Heresy 180

[Lord Ravenstark]

The guy who used to be in charge of safety at my work was an ex-fireman. He used to tell me that he and his colleagues back in the day had long discussions as to whether fire was in itself alive, given its need to breathe and feed and grow. Dealing with it as they did for a living many of them were convinced that the parallels went beyond mimicking these traits and that a "living flame" was indeed truly alive and that was what made it so dangerous. 

I disagree. Fire isn't similar to life in any way, other than we apply our analogies to it.

If dragons are fire made flesh, they are fire turned into life. Even so, I think it is a poetic way to speak, in the end it is a magical creature like direwolves or lizard-lions. Are giants tundra made flesh? Are lizard-lions bog made flesh?

On one personal question, what do you fear… the rider or the dragon? The sorcerer or the sorcery?

[Black Crow]

Ah that's an easy one. Its the dragon because I'm not convinced that the rider is really in control.

 

And with that, good night all and may wolves and dragons be absent from your dreams

[Matthew.]

I disagree. A lot has certainly changed, sometimes organically sometimes otherwise, as it has become larger and more sophisticated, but I believe that the core story is still being acted out

Only in the broadest of strokes--for example, the first arc of his story was indeed still a civil war, but its causes and nature - and in many cases, consequences - aren't just more complicated, they're outright different.

More specifically, I think it's nonsense to cite absences in the synopsis as arguments against certain things happening; we might use some of the ideas present to speculate about what might happen, but it's definitely not a useful tool to determine what might not happen.

To be honest, I don't even see how this could be up for debate. For example, if a person were to say "Littlefinger isn't in the synopsis, so Littlefinger isn't important," they would be demonstrably, objectively incorrect.

Edit: For clarity, I'm sure certain plot points, such as what the Others are and the nature of their connection to House Stark, remain largely intact; nonetheless there are significant plot points that have either been added or altered, and in some cases, character roles have shifted.

For example, Tyrion's story has definitely gone off from the original plan, since he's played a less significant role in House Stark's downfall, and isn't at the Wall engaged in a deadly rivalry with Jon Snow, or vying for the love of Arya--this isn't just a minor change, it's a completely different character story than what GRRM planned.

[LmL]

I disagree. A lot has certainly changed, sometimes organically sometimes otherwise, as it has become larger and more sophisticated, but I believe that the core story is still being acted out

^^ agree

[Black Crow]

 

I disagree. Fire isn't similar to life in any way, other than we apply our analogies to it.

Here perhaps, but in a world where dragons fly and the dead walk...

[Black Crow]

Only in the broadest of strokes--for example, the first arc of his story was indeed still a civil war, but its causes and nature - and in many cases, consequences - aren't just more complicated, they're outright different.

More specifically, I think it's nonsense to cite absences in the synopsis as arguments against certain things happening; we might use some of the ideas present to speculate about what might happen, but it's definitely not a useful tool to determine what might not happen.

To be honest, I don't even see how this could be up for debate. For example, if a person were to say "Littlefinger isn't in the synopsis, so Littlefinger isn't important," they would be demonstrably, objectively incorrect.

Edit: For clarity, I'm sure certain plot points, such as what the Others are and the nature of their connection to House Stark, remain largely intact; nonetheless there are significant plot points that have either been added or altered, and in some cases, character roles have shifted.

For example, Tyrion's story has definitely gone off from the original plan, since he's played a less significant role in House Stark's downfall, and isn't at the Wall engaged in a deadly rivalry with Jon Snow, or vying for the love of Arya--this isn't just a minor change, it's a completely different character story than what GRRM planned.

There's no denying that characters and arguably important characters have have been added or have been changed, but I'm talking about the core Ice and Fire story-line and question why GRRM might downgrade a core character in favour of one who is not only not mentioned in the synopsis, but who has been pretty peripheral and frankly irrelevant.

[shizett]

If dragons are fire made flesh, they are fire turned into life. Even so, I think it is a poetic way to speak, in the end it is a magical creature like direwolves or lizard-lions.

It might sound silly, but dragons don't really procreate. They of course produce eggs, but the eggs don't hatch unless something is done to them. Direwolves do procreate, so not exactly similar. (I don't know about lizard lions)

[Lord Ravenstark]

It might sound silly, but dragons don't really procreate. They of course produce eggs, but the eggs don't hatch unless something is done to them. Direwolves do procreate, so not exactly similar. (I don't know about lizard lions)

You don't need to do anything to a dragon egg for it to hatch. The eggs stopped to hatch because there was not enough magic on the world, specially to fuel the spell Dany used to bring life to the fossilized eggs.

When magic was strong, dragons hatched easily even in baby cradles and possibly at the wilds.

[LmL]

 

You don't need to do anything to a dragon egg for it to hatch. The eggs stopped to hatch because there was not enough magic on the world, specially to fuel the spell Dany used to bring life to the fossilized eggs.

 

When magic was strong, dragons hatched easily even in baby cradles and possibly at the wilds.

I would assume this is correct, although why and how dragons hatch seems to have been kept mysterious intentionally, so we don't really know We know they were put in cradles and eventually hatched - didn't seem to be especially difficult until it was all the sudden. It doesn't seem like Targs needed blood sacrifice to wake every egg, but maybe down in the red keep they're killing prisoners for blood magic and nobody knows. But yeah, I assume dragons can exist on the wild, because multiple sources place them in Asshai, living wild in the shadow. That indicates that they can reproduce on their own. 

[MaesterSam]

I'm not so sure; the eyes business may itself be obscuring his talents. There's nothing at all in Rickon to suggest anything special and the biggest marker against him is the absence of any mention of him at all in the synoposis.

While Bran was certainly born heaithy the involvement of the crows has to raise the strong possibility that if they were not actively responsible Bran, ultimately was lured to his doom in order to render him susceptible to overtures from the dark side.

Well, Rickon was already in the crypts before Bran even arrived, so we know he had the same green dream about Ned. And he has the direwolf with green eyes, which we are told from a reputable source is a way to mark those with the gift. So I wouldn't say there is nothing special about him; at that point in the story, the only thing "special" about Bran is that he had the crow dream that woke him from his coma, but otherwise did nothing for him.

As for crow involvement... again, I would say it points to Jon a lot more than Bran. Jon is the Lord Commander of the Crows on the Wall, and why? B/c a crow helped rig the vote. And he is at least part (1/4) Blackwood, whereas Bran has no Blackwood blood at all. Bran's only link to crows is that he dreams of one, but so does Jojen apparently.

While it's a neat idea to think BR caused Bran's fall, I really don't see how he could have. Bran always enjoyed climbing, and there seemed to be no unusual reason for him to be climbing that day. Jaime and Cersei had been hooking up for years, so there was nothing unusual there either. And it doesn't seem out of character for Jaime to push Bran out, "for Cersei" and to save their own children's lives.

Oh!

Thank you for the explanation. Just a reminder that genetics wouldn't necessary work that way. They could lose their important traits along the way despite the incest.

True- the relevant traits could have disappeared along the way. But none of Egg's 1/2 Blackwood children had any magical powers, and at that point there was little opportunity for loss of traits. Also, there is no guarantee that BR even got his magical traits from the Blackwoods, as even he had only a 50% chance of inheriting whatever genes were necessary. So maybe BR got his greenseeing abilities from the Targaryen side of his family after all.

In short (and this is what I suspect/fear is the case), it's nearly impossible to infer the origin of traits based on real-world genetics. It seems strange either way that if the Blackwood blood were going to be important, GRRM hardly mentions them throughout ASOIAF. There is virtually no foreshadowing that this family, unlike the 50+ other minor houses, will be important in any way. 

The do grow and eat as does fire. To be fair, they have never been in the LOAW to see if they turn into smoke and disappear. They have been to wall before, but if it is the case that Winter is accumulated behind the wall, then they never experienced Winter in its totality. Also I am not sure, but maybe they ate more or were not so energetic?

I agree that they seem to have distinct personalities, so I don't know what to make of it.

Interestingly, in the Ice Dragon, the fire dragons are useless in the winter. The warring factions always interrupt their war in the wintertime, and the fire dragons fly south. 

Have we seen any other greenseer other than BR? and BR says himself that he is a greenseer, who knows if he is telling the truth.

Maybe greenseers do not share any traits with skinchangers.

Well, technically Coldhands calls BR a greenseer. And I believe Leaf does as well, and maybe Jojen. And he does what greenseers are said to do- he watches through the trees and sees everything, and he is now merging with a tree. 

 

[MaesterSam]

There's no denying that characters and arguably important characters have have been added or have been changed, but I'm talking about the core Ice and Fire story-line and question why GRRM might downgrade a core character in favour of one who is not only not mentioned in the synopsis, but who has been pretty peripheral and frankly irrelevant.

But is Bran really that much of a core character in the synopsis? He "turns to magic", foresees that Robb's war will not go well (but is ignored), then flees North with Catelyn and Arya and is captured by Mance Rayder. There, Arya's Needle and Bran's magic help them survive. That's it. That's all it says about him. He really doesn't sound like a core character to me- those would be Jon Snow, Tyrion Lannister and Daenerys Targaryen, according to the synopsis. 

Perhaps even more importantly, Bloodraven himself is never mentioned at all! So how can we say that, based on the synopsis, Bran is the chosen one to work with BR? There is nothing in there to suggest Bran will have an especially important role, and BR and the COTF don't even come up. If GRRM didn't think of BR until later, it's quite plausible that Rickon, also an afterthought, was added at the same time.

 

ETA: I personally think it's Jon, not Rickon, that BR really wanted and either couldn't get his hands on, or he didn't realize it was him he needed b/c he is just a bastard. But I do think Rickon is at least as good of an option as Bran, and there must have been a reason GRRM added him in. He is, after all, not some random minor character, but another STARK - the key protagonists of the story. And as with Sansa, the fact that he has been somewhat irrelevant so far only convinces me more that there is a reason he is in the story, and we will learn this reason at some point.

[Matthew.]

There's no denying that characters and arguably important characters have have been added or have been changed, but I'm talking about the core Ice and Fire story-line and question why GRRM might downgrade a core character in favour of one who is not only not mentioned in the synopsis, but who has been pretty peripheral and frankly irrelevant.

Certain plot points that he'd planned still happen in the series, but are ultimately handled by different characters, such as Theon razing Winterfell, or the Tyrell's poisoning Joffrey--both originally intended to be Tyrion's actions. Thus, even things GRRM had originally envisioned for his "central" characters have been shifted over time.

Nonetheless, I don't want to give the impression that I'm advocating in favor of Rickon being plot significant, I'm making a broader argument that theories need not be consistent with the synopsis. It's more reasonable to suggest that Rickon isn't a primary character because of the way the story as written treats him, as opposed to an obsolete letter.

It's also worth noting that what's absent from the letter is not a particularly useful barometer of what will be important, because the letter itself largely covers only the first arc of the story. All we really know is that at some point Dany's plotline and the Other's plotline will arrive in Westeros, and that all of the plot threads will come together in a giant battle, but beyond that we don't know what the sides will be, whether or not the battle itself is actually decisive, or what roles our core characters will be playing.

Thus, by that standard, nearly any theory of what will happen in the end could be claimed to be inconsistent with the synopsis, which makes citing the synopsis as an argument against a particular event less a refutation, and more an exercise in subjective preference--eg, "I don't like this idea, this idea isn't present in the 1993 letter, ergo this idea couldn't possibly come true."

[Black Crow]

As I've said, things have certainly changed, but I really don't see GRRM straying from this paragraph:

Five central characters will make it through all three volumes, however, growing from children to adults and changing the world and themselves in the process. In a sense, my trilogy is almost a generational saga, telling the life stories of these five characters, three men and two women. The five key players are Tyrion Lannister, Daenerys Targaryen, and three of the children of Winterfell, Arya, Bran, and the bastard Jon Snow. All of them are introduced at some length in the chapters you have to hand.

There may well be an important reason, yet to be revealed, for adding Rickon Stark to the wider cast of characters, but thus far he has been conspicuous by his absence rather than offering any prospect of turning into the chosen one who will resolve matters, especially when GRRM lays so much stress on co-operation rather than a hero being necessary.

 

[LmL]

As I've said, things have certainly changed, but I really don't see GRRM straying from this paragraph:

Five central characters will make it through all three volumes, however, growing from children to adults and changing the world and themselves in the process. In a sense, my trilogy is almost a generational saga, telling the life stories of these five characters, three men and two women. The five key players are Tyrion Lannister, Daenerys Targaryen, and three of the children of Winterfell, Arya, Bran, and the bastard Jon Snow. All of them are introduced at some length in the chapters you have to hand.

 

There may well be an important reason, yet to be revealed, for adding Rickon Stark to the wider cast of characters, but thus far he has been conspicuous by his absence rather than offering any prospect of turning into the chosen one who will resolve matters, especially when GRRM lays so much stress on co-operation rather than a hero being necessary.

 

Agree with this - Rickon is a very tertiary character. I mean, he's waaaay down the list. We haven't spent any time with him hardly at all.  He's bound to simply be a narrative tool in other people's arcs. 

[MaesterSam]

As I've said, things have certainly changed, but I really don't see GRRM straying from this paragraph:

Five central characters will make it through all three volumes, however, growing from children to adults and changing the world and themselves in the process. In a sense, my trilogy is almost a generational saga, telling the life stories of these five characters, three men and two women. The five key players are Tyrion Lannister, Daenerys Targaryen, and three of the children of Winterfell, Arya, Bran, and the bastard Jon Snow. All of them are introduced at some length in the chapters you have to hand.

 

There may well be an important reason, yet to be revealed, for adding Rickon Stark to the wider cast of characters, but thus far he has been conspicuous by his absence rather than offering any prospect of turning into the chosen one who will resolve matters, especially when GRRM lays so much stress on co-operation rather than a hero being necessary.

 

I think the point I am making is not so much that Rickon will ride in on a unicorn and save the world, but rather that Bran is the wrong Stark, and that this in itself will have consequences. We will look back and think "if only BR hadn't talked himself into thinking it was Bran ...", kind of like we are currently thinking "if only Mel hadn't lied to herself about Stannis ...". That sort of thing.

But of course that is only my opinion, based in part on how often we have been told not to trust prophecy, and all those times we have seen it misinterpreted [winged wolf held by grey stone chains is extremely non-specific]. In addition, there is the eye color situation, which I believe is a pretty strong hint that brown-eyed Bran and golden-eyed Summer are not chosen by the Old Gods.

[MaesterSam]

Agree with this - Rickon is a very tertiary character. I mean, he's waaaay down the list. We haven't spent any time with him hardly at all.  He's bound to simply be a narrative tool in other people's arcs. 

Well if nothing else, if he survives, he inherits Winterfell. (Assuming Bran doesn't return, which seems likely). So that's something. It's funny, I don't know when exactly I turned into a Rickon fan, but I do wonder what will happen when Davos finds him. He was a weird, slightly creepy kid from the start, with the dangerous unpredictable direwolf and a taste for blood (after Shaggy bit Luwin). He was scared, confused, and gradually abandoned by literally everyone he loved before being  sent to freakin' SKAGOS with a wildling. He also saw his home burned down and saw his maester die. He seems destined to be dark, precisely because everyone treats him like an afterthought and none of this is explained to him, nor is he comforted. I just feel like it would add an extra layer of cool if he also should have been the one with BR, but wasn't, and Bran couldn't do the task demanded of him and that's why the world went to shit.  

[LmL]

Well if nothing else, if he survives, he inherits Winterfell. (Assuming Bran doesn't return, which seems likely). So that's something. It's funny, I don't know when exactly I turned into a Rickon fan, but I do wonder what will happen when Davos finds him. He was a weird, slightly creepy kid from the start, with the dangerous unpredictable direwolf and a taste for blood (after Shaggy bit Luwin). He was scared, confused, and gradually abandoned by literally everyone he loved before being  sent to freakin' SKAGOS with a wildling. He also saw his home burned down and saw his maester die. He seems destined to be dark, precisely because everyone treats him like an afterthought and none of this is explained to him, nor is he comforted. I just feel like it would add an extra layer of cool if he also should have been the one with BR, but wasn't, and Bran couldn't do the task demanded of him and that's why the world went to shit.  

Sure, I follow your thinking here. In actually a Rickon fan too - I want to see the unicorn calvery as much as anyone. And I realize your point wasn't that Rickon is going to be a big character, but rather the idea of Bloodraven fucking up. It's probably a longshot (not a bad idea for writing a story around, however), but I understand what you're saying.

Are you familiar with any of the "Euron is a failed Bloodraven apprentice" theories?

[Melifeather]

Well in the first place its how they're seen [and avoided by those who live to tell the tale] at a distance in the trees, but then if not avoided, when they come up close and personal as the unfortunate Ser Puddles did is when they are recognised as ice made flesh.

Secondly they can be both shadows and ice made flesh if they are the shadows of Craster's sons preserved in ice.

We haven't seen dragons disintegrate into smoke...at least not yet. Unless we learn dragons can be turned into smoke when pierced with some type of fiery ice, (maybe a flaming weirwood arrow?) I think we can assume that they are magical creatures like direwolves. Their dead carcasses leave behind shiny black bone skeletons.

White Walkers are not ice made flesh, because they disintegrate when pierced with frozen fire as if the magic spell holding them together was broken, and leave nothing behind save a small puddle of water and a flash of cold mist.

 

[Black Crow]

 

White Walkers are not ice made flesh, because they disintegrate when pierced with frozen fire as if the magic spell holding them together was broken, and leave nothing behind save a small puddle of water and a flash of cold mist.

 

You're confusing the mummers' version with the text I fear. I the latter, Ser Puddles literally melts into that puddle of very cold water. Yes there are some ambiguous ice crystals with may be his shadow, but everything else, blood, flesh,bones and even armour melts into that puddle, just as the ice dragon did.

As to dragons, we just don't yet know, they can be damaged by conventional weapons thrusting in the right place [which is also presumably why Craster's boys wear armour] but we haven't yet seen one dished by magical weapons.

[Black Crow]

Well if nothing else, if he survives, he inherits Winterfell. (Assuming Bran doesn't return, which seems likely). So that's something. It's funny, I don't know when exactly I turned into a Rickon fan, but I do wonder what will happen when Davos finds him. He was a weird, slightly creepy kid from the start, with the dangerous unpredictable direwolf and a taste for blood (after Shaggy bit Luwin). He was scared, confused, and gradually abandoned by literally everyone he loved before being  sent to freakin' SKAGOS with a wildling. He also saw his home burned down and saw his maester die. He seems destined to be dark, precisely because everyone treats him like an afterthought and none of this is explained to him, nor is he comforted. I just feel like it would add an extra layer of cool if he also should have been the one with BR, but wasn't, and Bran couldn't do the task demanded of him and that's why the world went to shit.  

I think that's a fair summary of where Rickon is and a the same time a pointer to where he's going. I still don't think that he is going to turn out to have special powers or be the one Bloodraven should have chosen. I think he's already far too screwed up to be allowed anywhere near the powers Bran is developing. He's going to be mad, bad and very dangerous to know and part of the bittersweet ending may be having to take him down..