Heresy 198 The Knight of the Laughing Tree

[LynnS]

31 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

A Lord of Winterfell making a Queen info a salt wife? Seems like that kind of insult would last generations.

I suspect a salt-marsh wife and a place where one might find crannogs.

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, JNR said:

What is the topic?

I'm open to offers 

[The Fattest Leech]

2 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

I'm open to offers 

The Citadel??? 

[Black Crow]

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The Citadel??? 

Go on then...

[Black Crow]

42 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

A Lord of Winterfell making a Queen info a salt wife? Seems like that kind of insult would last generations.

No so much an insult as the ultimate symbol of domination.

That said, there's a very odd feel to the Bobsey Twins turning up at the feast. They don't behave like the other bannermen and they express their allegiance by way of a strange oath which no-one [followers of the Old Gods as they supposedly are] seems familiar with, and Maester Luwin reacts rather strangely, as if House Stark is honoured by their coming rather than the other way around. They pledge their allegiance but are they really the vassals or do they represent something bigger? 

It comes back to Matthew's speculation as to the physical nature of the Green Men. The Bobsey Twins appear to be flesh and blood but are they and their father the living link between House Stark and the Old Gods?

Because that in turn raises a couple of other questions: 

Why was Howland Reed one of the Magnificent Seven in the first place. Was he their Damphair?

Why is Jojen ill or dying? Is he too far from Greywater Watch, or is he on the wrong side of the Wall, or both. And if the answer is yes what does that tell us about him?

[Crowfood's Daughter]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 0:07 PM, Matthew. said:

The green/grey thing is something I've kept in mind in speculating that Green Men are similar to white walkers, and perhaps even created by (essentially) identical sorcery--my expectation is that the 'reasonable' interpretation of the maesters that the Green Men are just humans wearing green costumes and antlers will prove false, and that the Green Men literally have flesh made of earth and verdure, just as the white walkers have flesh made of ice.

Somewhat related to this, and prior discussions about the nature (and need for) Kings of Winter, I'm struck by the fact that there are two mythical figures credited with bringing men across the Arm of Dorne, and claiming dominion over men everywhere, yet they and their descendants seem to embody opposing themes--there's Garth Greenhand and his Gardener King heirs, evoking summer and fertility, and the First King and his Barrow King heirs in the cold North, evoking winter and death.

Perhaps these are all legends about the same figure, a King of Summer who would be sacrificed in the autumn, become a "King of the Barrows" during the winter, and be reborn in the spring--or perhaps it was two separate bloodlines who would have to occasionally give up a member of their line to serve as Kings of Summer and Winter respectively, and be sacrificed at their appointed times, until the era of the 13th LC/NK/(Last True King of Winter?) upended everything.

The green/grey thing is basically a cycle and signifies a struggle between fertility and death, much like the idea of Garth who dies in the Autumn to be reborn in the Spring.  Yep, Garth is the same guy in the Barrowlands, I pretty much there with you on those ideas. 

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The Citadel??? 

OOH! I would be very intrigued with this topic! I say go for it Fattest Leech!

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

No so much an insult as the ultimate symbol of domination.

That said, there's a very odd feel to the Bobsey Twins turning up at the feast. They don't behave like the other bannermen and they express their allegiance by way of a strange oath which no-one [followers of the Old Gods as they supposedly are] seems familiar with, and Maester Luwin reacts rather strangely, as if House Stark is honoured by their coming rather than the other way around. They pledge their allegiance but are they really the vassals or do they represent something bigger? 

It comes back to Matthew's speculation as to the physical nature of the Green Men. The Bobsey Twins appear to be flesh and blood but are they and their father the living link between House Stark and the Old Gods?

Because that in turn raises a couple of other questions: 

Why was Howland Reed one of the Magnificent Seven in the first place. Was he their Damphair?

Why is Jojen ill or dying? Is he too far from Greywater Watch, or is he on the wrong side of the Wall, or both. And if the answer is yes what does that tell us about him?

Very interesting take. I actually do see Howland as their "Damphair", close enough to seem like a brother even.

[The Fattest Leech]

8 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Go on then...

(damn it LEEECCH! )

Ok. I have always dreamed of writing up something about the Citadel that encourages analysis and discussion. I need to check out some other back information before I can really get both feet in the way I imagined I would. This may take a little time to get it right, and to get right through my other real world writing first, but I will work on it in short order.

6 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

OOH! I would be very intrigued with this topic! I say go for it Fattest Leech!

Thanks. I hope I can do heresy proud.

[Black Crow]

Easiest way to do it is to PM it and I can then paste it in as soon as I launch 199

 

[Voice]

On 5/14/2017 at 4:12 PM, Matthew. said:

I don't disagree, but I type "13th LC" out of simplicity and habit. Indeed, I actually believe that there were no LCs before the NK, although I suspect there may have been prior Night Kings (Kings of the Nightfort).

 

No worries. As I said, tis a minor and frivolous detail to most folks. I am just weird enough to make it a priority in my world. LOL

I think "13th Magnar" would be a bit more appropriate, given that magnars lead, but are not chosen democratically, and the fact that the first thirteen men to lead the Night's Watch (like the LH and his companions) would have spoken the Old Tongue.

"Lords" did not exist in Westeros prior to the Andal Invasion. All such men (and mayhaps women?) would have been "magnars".

For this same reason, I would argue there were never any "Kings of the Nightfort", until maybe around the time of Sherrit. Words like "king", "lord", and "commander", would have been used after the introduction of the Common Tongue and the spread of Andahli forms of government and military hierarchy. Prior to those things, during the lives and times of the Last Hero, Brandon the Builder, the Night's King, Joramun and his contemporary kneeler-Starks from Winterfell, all such leaders would have been magnars.

Now, if we circle back to Nightfort of yore, and your suspicions of prior Night Kings, or Kings of the Nightfort, my exceptions to this go beyond the semantic realm. First, we have no text to suggest anyone prior to the Night's King ever claimed such a role at the Nightfort. Likewise, we have tales of no prior "queens", before his. Additionally, we know that the Nightfort is the oldest castle on the Wall, and that it houses a very special gate that can be used to pass beyond it.

Unless the existence of the Black Gate is a coincidence, I think it is therefore more plausible to suggest that the Nightfort was constructed specifically to house this passage. And what is a passage without something to pass? While not at all impossible, I think it is improbable that the Wall and the Nightfort were constructed at different times for different purposes.

So, if we then accept that the Wall and the Black Gate were a part of the same starry blueprint, and that they were constructed by men (or, a man) of the Night's Watch, we must also accept that the 13th man to lead the Night's Watch was also the 13th candidate to rule over the Nightfort.

Maester Aemon tells us that the Night's Watch has been "choosing" its own Lord Commander since the time of Bran the Builder. Notably, he does not tell us that the Night's Watch chose Bran the Builder as its leader. And Aemon's statement also seems to suggest that any leaders prior to BtB were also not chosen by the Night's Watch. Thus my old pet theory (bias) rears its blind weirwood face, and yawns wide to admit yet another Brandon of House Stark.

Back to my point... rather than suggest prior kings in the north, or of-the-Nightfort, the tale of the Night's King seems, to me, to be a tale of the origin of such authoritarianism in the north.

That such authoritarian rule would come for the first time in the darkness of the Long Night, well, is simply poetic symmetry. Cold men are notoriously implacable, and seek to keep summer away until the memory of all warmth flees... but so too are those implacables uniquely suited to such times of death and hopelessness, even if they are inhuman.

 

Quote

This is not entirely accurate. If Brandon the Builder was a "King of Winter" (the text is a little unclear about this), the standard chronology would suggest that the first KoW was several generations prior to the NK, though I understand that your alternative theory is that BtB and the NK are one and the same.

 

Not at all. I'm not sure what you are referring to as the "standard chronology", but the canonical chronology speaks of no Kings of Winter prior to the Night's King. If we include semi-canon, and the chronology of the world book, the Night's King is "the oldest of these tales".

And BtB=NK is not really an alternative theory, as the text does not provide a contradictory statement. To the contrary:

"Some say he was a Bolton," Old Nan would always end. "Some say a Magnar out of Skagos, some say Umber, Flint, or Norrey. Some would have you think he was a Woodfoot, from them who ruled Bear Island before the ironmen came. He never was. He was a Stark, the brother of the man who brought him down." She always pinched Bran on the nose then, he would never forget it. "He was a Stark of Winterfell, and who can say? Mayhaps his name was Brandon. Mayhaps he slept in this very bed in this very room."

 

Thus, the only identity for the Night's King stated emphatically in canon, is, Brandon? Stark. So it seems to me that a Night's King by any other name would be the "alternative theory".

 

Quote

Furthermore, there are several Kings of Winter whose place in the chronology is indeterminate--we have no idea what order the various Kings of Winter served in relative to one another, or relative to the Night's King.

 

Relative to one another, yes. I agree. No chronology is stated. All we know is that they are old, that they have always been from House Stark, and that they have always been from Winterfell. This clearly means that the "Kings of Winter" could not have existed prior to Brandon the Builder, or, if one does not believe in his existence, the construction of Winterfell.

I think the story of the Night's King is a historical record of the emergence of Winterfell as the seat of power in the north (removed from the Night's King's Nightfort), but that is yet another pet theory, and this wall of rebuttal is already grown taller than intended.

If the KoW do not predate Winterfell, I think they also do not predate the Wall... as that area would not have been a safe construction site until after the Others had been subdued (they "could not stand" against the Last Hero, after his return). If we accept the existence of Brandon the Builder, we are told he began both projects – Winterfell and the Wall. Thus, imo, the Black Gate makes the most sense to me if it is his gate... try as I might, it is damned hard to talk about this stuff without constantly bringing up pet theories. I sincerely apologize. Such are the side effects of far too much weir-sap ingestion over the years.

[Black Crow]

I suspect that some of the discussion here may be hampered not by terminology but by an inflexible interpretation of that terminology.

The Nights Watch we meet at the outset of the story is a large organisation which although much decayed still requires a Lord Commander, who in effect is comparable to a king, albeit a petty one. If, as we have discussed in the past, the Night Fort was originally built to protect the magical portal we know as the Black Gate, then the Night's Watch by extension may have been guarding the gate rather than the Wall. Its a discussion we've had before but the point I'm making here is that if the Night's King was the leader of a sworn brotherhood of 13 rather than an army of 1300 or 13,000 then the nature of the post is rather different.

Furthermore there is the title, whether or not the King of Winter and the Night's King are one and the same or completely different, the nature of their sovereignty is the same, but neither are a prince of the earth. They have dominion over a concept or a power; Night or Winter - or Ice, not an earthly kingdom. The number of their subjects is immaterial for they have none; they do not sit upon a throne, wear a crown, hold lands...

[Matthew.]

19 hours ago, Voice said:

Not at all. I'm not sure what you are referring to as the "standard chronology", but the canonical chronology speaks of no Kings of Winter prior to the Night's King.

The latter statement is misleading in the sense that we cannot accurately place the reign of the Night's King - the 13 year period suggested by Old Nan- in any reliable timeline relative to, say, the King of Winter who drove the giants from the north, or the one that went to war with with the Barrow Kings, and so forth.

The only chronology we can cite with any reliability is the notion that Brandon the Builder was the founder of House Stark, which is what I would categorize as "standard" chronology--standard, in this case, meaning, the chronology as understood by the characters in world and the readers, as opposed to what the actual chronology may have been.

The term "eight thousand years ago" is always used to reference three ideas: the age of the Stark line, the age of the Wall, and how long the men of the Night's Watch have manned the Wall, all events that we might put under the umbrella of "Brandon the Builder's era."

In the case of the NK's tale, we're told that he was the thirteenth man to lead the Night's Watch, that the Wall was already in existence when he spotted his queen, and that there was already a Winterfell where his brother served--all of this is highly suggestive of the NK coming after the era of Brandon the Builder, after the Wall and Winterfell are well established, and the LN has been ended.

None of this means that he actually did come after Brandon the Builder, as its possible that the NW is a much older institution than the Wall, but context in the books suggests that this is the way the NK is understood by the characters, and it certainly seems to be the chronology that is understood by most readers in discussing the story.

 

19 hours ago, Voice said:

And BtB=NK is not really an alternative theory, as the text does not provide a contradictory statement. To the contrary:

"Some say he was a Bolton," Old Nan would always end. "Some say a Magnar out of Skagos, some say Umber, Flint, or Norrey. Some would have you think he was a Woodfoot, from them who ruled Bear Island before the ironmen came. He never was. He was a Stark, the brother of the man who brought him down." She always pinched Bran on the nose then, he would never forget it. "He was a Stark of Winterfell, and who can say? Mayhaps his name was Brandon. Mayhaps he slept in this very bed in this very room."

 

Thus, the only identity for the Night's King stated emphatically in canon, is, Brandon? Stark. So it seems to me that a Night's King by any other name would be the "alternative theory".

The very text you cite contains statements that contradict BtB being the NK: a Magnar out of Skagos, an Umber, a Flint, a Norrey, a Woodfoot. This suggests that his identity is a subject of debate.

Furthermore, I didn't say his name wasn't Brandon, I said that reading him as "Brandon the Builder" as opposed to "Brandon the Night's King, a different Brandon" is an alternative theory--(again), alternative being a relative term, as nothing in the text remotely suggests that "NK was BtB" is the understanding of the characters in-world, nor is it the typical understanding presented in reader discussion...which (again) doesn't necessarily mean that the theory is wrong, but it is 'alternative.' 

Unless I'm greatly misunderstanding the reading experience that everyone else has had, when Old Nan suggests that the NK might have been named Brandon (which, mind you, could be her own conjecture/addition as she's tailoring the tale to Bran), I'm viewing this in the context that there's Brandon the Builder, Brandon the Shipwright, Brandon the Burner, Brandon Ice Eyes, etc. 
 

19 hours ago, Voice said:

Now, if we circle back to Nightfort of yore, and your suspicions of prior Night Kings, or Kings of the Nightfort, my exceptions to this go beyond the semantic realm. First, we have no text to suggest anyone prior to the Night's King ever claimed such a role at the Nightfort.

Yes, we do have text that suggests the Nightfort could have had "rulers" prior to the NK--his designation as the 13th man to lead the NW, which suggests that there could have been twelve prior commanders/rulers/whatever at the Nightfort, especially if we're reading the Nightfort and the Watch as having been established at the same time.

As for the rest, I realize I may not have been communicating my ideas clearly, but Black Crow's post above touches upon what I was getting at--I was suggesting that there may have been an era where certain people were given dominion over the seasons - eg, Garth Greenhand as an Oak King/Summer King/Horned God - and that the Night's King was one such figure. 

Specifically, I was speculating that the Barrow Kings, the ancient Starks, and the Night's King might have all been kings over winter at various points; the potential significance here is that the NK may not have been an aberration, but a man who was fulfilling his Pact duties.

[Matthew.]

5 hours ago, Black Crow said:

 

I suspect that some of the discussion here may be hampered not by terminology but by an inflexible interpretation of that terminology.

 

Yes, and I'll admit that my usage of terms like "king of the Nightfort" might be too flexible, but the basic premise I was getting at (as touched upon above) was that the Nightfort may have been more than just the base of operations for a military order, and its earliest 'rulers' more than just men commanding a military order; instead, it may have once been a site with far greater magical significance.

[JNR]

5 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

all of this is highly suggestive of the NK coming after the era of Brandon the Builder, after the Wall and Winterfell are well established, and the LN has been ended.

None of this means that he actually did come after Brandon the Builder

Well, the first novel gives us conflicting information.  There is Cat's first chapter, which says:

Quote

They were old, those eyes; older than Winterfell itself. They had seen Brandon the Builder set the first stone, if the tales were true; they had watched the castle's granite walls rise around them.

Combine with this (from the same chapter):

Quote

The gods of Winterfell kept a different sort of wood. It was a dark, primal place, three acres of old forest untouched for ten thousand years as the gloomy castle rose around it.

...and we arrive at the idea that Brandon the Builder built Winterfell and founded the Stark line 10K years back.  Which is to say, concurrent with the myths of the building of Moat Cailin... long before the Long Night. 

But we are also told:

Quote

Thousands and thousands of years ago, Brandon the Builder had raised Winterfell, and some said the Wall.

So GRRM is deliberately introducing uncertainty about this guy into the text. 

But I think it's beyond debate that the canon does clearly suggest that Brandon the Builder lived thousands of years before the Long Night, the Wall, the Watch, or the Night's King.

15 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

The very text you cite contains statements that contradict BtB being the NK: a Magnar out of Skagos, an Umber, a Flint, a Norrey, a Woodfoot. This suggests that his identity is a subject of debate.

Certainly.  The North is loaded with different versions of the story, and Old Nan has her own preferred version. 

But whether she's right about it (as she was in saying the Popsicles were cold things) or she's wrong (in saying giants are basically just super-large men with super-large swords) is for us to discover.

[Black Crow]

While not for a moment disputing the accuracy of your quotations, or forgetting that GRRM is telling us things through her, Catelyn Stark is very much an unreliable narrator in repeating what she remembers of what she has been told but not necessarily fully understood.

[Black Crow]

23 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

Yes, and I'll admit that my usage of terms like "king of the Nightfort" might be too flexible, but the basic premise I was getting at (as touched upon above) was that the Nightfort may have been more than just the base of operations for a military order, and its earliest 'rulers' more than just men commanding a military order; instead, it may have once been a site with far greater magical significance.

I agree. That is exactly the point I was making; that while the Nights King was [reputedly] the 13th man to lead the Night's Watch the nature of the Watch at the time may have been very different, and consequently an assumption that he was the Lord Commander, or a conventional king, magnar or president, may be well adrift.

[JNR]

14 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Catelyn Stark is very much an unreliable narrator in repeating what she remembers of what she has been told but not necessarily fully understood.

Of course.  Ambiguity and narrative unreliability are baked into all these books, and GRRM is overt about that, and goes to some pains to remind us of it by doing things like comparing Brandon the Builder to Noah in an SSM (as you like to quote) and saying subtle and ambiguous are the two words he'd use to describe himself as a writer.

Even so, it is just true the canon overtly suggests, rightly or wrongly, that Brandon the Builder lived, and built Winterfell, ten thousand years before the present day.  This is often forgotten by fans.

(I also think there's nothing subtle about R+L=J.    The concept of Jon as a hidden heir to the Iron Throne was just about the most cliched thing GRRM could possibly have written into a fantasy series at the time he dreamed up and wrote ASOIAF.)

[ravenous reader]

6 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Furthermore there is the title, whether or not the King of Winter and the Night's King are one and the same or completely different, the nature of their sovereignty is the same, but neither are a prince of the earth. They have dominion over a concept or a power; Night or Winter - or Ice, not an earthly kingdom. The number of their subjects is immaterial for they have none; they do not sit upon a throne, wear a crown, hold lands...

There is a weirwood in the Night Fort -- and where there is a weirwood, there is a throne.

I agree about the crown, 'under the sea, no one wears hats...'

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, JNR said:

 

Even so, it is just true the canon overtly suggests, rightly or wrongly, that Brandon the Builder lived, and built Winterfell, ten thousand years before the present day.  This is often forgotten by fans.

 

I don't doubt that Bob the Builder lived and built Winterfell, but whether it was 10,000 years ago and he built the Wall 8,000 years ago is quite a different matter.

[Black Crow]

35 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

There is a weirwood in the Night Fort -- and where there is a weirwood, there is a throne.

True, but it has nothing to do with an earthly kingdom.