Heresy 182

[Black Crow]

23 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

Some readers seem to believe that Mel may have subsequently decided that Jon is AA, but I'm of the opinion that she's going to double down on trying to make Stannis "fit" the prophecy, reality be damned, and sacrifice Shireen in an attempt to "wake dragons from stone," with disastrous results--obviously, this is an area where I think the book plot is going to have a lot more going on than the show's adaptation.

On this bit I agree, I think that the Mel "recognising" Jon Snow as the real Azor Ahai is doubling down on the R+L=King Jon Targaryen business. Without returning to the latter argument there really is nothing in the text to suggest Mel sees Jon as AA. She wants his help certainly and perhaps to bind him to her service, but that's not the same thing at all.

[Black Crow]

3 minutes ago, WitteRaaf said:

 Maybe a willing sacrifice could generate something good

In principle you could certainly argue that, although I'd be inclined to temper it with the observation that this has always been a story of unintended consequences and that the use of the word "could" rather than "would" is very prudent.

[Armstark]

1 minute ago, Black Crow said:

On this bit I agree, I think that the Mel "recognising" Jon Snow as the real Azor Ahai is doubling down on the R+L=King Jon Targaryen business. Without returning to the latter argument there really is nothing in the text to suggest Mel sees Jon as AA. She wants his help certainly and perhaps to bind him to her service, but that's not the same thing at all.

 

I, too, think Mel does not think Jon Snow is Azor Ahai. Yet. She has recognized though that there is power in him and after Stannis is dead (or at least presumed dead) she might reconsider the signs she misunderstood.

 

Why did she choose Stannis in the first place? Any good theories on that? Because I have a crackpot brewing

[WitteRaaf]

4 minutes ago, Armstark said:

 

I, too, think Mel does not think Jon Snow is Azor Ahai. Yet. She has recognized though that there is power in him and after Stannis is dead (or at least presumed dead) she might reconsider the signs she misunderstood.

 

Why did she choose Stannis in the first place? Any good theories on that? Because I have a crackpot brewing

All I would venture on that point is that she didn't choose stannis. 

Stannis's wife chose her.  

But im just trying to be funny.  Battery dead

cya 

[Black Crow]

4 minutes ago, Armstark said:

Why did she choose Stannis in the first place? Any good theories on that? Because I have a crackpot brewing

I've always assumed its tied up with the prophecy about Azor Ahai born again amidst smoke and salt. We first meet her on Dragonstone [and its stone dragons] which is twice in as many pages [or thereabout] referred to as a smoking island in a salt sea.

But with that observation its again past my bedtime, so good night all

[Armstark]

1 minute ago, Black Crow said:

I've always assumed its tied up with the prophecy about Azor Ahai born again amidst smoke and salt. We first meet her on Dragonstone [and its stone dragons] which is twice in as many pages [or thereabout] referred to as a smoking island in a salt sea.

But with that observation its again past my bedtime, so good night all

But Stannis wasn't even born on Dragonstone as she surely must know. You are correct though, it is one of the reasons she gives:

 

"He is not dead. Stannis is the Lord's chosen, destined to lead the fight against the dark. I have seen it in the flames, read of it in ancient prophecy. When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone. Dragonstone is the place of smoke and salt."

[Armstark]

To expand on that here are the various reasons she gives for Stannis being Azor Ahai and why I think they make no sense:

 

"(re)born amidst salt and smoke" which she say means Dragonstone. But Stannis was neither born there nor reborn.

 

He wields the red Sword of Heroes: Lightbringer. She must know it is a fake as she herself created the illusion.

 

She has seen him in her flames. How did she know who he was then? At that point she never met Stannis, how did she recognize him?

 

The red comet heralds his coming. But she went to Stannis way before there was a red comet as this quote proves:

 

Quote

"Varys told us some years past that Lady Selyse had taken up with a red priest," Littlefinger reminded them.

 

This was in ACoK Tyrion III so she must have went there before our story even starts.

 

 

And yet she is convinced Stannis is her guy:

 

Quote

Stannis was marching south into peril, the king who carried the fate of the world upon his shoulders, Azor Ahai reborn.

 

Why?

[LordImp]

Maybe Mel never tought Stannis was Azor Ahai , but she just used him for whatever purpose she has? 

[Armstark]

The last quote I provided are her own thoughts, she clearly believes him to be Azor Ahai.

[Matthew.]

I think it's because, in her mind, Stannis was the closest fit she has; besides being lord of Dragonstone, he's also the "rightful" heir to Robert's throne, and he has some Targaryen blood.

Dany would have no reason to register on Mel's radar (especially if she believes she's looking for a man), Viserys is the Beggar King, and she wouldn't be aware of the (dubious) Aegon VI, much less Jon. As far as people with the blood of the dragon go, Stannis is winning in Mel's mind by default.

It's also possible that some of what she glimpsed are self-fulfilling prophecies that her own intervention has helped to spur; for example, if she'd had a glimpse of Stannis wearing a crown, wielding a red sword, and surrounded by flame, as he was at the Blackwater, she might incorrectly assume she's seeing a vision of his future glory.

[Armstark]

6 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

I think it's because, in her mind, Stannis was the closest fit she has; besides being lord of Dragonstone, he's also the "rightful" heir to Robert's throne, and he has some Targaryen blood.

Dany would have no reason to register on Mel's radar (especially if she believes she's looking for a man), Viserys is the Beggar King, and she wouldn't be aware of the (dubious) Aegon VI, much less Jon. As far as people with the blood of the dragon go, Stannis is winning in Mel's mind by default.

It's also possible that some of what she glimpsed are self-fulfilling prophecies that her own intervention has helped to spur; for example, if she'd had a glimpse of Stannis wearing a crown, wielding a red sword, and surrounded by flame, as he was at the Blackwater, she might incorrectly assume she's seeing a vision of his future glory.

Stannis was not the rightful heir to the Iron Throne when she chose him, it was Joffrey. But you are right that there are not many options if you are looking for Targaryen blood. Maybe it is really that simple but I have a hunch that there got to be more to it, some piece of the puzzle is missing. I guess I have to study the Targaryen family tree for another hour or so

[e1kabong]

7 hours ago, shizett said:

I am not sure if my comment is really related, but how can magic be evil? It is a force. What sentient beings do to other sentient beings can be evil. Calling magic or what it produces "evil" is like calling an earthquake evil.

There's a very distinct feeling that magic is not like a natural force, but a perversion of the natural order of things which requires sacrifice (either personal sacrifice or the sacrifice of others) to use. That component that, in order for magic to work, something/someone has to suffer, I'd say that magic in this world is somewhat inherently evil. Sure, the magic can be used for good and you can argue that the ends justify the means, but hardline morality would say that volunteering sacrifice and pain is selfish/evil. Reminds me of this quote from one of my favorite fictional magic wielders, Jon Constantine:

"This is how the world is supposed to work: You give and you take. Cause and effect. Ordinary people, they operate within a certain set of parameters...Rules. Limits. Then there's blokes like me...We cheat. We trick the universe into handing us effects without the cause. Things we didn't earn. We twist time and space. Warp minds. Create life. For people like me, there are no rules. That's magic and that makes people like me very, very dangerous. Dangerous to everybody, ourselves included. You cheat the system and it tries to compensate...Magic is costly. You take what you didn't earn, but you pay for it."

In other words, magic isn't a force, it's a shortcut to manipulate force, which causes cosmic unbalance (probably most visible in the way the seasons work, which GRRM says has a magical reason for their imbalance). In that way, getting rid of magic isn't eliminating a force of nature, but eliminating the shortcuts people utilize to use/abuse them. 

[Black Crow]

5 hours ago, Armstark said:

Stannis was not the rightful heir to the Iron Throne when she chose him, it was Joffrey. But you are right that there are not many options if you are looking for Targaryen blood. Maybe it is really that simple but I have a hunch that there got to be more to it, some piece of the puzzle is missing. I guess I have to study the Targaryen family tree for another hour or so

The Targaryens don't necessarily come into it. Although the waking dragons from stone might well point to that, they're not the only Valyrians in town and as Matthew observes the available Targaryens wouldn't at that time inspire confidence. Stannis on the other hand is of royal blood [check], is a renowned warrior [check] is lord of dragonstone, the smoking island in the salt sea [check] the red star is bleeding [check] and the rest depends on how you define "born". If the prophecy literally requires him to be brought forth from his mother's womb with all those markers in place then neither he nor anybody else qualifies. I don't think that Mel is unknowingly mistaken in thinking Stannis was actually born on Dragonstone but rather is using the term as the moment when it all comes together and that comedy on the beach was probably intended as his being "reborn".

The point of all this being that to Mel, she has seen and put all the clues together and performed a bit of magic to bring about his birth. She believes him to be Azor Ahai because she has created him. 

The question is what happens now. While the mummers version appears to have killed him off that meeting in Santa Fe to check on GRRM's character outcomes suggests they felt they could do so with impunity, and that then leaves us or rather Mel with two alternatives if she needs a new Azor Ahai. The popular money seems to go on her resurrecting one Jon Snow of this parish for the purpose, but as we discussed above while she certainly wants to bind him into her service she has none of the indicators that drew her to Stannis and above all the red star has bled and gone. Rather we might see her look to Danaerys the Dragonlord, because if Maester Aemon knew of her then Mel must know too.

[Black Crow]

3 hours ago, e1kabong said:

There's a very distinct feeling that magic is not like a natural force, but a perversion of the natural order of things which requires sacrifice (either personal sacrifice or the sacrifice of others) to use. That component that, in order for magic to work, something/someone has to suffer, I'd say that magic in this world is somewhat inherently evil. Sure, the magic can be used for good and you can argue that the ends justify the means, but hardline morality would say that volunteering sacrifice and pain is selfish/evil. Reminds me of this quote from one of my favorite fictional magic wielders, Jon Constantine:

"This is how the world is supposed to work: You give and you take. Cause and effect. Ordinary people, they operate within a certain set of parameters...Rules. Limits. Then there's blokes like me...We cheat. We trick the universe into handing us effects without the cause. Things we didn't earn. We twist time and space. Warp minds. Create life. For people like me, there are no rules. That's magic and that makes people like me very, very dangerous. Dangerous to everybody, ourselves included. You cheat the system and it tries to compensate...Magic is costly. You take what you didn't earn, but you pay for it."

In other words, magic isn't a force, it's a shortcut to manipulate force, which causes cosmic unbalance (probably most visible in the way the seasons work, which GRRM says has a magical reason for their imbalance). In that way, getting rid of magic isn't eliminating a force of nature, but eliminating the shortcuts people utilize to use/abuse them. 

Oh I do like that.

[shizett]

I am sorry I am getting back to everyone so late, I fell asleep last night and today you have all moved on.

12 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Cheers!

FC, I am going to use your atomic bomb example in my answers. Awesome example!

12 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Strictly speaking no, that's perfectly correct but I was once again referencing Moorcock's demon sword Stormbringer which in the end drank the soul of Elric.

I am not sure comparing Ice to Stormbringer is fair though. Ice never drank Ned's blood, it got "stained" by it. If anything, that shows the "goodness" in Ice.

If you trace the known wielders of Ice, they have all been painted very nicely actually.

• Rickard did not attack the Targ King although the crown prince abducted his daughter. When King captured his son and called for him, he did not take an army with him.
• Ned was Ned. He is the symbol of honor in the Story.
• Got "stained" by Ned's execution and then got reforged into two swords. Oath Keeper went to Jaime who has been trying to be a better person and he actually gave it to a more deserving worrier, Brienne.
• Widows Wail went to Joff, but did not stay in his possession for long. And now he awaits Tommen, another decent guy. 

As I said, I do not believe the objects to be evil or good, but even if they were, Ice would be in the "good" category.

12 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I'm not so sure though about supposedly inanimate objects [or magic] not being evil. Ygritte certainly believed that of the Wall and I don't see why when we're dealing with magic, the evil which goes into the creation of something, be it a sword or a great Wall of ice, should not remain within it.

I wouldn't call magic evil because it would diminish the responsibility of those who wield it. I know this is fantasy but I find it very unnecessary to bring a corruptive force in the world that would render everyone innocent in the end. It is a source of power, people tap into it, they do things. I agree that there is a high cost to it. But having a high cost and being evil are not the same.

12 hours ago, Armstark said:

I think one could make an argument that magic is inherently evil to some extent in this world. I believe all magic we see ultimately is a variation of blood magic and blood magic requires sacrifices. It is evil to kill somebody and great magic requires just that.

Thanks for the explanation. It makes it clearer for me how you think. But I would disagree on one point.

I think you take life force (blood) as an inherently innocent force. It most definitely is not. Life force continually feeds on life force. Humans and animals kill other animals and plants to feed. Even more importantly, fetus feeds on the Mother's life force to grow and if you have ever witnessed child birth, its really really bloody and a lot of women die either for complications of pregnancy or child birth. But none of would call kids evil (people in our story do, but that's just ridiculous).

I understand you did not mean it in this way,  I am just trying to make the point that telling an incomplete story leads to weird conclusions sometimes.

12 hours ago, Armstark said:

We have also seen very few instances of what could be called "good magic", there is no healing by magic for example. What we have seen is bringing back dead people, soul stealing and destruction. Maybe seeing the future/past and influencing the weather could be called good magic but that's about it.

I think that s the same as FC's awesome example of nuclear energy. Different forms of nuclear energy can lead to different uses of them. Even when used in Nuclear reactors, it comes with a really high cost which renders its use unwise in long term. But again, as science and technology advances we might come to a point of dealing with consequences in a way that would make the trade off more desirable. Writing it off as "evil" would deprive us of its potential good.

6 hours ago, e1kabong said:

There's a very distinct feeling that magic is not like a natural force, but a perversion of the natural order of things which requires sacrifice (either personal sacrifice or the sacrifice of others) to use. That component that, in order for magic to work, something/someone has to suffer, I'd say that magic in this world is somewhat inherently evil. Sure, the magic can be used for good and you can argue that the ends justify the means, but hardline morality would say that volunteering sacrifice and pain is selfish/evil.

I think we have similar understanding of magic, just end up calling it differently. I agree that it comes with a high cost and what it delivers might not be worth it, but nobody is forcing anybody to use it. People are desperate or ignorant and they end up using it. The problem is not the magic or what it does, but people who choose to practice it.

6 hours ago, e1kabong said:

Reminds me of this quote from one of my favorite fictional magic wielders, Jon Constantine:

"This is how the world is supposed to work: You give and you take. Cause and effect. Ordinary people, they operate within a certain set of parameters...Rules. Limits. Then there's blokes like me...We cheat. We trick the universe into handing us effects without the cause. Things we didn't earn. We twist time and space. Warp minds. Create life. For people like me, there are no rules. That's magic and that makes people like me very, very dangerous. Dangerous to everybody, ourselves included. You cheat the system and it tries to compensate...Magic is costly. You take what you didn't earn, but you pay for it."

In other words, magic isn't a force, it's a shortcut to manipulate force, which causes cosmic unbalance (probably most visible in the way the seasons work, which GRRM says has a magical reason for their imbalance). In that way, getting rid of magic isn't eliminating a force of nature, but eliminating the shortcuts people utilize to use/abuse them. 

This is a really cool quote But I disagree with your interpretation of it.

Firstly, it talks as if humans who wield magic are Gods, which is not correct. They are not creating magic out of nowhere, it already exists. They are tapping into its power. The system, the shortcuts, the trade offs, they are already there. People use it, they do not create it. And with all sorts of power comes danger, it is not just magic. As for earning it (the power and the position), I agree, magic could help unworthy people get to really high places. But human rules can do that too: look at Aerys, Joffrey, and Viserys. I don't see anything new about magic that is not true for any other form of power.

As for the seasons, while agreeing with you, I always took it as a sign of magic in that world. Our seasons don't depend on Magic, because we live in a non-magical world but I get your meaning.

So, I would change your last statement to: "getting rid of magical consequences would depend on people's refusal to use magic as they have no power in creating or eliminating the shortcuts but only their usage of it".

 

[aDanceWithFlagons]

I'll weigh in on the magic discussion.

Magic does not exist, it is created. It is an action. There is no such thing as natural magic. The users and practitioners create magic when manipulating the world around them. Even those who sing the song of earth use the trees and the animals to create something that was not there before. They use the trees. They use the ravens. 

That's my take on it.

[Armstark]

4 hours ago, shizett said:

As I said, I do not believe the objects to be evil or good, but even if they were, Ice would be in the "good" category.

I wouldn't call magic evil because it would diminish the responsibility of those who wield it. I know this is fantasy but I find it very unnecessary to bring a corruptive force in the world that would render everyone innocent in the end. It is a source of power, people tap into it, they do things. I agree that there is a high cost to it. But having a high cost and being evil are not the same.

 

Thanks for the explanation. It makes it clearer for me how you think. But I would disagree on one point.

I think you take life force (blood) as an inherently innocent force. It most definitely is not. Life force continually feeds on life force. Humans and animals kill other animals and plants to feed. Even more importantly, fetus feeds on the Mother's life force to grow and if you have ever witnessed child birth, its really really bloody and a lot of women die either for complications of pregnancy or child birth. But none of would call kids evil (people in our story do, but that's just ridiculous).

I understand you did not mean it in this way,  I am just trying to make the point that telling an incomplete story leads to weird conclusions sometimes.

 

I think that s the same as FC's awesome example of nuclear energy. Different forms of nuclear energy can lead to different uses of them. Even when used in Nuclear reactors, it comes with a really high cost which renders its use unwise in long term. But again, as science and technology advances we might come to a point of dealing with consequences in a way that would make the trade off more desirable. Writing it off as "evil" would deprive us of its potential good.

I think we have similar understanding of magic, just end up calling it differently. I agree that it comes with a high cost and what it delivers might not be worth it, but nobody is forcing anybody to use it. People are desperate or ignorant and they end up using it. The problem is not the magic or what it does, but people who choose to practice it.

 

Well, I am not even convinced myself that magic is evil in this world and you make some good points. But I have some doubts that you really could use blood magic to do truly good things. As I said we have seen no healing magic and very little protective magic (only things I can think of are warded castles/stones, poison protection and the Royce rune armor). What we see instead is armies of the dead, taking over other peoples bodies against their will, soul/lifeforce stealing and various forms of deceit (glamours etc.). 

 

If magic was neutral why can Bran never walk again? Why can nobody tap into that neutral power to make him hole again? Because it ain't possible obviously, but my point is that magic can be used to kill but not to heal.

[Melifeather]

A couple opinions, if I may beg your indulgence! =)

Regarding the Targaryens in general. If the Starks and Daynes were already designated as shields at either end of the realm to defend each end from opposing magics, and if the Starks are the black knight and Daynes the white knight, it seems to me that the Targaryens are interlopers.

The Targaryens are known to be interested in prophecy and they've attempted many times to interpret the prophetic meanings, but they've always tried to apply these prophecies to themselves. In this way they are like Melisandre. They manipulate the messages in order to apply them to their own family members, and I think this is also why the Targaryens dress themselves in black armor. They think because they have dragons that they should possess the position of the black knight and have usurped this role from the Starks. And this may be what actually happened when Torrhen kneeled.

Regarding Melisandre and her interpretations of Azor Ahai. I think she knows Jon is destined to be the black knight and Stannis was only her tool to get to the Wall. Why else has she not gone with Stannis? She told Davos, and Stannis, that the reason he was defeated at the Blackwater was because she wasn't there. She stayed at the Wall to be with Jon, so I do not believe that she thinks Stannis is Azor Ahai.

 

[shizett]

1 hour ago, aDanceWithFlagons said:

I'll weigh in on the magic discussion.

Magic does not exist, it is created. It is an action. There is no such thing as natural magic. The users and practitioners create magic when manipulating the world around them. Even those who sing the song of earth use the trees and the animals to create something that was not there before. They use the trees. They use the ravens. 

That's my take on it.

Why would manipulation of the world be evil though? That's the part I do not understand. And how can we as humans, parts of natural world, create something unnatural? There was these ways that they discovered (like spells and who knows what else) and manipulated the world around them. I am not sure how you get to the creation of magic.

57 minutes ago, Armstark said:

Well, I am not even convinced myself that magic is evil in this world and you make some good points. But I have some doubts that you really could use blood magic to do truly good things. As I said we have seen no healing magic and very little protective magic (only things I can think of are warded castles/stones, poison protection and the Royce rune armor). What we see instead is armies of the dead, taking over other peoples bodies against their will, soul/lifeforce stealing and various forms of deceit (glamours etc.). 

 

If magic was neutral why can Bran never walk again? Why can nobody tap into that neutral power to make him hole again? Because it ain't possible obviously, but my point is that magic can be used to kill but not to heal.

Oh, I thought it was clear that I agree with you that we have not seen much good things come out of magic. But skinchanging can actually be a good thing, it can foster relations between humans and non-humans, at least that is my take on it.

As for Bran, well, nobody has said he cannot be healed by any kind of magic. He cannot be healed by Ice magic (or whatever it is that BR practices), maybe the red priests could heal him. I think Thoros could both heal and resurrect Beric every time. Moqorro also healed Victarion's hand. Also, there might be something political going on too, it might be the case that BR can heal Bran, but chooses not to, so to keep him close or something.

But either way, why should magic be all powerful? Back to my favorite example of Nuclear energy, it can destroy cities and provide immense amounts of energy and it cannot heal a simple wound. So, what of it?

[Matthew.]

8 hours ago, Black Crow said:

  Rather we might see her look to Danaerys the Dragonlord, because if Maester Aemon knew of her then Mel must know too.

Eventually, perhaps, if Mel lives that long, but if Stannis dies in the books I think it's still more likely that she attaches herself to Jon in the interim, and even more likely in the show. I can't recall the exact quote from the books where she's trying to seduce Jon, but I seem to recall her suggesting that she could use him to cast powerful shadows, and her attempts are even more overt in the show.

I happen to agree that, when Jon comes back in the books, I favor the notion that he would come back as a "Coldhands-esque" sentient wight, but even so, the logistics of uniting Mel with Dany in the books is impractical, at least for the foreseeable future. For one thing, she's effectively one of the most powerful people at the Wall, in the sense that the "Queen's men" are the most well armed and well trained faction present. For another, Dany already has Moqorro looking to attach himself to her, and is also under the influence of Quaithe.

That said, I stand behind the assumption that there's going to be a lot more to Stannis' book plot than the show's adaptation, just as there's probably more to Mance's plot than the show adaptation. I think the show is well beyond the point where the decision to cut characters and plotlines is just a matter of trimming the fat, and I don't think "is this important in the books" is nearly as important a question as "is this important to the character and world stories we've established."