essosi religious institute/assassin's guild that she probably hadn't even heard of at the start of aGoT; Dany is the blood of Old Valyria and a Targaryen, yet her time with the Dothraki seems to have been a significant influence on her identity. It's not really a question of whats "more important," it's all important in shaping what these characters are, and what they're becoming.

Many of our characters are struggling with identity, in many cases forced to go down undesirable roads (eg, Theon, Tyrion) by factors outside of their control, and I don't see why Jon should be immune to this.

:agree: 

The Starks are strongly defined as Starks. Their direwolves help with that. As do their upbringings. But that doesn't stop them from needing to figure out what it means to be a Stark. How they fit. What they are supposed to do now that their world has fallen apart. Lots of crises of identity.

 

I'm not specifically saying he's going to become the Sword of the Morning - if anything, my personal suspicion is that he's headed in the opposite direction - but I think this frequent Heresy refrain of "he's a Stark, and that's what really matters" is not terribly consistent with the way GRRM has written his other characters, with the basic idea of character growth/change, or even with Jon's own character journey--where he has already been a Snow, a crow, a wildling, and a leader of men; I don't see why Night's King/autonomous wight/Sword of the Morning/Azor Ahai/etc. couldn't also be added to that list.

I'm not sold on Jon's going "dark." Especially re: my shameless self-promotion in my reply to Feather Crystal. If anyone's going dark, I think it's Dany.

 

But Jon's Stark identity IS in question for Jon--he questions himself left and right. "Kill the boy" isn't advice given to a kid who knows exactly who is he and what he's doing.

 

The other half of his biological identity is a mystery in the novels--he's loved as a Stark. Has Ghost as a Stark. But he's other things, too. And those really do and will matter to him and others. And could include all of the options you listed.

[Sly Wren]

 

Good stuff  :commie: What do you think of all their downstairs movements vs Dany's always upstairs and first door on the right?

 

Do you think there is significance to that in terms of the way the Stark's vs Targ's deal with the underworld?

Ooh! I hadn't thought to compare Stark underworld experiences with Dany's. Now that you say it, I feel very stupid.

 

The Starks are used to playing in the crypts. Repeatedly refer to them as safety--Arya, Bran and Rickon, now Sansa. Jon's nightmare is different--but I'm thinking that's because he the one going to a real underworld and that would make anyone nervous.

 

So, for the Starks, the crypts/underworld is connection to family. Safety and, at least for Sansa, innocence.

 

It's changing--Bran's getting revelations in his underworld. Sansa and Arya seem poised to do the same. And definitely Jon. But they are comfortable in the crypt-like underworld.

 

But Dany in the HofU--it's not a descent but a series of only sort of connected visions. The Stark crypts are a clear, connected history of family. A bedrock. Dany--she sees crazy Aerys, happy-family-Rhaegar, then dying Rhaegar and Viserys--whose death she tacitly agreed to.

 

Dany's history is much more fragmented. Especially compared to the Starks. Am wondering if this is why her visions are less unified. A lot of them are Dothraki based--her new identity tying her to even older myths and symbols.

 

For now, that's my best shot. 

 

Your take?

[Melifeather]

1. Re: Sword of the Morning--time for shameless self promotion: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/134981-from-death-to-dawn-jon-will-rise-and-the-sword-of-the-morning/

Basically, Jon has a break down of identity while he and Ghost search the stars in Storm Jon III. Then, when he emerges from his dark night of the soul, sees The Sword of the Morning at the start of Storm Jon IV. A partial epiphany in the stars.

 

Which also fits with his winning Longclaw. He's the only person in the novels that has won an ancestral sword via merit, not blood. Has won it out of the line of inheritance, bestowed upon him by its rightful owner, with its name and worth intact.

 

Like Dawn is only given to a worthy Dayne. Resides at Starfall until the next Sword of the Morning "rises" (Martin's words). Really think it's a mystical bestowal an Jon's it.

 

2. As for Ice vs. Dawn--I've read a lot of opinions on that, including Voice's idea. Not yet sure where I stand. But just started toying with the idea that the metals in Robb's King in the North crown are dark like Ice. Ice has fallen with the de factor King in the North--Ned. Ice is split and defiled. And only half of it is with someone who could redeem it. And now the next King in the North is fallen.

 

Am wondering if now the King of Winter rises again. The name of those who defeated the Others. With his sword--Dawn. Maybe, maybe, maybe. 

 

3. Re: Starks and Daynes: If Arthus if Jon's father, it's all easy as pie. But plenty of reason to think Rhaegar is daddy--and he has a Dayne great grandmother for his sibling-parents. Is that enough blood? No idea. But since Dawn seems bestowed on worth not on line of succession--a little blood could go a long way.

 

 

I read your original post about Jon being the Sword of the Morning and it's good! You make a convincing argument, but I'm still not sold. I like to think that I am open-minded and hope that I'm not trying to hold on to any vested theories, because I just don't have a detailed counter point to your OP at the ready. I'm just relying on a gut feeling that Jon's father will not surpass his mother's identity, because certainly the next Sword of the Morning would be pretty significant in comparison to Lyanna Stark. Furthermore, the Starks have been getting pretty beat up for 5 books and sooner or later, after they hit bottom, you almost got to expect that they will rise again in importance, or at the very least save the day in the end even if it means at a great sacrifice.

[wolfmaid7]

:agree:

The Starks are strongly defined as Starks. Their direwolves help with that. As do their upbringings. But that doesn't stop them from needing to figure out what it means to be a Stark. How they fit. What they are supposed to do now that their world has fallen apart. Lots of crises of identity.

 

I'm not sold on Jon's going "dark." Especially re: my shameless self-promotion in my reply to Feather Crystal. If anyone's going dark, I think it's Dany.

 

But Jon's Stark identity IS in question for Jon--he questions himself left and right. "Kill the boy" isn't advice given to a kid who knows exactly who is he and what he's doing.

 

The other half of his biological identity is a mystery in the novels--he's loved as a Stark. Has Ghost as a Stark. But he's other things, too. And those really do and will matter to him and others. And could include all of the options you listed.

I don't think "going dark" is a bad thing it has its purpose.I think Jon will go dark but him going dark doesn't mean "evil" and in this world characters i.e Mel have repeatedly asserted the notion that dark=evil ...says she who burns people willy nilly for not bowing to R'hllor.

[Phillip Frye]

Hmmm... I don't know... One would think that GRRM might have given Craster some Stark features, or possibly a Starkish personality if the reader is meant to believe that he might be a Stark Bastard...

 

Do we even know if there was a Stark on the wall around the time of Craster's Birth? If the careful reader was meant to puzzle out that Craster is a Stark bastard, surely GRRM would have dropped the name of his supposed father by now...

 

If Craster is a Stark Bastard, then GRRM seems to have forgotten to foreshadow it...

 

I suppose that this merits a response.  No, Martin has not spoonfed any direct, obvious clues to us.  However, I find it ironic that someone who has maintained that 1) a Hescox drawing is the basis to claim that the Others are not taking Craster's sons, 2) that Jon Snow, as Ghost, will fall into a sinkhole and then eat Jojen, 3) that the twin spirits of Khal Drogo and Deaddard will inhabit Jon Snow's body while Jon is in Ghost and become Azor Ahai, and 4) my personal favorite, that Bran will get the weirwoods whomping his enemies, that person then demands that I provide chapter and verse canon for one of my theories.  I further see that the proponent of this demand is supported by a R+L=J skeptic (Wolfmaid).  The contortions to the text necessary to claim that various other people fathered Jon Snow, besides the obvious candidate, make my little theory look very straightforward indeed.

 

In any event, let me first address Addicted to New Posters' question about whether we have any basis to know that there was any Stark on the Wall at the time that Craster was conceived.  There doesn't appear to be any named office in the Night's Watch entitled Stark on the Wall.  However, it is implied that a member of House Stark is generally on the Wall at any given time.  The Starks are presented as very duty-bound.  In fact, as I noted in a previous Heresy, no other members of major northern houses, besides Jorah Mormont (who was effectively a retired old man when he joined the Night's Watch), are present on the Wall during ASOIAF.  Just a Flint, a Locke, and someone from a mountain clan, if memory serves.  No Umbers, Manderlys, Boltons, Tallharts, Karstarks, Ryswells, Glovers, or Dustins.  Just Jeor Mormont, Benjen Stark, and Jon Snow.  In fact, when Jon Snow decides to sign up for the Night's Watch, his family seems relieved by his decision, probably because it removes the obligation to place one of Catelyn's special red-haired bastards snowflakes on the Wall instead.  The only person who raises any serious objection is Benjen, but he never acted to prevent it, either.  In summation, I think that the text strongly implies that there is always someone from House Stark on the Wall.  It's their duty, and some family member must be sacrificed.  The Night's Watch doesn't appear to be a serious occupation for members of other northern houses.

 

From Jon Snow's character arc in the Night's Watch, it becomes clear that the Stark on the Wall is someone of some importance to the Night's Watch.  Certainly, important enough to trigger a Great Ranging should he disappear.  Being the Stark on the Wall gives the right to lead in an emergency ("You are a son of Winterfell, a nephew of Benjen Stark.  I must be you or no one.").  Jon Snow is placed in the Stewards to be groomed to lead the Night's Watch someday.  His status as a member of House Stark gives him the pull needed to put him over the top in the election of the Lord Commander.  It is also important to note that every named Stark on the Wall in the books is a leader (Jon Snow 1.0, Jon Snow 2.0, Osric Stark, Benjen Stark).

 

Why is this important?  The text tells us that Craster bears the black blood of a crow and that his wildling mother was impregnated by a black brother.  That must have been someone who ranged north of the Wall.  I am afraid that the other two branches of the Night's Watch normally stayed closer to the Wall and needed to travel to Moletown to get their groove on.  Furthermore, the text tells us that Craster's mother brought her precious baby to the Wall, yet she was chased away.  Who gave that order?  It would have presumably been someone important in the Night's Watch to order his brothers to turn away a potential new recruit.  The Night's Watch isn't picky, and Jeor Mormont specifically noted that he would have been pleased to take Craster's newborn sons into the Watch.  So, the person turning the baby away from the Wall would have been someone who 1) had the authority to order other members of the Watch to turn away a needed male child, and 2) felt that the presence of this male child was very inconvenient to him.  The person most likely to fit the criteria of every necessary element (ranged north of the Wall, had relations with a wildling woman, could order other members of the Watch to chase her off along with the baby, and would be embarrassed by the presence of a son, constantly making mock of his vows) would be the Stark on the Wall.

 

What do we know about Craster?  We know that he bears a heavy curse and that his blood is black.  Probably, the other wildlings leave their unwanted children for exposure to remove unnecessary mouths that cannot be fed in the harsh climate.  This is probably an additional reason that they don't name the child until the child reaches a few years in age.  They don't want to become too attached to a child that might have to be left to the woods.  However, Craster's children don't disappear.  Unlike the stories, they actually do get picked up by the faeries.  However, also unlike the stories, they come back to visit dad from faerie on a regular basis.  So, there must be something special about Craster, specifically his black blood, that makes his children return as changlings when other exposed children don't.  Who has special blood north of the Neck?  Which family can produce five skinchangers in one generation?  Which family can bond with an old race (direwolves)?  Craster's special blood points directly to House Stark.

 

It has been speculated strongly on this thread (it might be one of the few things on the thread upon which we all agree) that the Starks are somehow behind all of the problems in the north with the climate, the Wall, the Night's King, the breaking of the Pact, etc.  I agree wholeheartedly.  Another way that a member of House Stark screwed things up royally was fathering a bastard and leaving him north of the Wall, where he could begin fathering additional White Walkers, allowing the creation of the Army of the Damned (and perhaps contributing to the return of magic).

 

Addicted to Whomping Weirwoods claims that Craster doesn't act like a Stark.  He certainly doesn't.  He was abandoned by his father to live north of the Wall as a bastard.  That childhood would make almost anyone misanthropic.  However, please note how everyone else treats him.  The other wildlings don't touch him even though a cow fart could probably blow over his "Keep" and Craster is apparently unarmed until late in life.  We also know that the wildlings hold House Stark in some particular reverence, at least the washerwomen do, and they are not exactly the wildling leadership.  His Stark ancestry would be one reason that the other wildlings leave Craster alone.  In addition, the Night's Watch treats him with respect and gives him gifts.  His house is normally a haven during rangings.  Whence this friendship?  It makes perfect sense if Craster were a Stark bastard.  Basically, Craster's Stark ancestry acts as his armor, much as Sansa's courtesy does.

 

Do I think that all of this will be revealed later in the books?  Unlike Addicted to Hescox, I doubt it.  I think that Craster belongs in the category of things to which Martin knows the answer, but wants to keep mysterious for the reader (unlike things that I speculate that Martin doesn't want to know, such as the true, original identity of Coldhands).  So, I don't think that there will be any further sudden revelatory information about Craster, not even one red kipper.  Similarly, I don't think that Martin will spell out that a certain Braavosi transformed into a Lorathi in the Black Cells unless Arya, or another character, has a conversation with Phario Forel about his illustrious and distant ancestor, Syrio, in the next book.

 

Are there obvious clues that Craster is a Stark bastard, such as Craster having dark hair and a long face?  No, that would be too obvious by far.  However, Craster immediately recognizes Jon Snow as a Stark bastard, and we know that like recognizes like in storytelling.  On the other hand, do I base my theory upon any text?  Reread the above essay for yourselves, and you will see where I rely upon text to create logical conclusions.  However, I must confess that this theory is not obvious enough to suit both Addicted to Sinkholes and Wolfmaid.  Say, didn't Parris McBride say something about Martin doing obvious, once?

[wolfmaid7]

 

I suppose that this merits a response.  No, Martin has not spoonfed any direct, obvious clues to us.  However, I find it ironic that someone who has maintained that 1) a Hescox drawing is the basis to claim that the Others are not taking Craster's sons, 2) that Jon Snow, as Ghost, will fall into a sinkhole and then eat Jojen, 3) that the twin spirits of Khal Drogo and Deaddard will inhabit Jon Snow's body while Jon is in Ghost and become Azor Ahai, and 4) my personal favorite, that Bran will get the weirwoods whomping his enemies, that person then demands that I provide chapter and verse canon for one of my theories.  I further see that the proponent of this demand is supported by a R+L=J skeptic (Wolfmaid).  The contortions to the text necessary to claim that various other people fathered Jon Snow, besides the obvious candidate, make my little theory look very straightforward indeed.

 

In any event, let me first address Addicted to New Posters' question about whether we have any basis to know that there was any Stark on the Wall at the time that Craster was conceived.  There doesn't appear to be any named office in the Night's Watch entitled Stark on the Wall.  However, it is implied that a member of House Stark is generally on the Wall at any given time.  The Starks are presented as very duty-bound.  In fact, as I noted in a previous Heresy, no other members of major northern houses, besides Jorah Mormont (who was effectively a retired old man when he joined the Night's Watch), are present on the Wall during ASOIAF.  Just a Flint, a Locke, and someone from a mountain clan, if memory serves.  No Umbers, Manderlys, Boltons, Tallharts, Karstarks, Ryswells, Glovers, or Dustins.  Just Jeor Mormont, Benjen Stark, and Jon Snow.  In fact, when Jon Snow decides to sign up for the Night's Watch, his family seems relieved by his decision, probably because it removes the obligation to place one of Catelyn's special red-haired bastards snowflakes on the Wall instead.  The only person who raises any serious objection is Benjen, but he never acted to prevent it, either.  In summation, I think that the text strongly implies that there is always someone from House Stark on the Wall.  It's their duty, and some family member must be sacrificed.  The Night's Watch doesn't appear to be a serious occupation for members of other northern houses.

 

From Jon Snow's character arc in the Night's Watch, it becomes clear that the Stark on the Wall is someone of some importance to the Night's Watch.  Certainly, important enough to trigger a Great Ranging should he disappear.  Being the Stark on the Wall gives the right to lead in an emergency ("You are a son of Winterfell, a nephew of Benjen Stark.  I must be you or no one.").  Jon Snow is placed in the Stewards to be groomed to lead the Night's Watch someday.  His status as a member of House Stark gives him the pull needed to put him over the top in the election of the Lord Commander.  It is also important to note that every named Stark on the Wall in the books is a leader (Jon Snow 1.0, Jon Snow 2.0, Osric Stark, Benjen Stark).

 

Why is this important?  The text tells us that Craster bears the black blood of a crow and that his wildling mother was impregnated by a black brother.  That must have been someone who ranged north of the Wall.  I am afraid that the other two branches of the Night's Watch normally stayed closer to the Wall and needed to travel to Moletown to get their groove on.  Furthermore, the text tells us that Craster's mother brought her precious baby to the Wall, yet she was chased away.  Who gave that order?  It would have presumably been someone important in the Night's Watch to order his brothers to turn away a potential new recruit.  The Night's Watch isn't picky, and Jeor Mormont specifically noted that he would have been pleased to take Craster's newborn sons into the Watch.  So, the person turning the baby away from the Wall would have been someone who 1) had the authority to order other members of the Watch to turn away a needed male child, and 2) felt that the presence of this male child was very inconvenient to him.  The person most likely to fit the criteria of every necessary element (ranged north of the Wall, had relations with a wildling woman, could order other members of the Watch to chase her off along with the baby, and would be embarrassed by the presence of a son, constantly making mock of his vows) would be the Stark on the Wall.

 

What do we know about Craster?  We know that he bears a heavy curse and that his blood is black.  Probably, the other wildlings leave their unwanted children for exposure to remove unnecessary mouths that cannot be fed in the harsh climate.  This is probably an additional reason that they don't name the child until the child reaches a few years in age.  They don't want to become too attached to a child that might have to be left to the woods.  However, Craster's children don't disappear.  Unlike the stories, they actually do get picked up by the faeries.  However, also unlike the stories, they come back to visit dad from faerie on a regular basis.  So, there must be something special about Craster, specifically his black blood, that makes his children return as changlings when other exposed children don't.  Who has special blood north of the Neck?  Which family can produce five skinchangers in one generation?  Which family can bond with an old race (direwolves)?  Craster's special blood points directly to House Stark.

 

It has been speculated strongly on this thread (it might be one of the few things on the thread upon which we all agree) that the Starks are somehow behind all of the problems in the north with the climate, the Wall, the Night's King, the breaking of the Pact, etc.  I agree wholeheartedly.  Another way that a member of House Stark screwed things up royally was fathering a bastard and leaving him north of the Wall, where he could begin fathering additional White Walkers, allowing the creation of the Army of the Damned (and perhaps contributing to the return of magic).

 

Addicted to Whomping Weirwoods claims that Craster doesn't act like a Stark.  He certainly doesn't.  He was abandoned by his father to live north of the Wall as a bastard.  That childhood would make almost anyone misanthropic.  However, please note how everyone else treats him.  The other wildlings don't touch him even though a cow fart could probably blow over his "Keep" and Craster is apparently unarmed until late in life.  We also know that the wildlings hold House Stark in some particular reverence, at least the washerwomen do, and they are not exactly the wildling leadership.  His Stark ancestry would be one reason that the other wildlings leave Craster alone.  In addition, the Night's Watch treats him with respect and gives him gifts.  His house is normally a haven during rangings.  Whence this friendship?  It makes perfect sense if Craster were a Stark bastard.  Basically, Craster's Stark ancestry acts as his armor, much as Sansa's courtesy does.

 

Do I think that all of this will be revealed later in the books?  Unlike Addicted to Hescox, I doubt it.  I think that Craster belongs in the category of things to which Martin knows the answer, but wants to keep mysterious for the reader (unlike things that I speculate that Martin doesn't want to know, such as the true, original identity of Coldhands).  So, I don't think that there will be any further sudden revelatory information about Craster, not even one red kipper.  Similarly, I don't think that Martin will spell out that a certain Braavosi transformed into a Lorathi in the Black Cells unless Arya, or another character, has a conversation with Phario Forel about his illustrious and distant ancestor, Syrio, in the next book.

 

Are there obvious clues that Craster is a Stark bastard, such as Craster having dark hair and a long face?  No, that would be too obvious by far.  However, Craster immediately recognizes Jon Snow as a Stark bastard, and we know that like recognizes like in storytelling.  On the other hand, do I base my theory upon any text?  Reread the above essay for yourselves, and you will see where I rely base my theory upon text to create logical conclusions.  However, I must confess that this theory is not obvious enough to suit both Addicted to Sinkholes and Wolfmaid.  Say, didn't Parris McBride say something about Martin doing obvious, once?

Hold your horses Phillip Frye.As i said before i'm not averse to the idea that Craster is a Stark bastard. I simply echoes ATS's call to see how you arrived at this. I also don't think using ATS's wacky theories to dismiss his valid question isn't cool.Also, what does me being an RLJ skeptic have to do with this???? So lets stay on point shall we and leave personal buisness and theories at the door.

 

Based on the bolded claims i still don't know how you arrived at Craster being a Stark bastard.You cite

 

1.The wildlings holding the Starks with some reverence (not true by the way.One wilding washerwoman is not evidence for all of them) and the Wildlings leaving Craster alone as proof that he's a Stark makes no sense at all.I thought they left him alone because they viewed him as being cursed.That was my reading anyway.

 

2.Actually Craster said that Jon has the look of a Stark to him,then Mormont chimed in that this is Jon Snow.So no it wasn't like recognizing like it was the Stark features stamped all over Jon.

 

I'm just to see how you got where you got and i still don't know how soooooooo help a sister out with this.