LiveFirstDieLater Posted May 21, 2018 Author Share Posted May 21, 2018 On 5/19/2018 at 8:50 AM, the trees have eyes said: I don't know. Are we? Magic is a sword without a hilt and now we have had a glimpse of the nature of the godhood of the old gods and what happens to greenseers when they are enthroned it looks grisly and frightening indeed. But does that make it evil? Magic has a price, we know that, Mel's shadowbabies, Arya seeing through the faces of dead people in her training in the House of Black and White, Mirri Maz Duur burning on the pyre to hatch Dany's dragons, the resurrections of Beric Dondarrion and Catelyn Stark. It is meant to make us uncomfortable and if the cave appear dark and creepy to a child and gloomy and forboding then there is no surprise there: they are trapped underground in the root system with a near dead / symbiotic spirit guide! That does not determine that it must be evil and a trap any more that Beric's creepiness implied he was evil. This is a totally legitimate opinion if you ask me, and I certainly don’t think his being creepy and corpselike are reason enough to judge Bloodraven evil. What makes me really question is his inability to answer a straightforward question, are you the three eyed crow, after Bran has asked others the same question and received similar confused answers... and the fact that he tells Bran not to fear the dark. Ned’s wisdom that a man can only be brave when he’s afraid, and Nan’s “fear is for the long night”, combine to make me believe Bloodraven is leading Bran down the wrong road. As for the distinction between crows and ravens, let’s be clear. I don’t think there is any deep understanding of Norse, or other, mythology required to pick up on this. That’s why he repeatedly uses his made up “crow calls the raven black” in every book, and describes crows and ravens distinctly and even squabbling. The fact that crows and ravens are different can’t really be disputed, and it’s something he has bothered to highlight. The fact that a tv show which will not be named changed the character’s name to the “three eyed raven” is only icing on the cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 21 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: This is a totally legitimate opinion if you ask me, and I certainly don’t think his being creepy and corpselike are reason enough to judge Bloodraven evil. What makes me really question is his inability to answer a straightforward question, are you the three eyed crow, after Bran has asked others the same question and received similar confused answers... and the fact that he tells Bran not to fear the dark. Ned’s wisdom that a man can only be brave when he’s afraid, and Nan’s “fear is for the long night”, combine to make me believe Bloodraven is leading Bran down the wrong road. Given Bran is going to have to stay in the cave for months / years / permanently isn't telling a child not to be afraid of the dark more reassuring than telling him to be afraid all the time? If the fate of greenseers is to be rooted then it certainly looks sinister having him tell Bran not to fear the dark but if that is the price of magic and Bran's path to save / role in saving mankind then it's pretty bleak but it's just how GRRM has set things up. This type of sacrifice (if that's what it is) is bound to make us uncomfortable given it's not a heroic / glorious charge on the battlefield, etc... but it doesn' make it evil, just the shitty end of the stick and no mistake. 30 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: As for the distinction between crows and ravens, let’s be clear. I don’t think there is any deep understanding of Norse, or other, mythology required to pick up on this. That’s why he repeatedly uses his made up “crow calls the raven black” in every book, and describes crows and ravens distinctly and even squabbling. The fact that crows and ravens are different can’t really be disputed, and it’s something he has bothered to highlight. The fact that a tv show which will not be named changed the character’s name to the “three eyed raven” is only icing on the cake. Which boils down to individual interpretation and preference, i.e. we are back to whether "the pot calling the kettle black" means the two are essentially the same (which to me they are and the point of the saying) or fundamentally different. I don't watch the show but the fact they made the change either means they are butchering the story for unspecifed reasons or there is no substantive plot relevance to the crow/raven distinction. This will be in the eye of the beholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted May 22, 2018 Author Share Posted May 22, 2018 16 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: Given Bran is going to have to stay in the cave for months / years / permanently isn't telling a child not to be afraid of the dark more reassuring than telling him to be afraid all the time? No... certainly not... the Nights King was a man who knew no fear, and that was the fault in him... and I doubt Bran stays buried beneath the frozen weirwood grove. Quote If the fate of greenseers is to be rooted then it certainly looks sinister having him tell Bran not to fear the dark but if that is the price of magic and Bran's path to save / role in saving mankind then it's pretty bleak but it's just how GRRM has set things up. The idea that Bran is somehow being trained to save mankind is a reader invention... I honestly don’t think you can point to a quote which indicates this. Not only that, but sacrificing morals “for the greater good” is the road to hell (paved with good intentions) and is, I believe, a major theme throughout the series. Quote This type of sacrifice (if that's what it is) is bound to make us uncomfortable given it's not a heroic / glorious charge on the battlefield, etc... but it doesn' make it evil, just the shitty end of the stick and no mistake. I’m not saying that he old gods or weirwoods are inherently evil... My guess is the Eye of the Gods probably houses some more benevolent folk, but there isn’t any evience that Bloodraven is out to do any good either... he doesn’t talk about saving anyone, or about wanting to help makind... it’s equally a leap to suggest he has, more so in my opinion, given his lack of honor and location. Quote Which boils down to individual interpretation and preference, i.e. we are back to whether "the pot calling the kettle black" means the two are essentially the same (which to me they are and the point of the saying) or fundamentally different. Wait wait wait... the expression doesn’t mean a pot is a kettle... pots are different than kettles... it’s just about hypocrisy. And I do think this is how George uses it, to show hypocrisy... it dovetails with “all crows are liars”. And it is particularly interesting given that he wrote in ravens who are white. They are used to herald a change of seasons. Bloodraven is white, the pale lord, with a white dragon as his heraldry. While the symbolism is fun and all, it isn’t why Bloodraven is so suspicious... it’s the fact that he has violated just about every law of the old gods, he abandoned his post at the wall, and didn’t seem to give up his concern for his brothers and sister/lover when joining the watch... he didn’t understand bran’s asking him if he’s the three eyed crow, which makes no sense since the crow knew he was a crow during the falling dream... and it seems he sent a sentient undead Coldhands to retrieve Bran and bring him to his dark lair beyond the Wall, beneath frozen weirwoods, which is filled with the bones of a thousand other dreamers. Quote I don't watch the show but the fact they made the change either means they are butchering the story for unspecifed reasons or there is no substantive plot relevance to the crow/raven distinction. This will be in the eye of the beholder. Ummmm, or they changed the character into a benevolent teacher, conflating Bloodraven and Nan (who’s actor died), like they did with other plots... but we don’t need to get into the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: No... certainly not... the Nights King was a man who knew no fear, and that was the fault in him... and I doubt Bran stays buried beneath the frozen weirwood grove. A guy in a cave telling a child who will remain in that cave for a long time not to be afraid of the dark is ok in my book. If you want to turn that into the start of a grooming process to turn him into an amoral instrument or the next Night King that is quite the stretch. So...yeah 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: The idea that Bran is somehow being trained to save mankind is a reader invention... I honestly don’t think you can point to a quote which indicates this. Is it? I don't mean save the world single handedly, he will have a part to play with the other Stark children and Dany. His entire arc is about being chosen to be taught to be the next (and only) greenseer. It's hammered home how important this is with the Reeds turning up to escort him all the way beyond The Wall to meet his teacher and the difficulty and the extreme danger of the journey, particularly for a crippled child. Immediately before Bran wakes from his coma he has a vision of what is waiting in the lands of always winter. You can explicitly reject all this if you want but it's pretty obvious thematically and in broad strokes if not in fine detail. 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Not only that, but sacrificing morals “for the greater good” is the road to hell (paved with good intentions) and is, I believe, a major theme throughout the series. We were talking about magic not morals and how it has a price, often a terrible one. If you want to argue magic is inherently evil I guess you can forge a chain at the Citadel but it exists in world and, like any other power, it is neutral and it's influence depends on what is in the heart of the wielder. In this case being entombed in a tree would be an act of self-sacrifice (rather like one of the Shannaran stories) and heroic not immoral or evil. 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: I’m not saying that he old gods or weirwoods are inherently evil... My guess is the Eye of the Gods probably houses some more benevolent folk, but there isn’t any evience that Bloodraven is out to do any good either... he doesn’t talk about saving anyone, or about wanting to help makind... it’s equally a leap to suggest he has, more so in my opinion, given his lack of honor and location. The only evidence is that he is sat in a cave beneath a tree filled with the corpses of previous greenseers who, by the look of it, have been hooking themselves into this weirwood grove for thousands of years. My assumption is that it is a powerful nexus and Bloodraven had no more choice in his location than Bran did and was probably called there by the last greenseer just as he has called Bran. You seem to have some settled notions about Bloodraven and to be projecting that onto the whole weirwood / greenseer system GRRM finally shows us in ADWD. 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Wait wait wait... the expression doesn’t mean a pot is a kettle... pots are different than kettles... it’s just about hypocrisy. I think you are splitting hairs here. The saying is to point out that they are behaving in essentially the same way. This is the whole meaning. 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: And it is particularly interesting given that he wrote in ravens who are white. They are used to herald a change of seasons. Bloodraven is white, the pale lord, with a white dragon as his heraldry. And Ghost is white yet Jon is not an agent of The Great Other. The albinism is striking but that's really all I get out of it. A white raven for winter? Ok. 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: While the symbolism is fun and all, it isn’t why Bloodraven is so suspicious... it’s the fact that he has violated just about every law of the old gods, he abandoned his post at the wall, and didn’t seem to give up his concern for his brothers and sister/lover when joining the watch... he didn’t understand bran’s asking him if he’s the three eyed crow, which makes no sense since the crow knew he was a crow during the falling dream... and it seems he sent a sentient undead Coldhands to retrieve Bran and bring him to his dark lair beyond the Wall, beneath frozen weirwoods, which is filled with the bones of a thousand other dreamers. The Series is all about how oaths make a prison for men that often prevents them from doing what they should. Jaime has a lot to say on that and Jon's issues at Castle Black revolve around it. Given a choice between following Nights Watch vows and being just one more sword atop a wall or following a more dangerous and important path, apparently involving a significant sacrifice, Bloodraven seems to have made the latter choice. He is the only remaining sentient dreamer and he won't last much longer. Unless you think this is the golgotha of the greenseers and all those in the cave have been trapped here unwittingly Bloodraven appears as just another greenseer following the end of life path, however macabre that is, and he is no different to the rest. 3 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Ummmm, or they changed the character into a benevolent teacher, conflating Bloodraven and Nan (who’s actor died), like they did with other plots... but we don’t need to get into the show. Um, wow, this really is in the eye of the beholder isn't it..... Because the other interpretation is Old Nan was just an old woman of no plot significance who told stories to the children and Bloodraven is Bran's teacher, exactly as he appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted May 22, 2018 Author Share Posted May 22, 2018 2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: A guy in a cave telling a child who will remain in that cave for a long time not to be afraid of the dark is ok in my book. If you want to turn that into the start of a grooming process to turn him into an amoral instrument or the next Night King that is quite the stretch. So...yeah I think he’s gonna try and take Bran over, as we see is possible with Varamyr, not groom him to be anything more than a host... But I’m not pulling it out of nowhere... Bran thinks of Ned’s words of wisdom about fear and bravery in the text, right there next to Bloodraven’s advising him not to know fear. There he sat, listening to the hoarse whispers of his teacher. "Never fear the darkness, Bran." The lord's words were accompanied by a faint rustling of wood and leaf, a slight twisting of his head. "The strongest trees are rooted in the dark places of the earth. Darkness will be your cloak, your shield, your mother's milk. Darkness will make you strong." Let the hate flow through you Luke!!! "He wants to go home," Meera told Bran. "He will not even try and fight his fate. He says the greendreams do not lie." "He's being brave," said Bran. The only time a man can be brave is when he is afraid, his father had told him once, long ago, on the day they found the direwolf pups in the summer snows. He still remembered. "He's being stupid," Meera said. "I'd hoped that when we found your three-eyed crow … now I wonder why we ever came." And these are from the same chapter... add in the combo lesson from Ned was about how the man who casts the sentence should swing the sword... because that was the day (and first chapter of the series) he executed a man of the Nights watch who had seen the Others as an oathbreaker... meanwhile Bloodraven: Lord Rivers flicked them away with his fingers, unrolled a parchment, and began to tick off names with a quill. He is marking down the men to die, Dunk realized. But I can only show you, I can’t make you see. Quote Is it? I don't mean save the world single handedly, he will have a part to play with the other Stark children and Dany. His entire arc is about being chosen to be taught to be the next (and only) greenseer. It's hammered home how important this is with the Reeds turning up to escort him all the way beyond The Wall to meet his teacher and the difficulty and the extreme danger of the journey, particularly for a crippled child. Immediately before Bran wakes from his coma he has a vision of what is waiting in the lands of always winter. You can explicitly reject all this if you want but it's pretty obvious thematically and in broad strokes if not in fine detail. Hahahaha look at the crow call the raven black! Listen to yourself, you are the one making massive assumptions about why Bran is there, the fact you don’t think he’s leaving, and that you believe Bloodraven cares about saving the world. Forget construing the undead man who won’t show his face and can’t cross the Wall, who serves up the flesh of men to a bunch of children... on the, as you point out, long and difficult march into the lands of always winter, well beyond The Wall which was built thousands of years ago, as a good guy... none of that makes for anything “obvious thematically” and in fact what you are describing is “unfounded assumption”. And I understand the assumptions you’re making, I really do... I think they are easy to make, but after rereading (let’s remember we only had 3 Bran chapters in Dance all together) I’m more convinced than ever... Quote We were talking about magic not morals and how it has a price, often a terrible one. We are talking about both... I don’t have an issue with magic per say, but human sacrifice is problematic. Quote If you want to argue magic is inherently evil I guess you can forge a chain at the Citadel but it exists in world and, like any other power, it is neutral and it's influence depends on what is in the heart of the wielder. In this case being entombed in a tree would be an act of self-sacrifice (rather like one of the Shannaran stories) and heroic not immoral or evil. It could be, or it could be an attempt to extend one’s life far beyond the normal span... I agree that magic doesn’t have to be evil... and the same action might be done for good or evil, depending upon the circumstance... but you are making a huge assumption in saying it’s good in this case! Quote The only evidence is that he is sat in a cave beneath a tree filled with the corpses of previous greenseers who, by the look of it, have been hooking themselves into this weirwood grove for thousands of years. No, it is not the only evidence, you can ignor the evidence and deny it, or argue it isn’t so, but that doesn’t change the text... something you don’t seem to be basing your opinions on, or using to support what you are saying. Quote My assumption is that it is a powerful nexus and Bloodraven had no more choice in his location than Bran did and was probably called there by the last greenseer just as he has called Bran. You seem to have some settled notions about Bloodraven and to be projecting that onto the whole weirwood / greenseer system GRRM finally shows us in ADWD. So setting aside the fact that “last greenseer” doesn’t make sense as a title of someone looking for a replacement or trainee... I’m very open as to what exactly the Weirwoods are, how far the network reaches, and what the Children’s motives are... but I do struggle to understand why people see Bloodraven in a positive light. I honk that stems from the text, and I would say the same thing about Tywin or Roose Bolton, but I guess some people don’t care about things like honor and guest right. Quote I think you are splitting hairs here. The saying is to point out that they are behaving in essentially the same way. This is the whole meaning. I think you might be fundamentally missing the point of the saying... the point isn’t that they are the same... the point is one of them is an asshole for saying something hypocritical about the other, and is used in a mocking/insulting manner most often. Quote And Ghost is white yet Jon is not an agent of The Great Other. The albinism is striking but that's really all I get out of it. A white raven for winter? Ok. The white ravens are not albinos at all it turns out. They are also the heralds of the seasons, not just Winter. Ghost and Bloodraven (Heart of Winter) and the Ghost of High Heart (Heart of Fall?) all appear to be albinos... However, I think Jon heralds spring not winter. Quote The Series is all about how oaths make a prison for men that often prevents them from doing what they should. I think that’s a shallow understanding... but kinda almost I guess... it’s about there being things more important than the letter of the law, or oath... not that oaths or duty are bad... any more than love is bad... but both can lead one to do terrible things... but that doesn’t mean they are inherently wrong. "So they will not love," the old man answered, "for love is the bane of honor, the death of duty." That did not sound right to Jon, yet he said nothing. The maester was a hundred years old, and a high officer of the Night's Watch; it was not his place to contradict him. The old man seemed to sense his doubts. "Tell me, Jon, if the day should ever come when your lord father must needs choose between honor on the one hand and those he loves on the other, what would he do?" ... “He would do whatever was right.” Quote Jaime has a lot to say on that and Jon's issues at Castle Black revolve around it. Given a choice between following Nights Watch vows and being just one more sword atop a wall or following a more dangerous and important path, apparently involving a significant sacrifice, Bloodraven seems to have made the latter choice. I disagree, Jon returns to his post... Bloodraven does not... in addition he was not just another sword, he was the lord commander. Jon should not have tried to march on Winterfell as Lord Commander, it’s not the same as his pretending to be a wildling. Quote He is the only remaining sentient dreamer and he won't last much longer. Is that even true? We see the Children in their thrones seemingly still alive... but it does seem like his hour is growing late. Quote Unless you think this is the golgotha of the greenseers and all those in the cave have been trapped here unwittingly Bloodraven appears as just another greenseer following the end of life path, however macabre that is, and he is no different to the rest. He is the only man we meet in the cave, otherwise it’s all children of the Forrest, and bones... there are multiple Children in thrones, but of men only Bloodraven. Quote Um, wow, this really is in the eye of the beholder isn't it..... Because the other interpretation is Old Nan was just an old woman of no plot significance who told stories to the children and Bloodraven is Bran's teacher, exactly as he appears. That’s one take! Haha, I certainly don’t think her role in the story is over... and it’s mind blowing to me that someone can believe that she wasn’t relevant to the plot. But hopefully one day we find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 37 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Forget construing the undead man who won’t show his face and can’t cross the Wall, who serves up the flesh of men to a bunch of children... on the, as you point out, long and difficult march into the lands of always winter, well beyond The Wall which was built thousands of years ago, as a good guy. As Jon tells Ygritte, "I suppose it's all in where you're standing". While what stands out to you is that Coldhands serves up human flesh to Bran, Meera, Hodor and Jojen, to me it is the fact that he saved their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted May 23, 2018 Author Share Posted May 23, 2018 1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said: As Jon tells Ygritte, "I suppose it's all in where you're standing". While what stands out to you is that Coldhands serves up human flesh to Bran, Meera, Hodor and Jojen, to me it is the fact that he saved their lives. Very true... it’s all where you’re standing, but, let’s not forget it was Coldhands who led them there, possibly around in circles until they were starving... "He said he'd go and deal with them," said Bran. "He said, aye. He said he would take us to this three-eyed crow too. That river we crossed this morning is the same one we crossed four days ago, I swear. We're going in circles." And Coldhands who sent Sam through the Wall and made him swear not to tell anyone (send any help?), and in a really creepy way... The living have no place at the feasts of the dead. It tore the heart from Sam to hold his silence then. Bran's not dead, Jon, he wanted to stay. He's with friends, and they're going north on a giant elk to find a three-eyed crow in the depths of the haunted forest. It sounded so mad that there were times Sam Tarly thought he must have dreamt it all, conjured it whole from fever and fear and hunger . . . but he would have blurted it out anyway, if he had not given his word. Three times he had sworn to keep the secret; once to Bran himself, once to that strange boy Jojen Reed, and last of all to Coldhands. "The world believes the boy is dead," his rescuer had said as they parted. "Let his bones lie undisturbed. We want no seekers coming after us. Swear it, Samwell of the Night's Watch. Swear it for the life you owe me." So, I find it a dubious claim to say he’s saving them when he feeds them the flesh of men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 12 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: meanwhile Bloodraven: Lord Rivers flicked them away with his fingers, unrolled a parchment, and began to tick off names with a quill. He is marking down the men to die, Dunk realized. None of which is within the story of ASOIAF. If GRRM wanted it to be pertinent to those reading the story he would include it in it. Most readers don't know who Bloodraven is and there are no stories Bran learned from Old Nan or his father about this marginal character. 12 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: But I can only show you, I can’t make you see. Lol, I hope you realise you are the one out on a limb here so please don't be smug or patronising. If you are going to be rooted in a cave you can't fear the dark, that's an unusual but necessary part of what is going on here. 12 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Hahahaha look at the crow call the raven black! Listen to yourself, you are the one making massive assumptions about why Bran is there, the fact you don’t think he’s leaving, and that you believe Bloodraven cares about saving the world. Forget construing the undead man who won’t show his face and can’t cross the Wall, who serves up the flesh of men to a bunch of children... on the, as you point out, long and difficult march into the lands of always winter, well beyond The Wall which was built thousands of years ago, as a good guy... none of that makes for anything “obvious thematically” and in fact what you are describing is “unfounded assumption”. And I understand the assumptions you’re making, I really do... I think they are easy to make, but after rereading (let’s remember we only had 3 Bran chapters in Dance all together) I’m more convinced than ever... ........... The "assumptions" you rail agasint are the entirety of Bran's arc, supported by the Reeds, Leaf's story, Coldhands' role or entirely logical, e.g. how and why Bloodraven ended up in the tree . I'm following the text, you're bored with it and twisting it into something more pleasing to you. That's not ot the same thing....... As with any conspiracy theory you rely on everyone from Bran, Howland, Meera, Jojen to Sam being tricked and everyone they encounter from Bloodraven to Leaf, all the other children and Coldhands being in on it (and Old Nan somehow being or doing whatever caught your fancy). It's rather boring when you just replace one of the central plot elements with a gigantic conspiracy theory and really amounts to replacing the author's story with your own. My "assumptions" are about what the Stark children, including Bran, and Dany will do and that is vague and enitrely fluid but does involve Bran using his powers for the good of mankind. How astonishing a thought is that! 12 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: We are talking about both... I don’t have an issue with magic per say, but human sacrifice is problematic. Maybe you were but I was talking about magic and the price Bran might have to and Bloodraven has had to pay. You injected morality because your insertion of information about Bloodraven from outside the main story is essential to your argument but it has no bearing on the nature of the weirwood magic which is grisly to us but a neutral form of nature magic once you get past your initial revulsion. 12 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: It could be, or it could be an attempt to extend one’s life far beyond the normal span... I agree that magic doesn’t have to be evil... and the same action might be done for good or evil, depending upon the circumstance... but you are making a huge assumption in saying it’s good in this case! As Mirir Maz Duur would say "what is the value of life when all else is gone" [sic]. I don't think anyone would extend their life for the sake of it at that price because the quality of life isn't worth having. If on the other hand you were persuaded that there was a purpose in it and the purpose could only be fulfilled by a very few people, that you were one of if not the only one of those people, then you might accept the price. But I don't believe a person would awillingly accept it out of curiosity or attempt to cheat death when they can clearly see the fate of the other dreamers. 13 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: No, it is not the only evidence, you can ignor the evidence and deny it, or argue it isn’t so, but that doesn’t change the text... something you don’t seem to be basing your opinions on, or using to support what you are saying. There is no evidence that Bloodraven is immoral or evil, that the weirwood grove north of the wall is a trap and that Bloodraven is a monster trying to hijack Bran. The evidence points to Bloodraven being the last in a long line of greenseers rooted in the cave and that as the threat of the Others grows and his sentience dwindles he has reached out to Bran to pass on the torch. It is entirely your invention that either a) the cave is not what it seems and all the other dreamers were caught or b) Bloodraven is a break with the weirwood system in that he has made use of it only in order to hijack a second life in which case you have to wonder why the children are helping / serving him if the weirwood grove is about to break down or die (and not just in the short term i.e. why did Leaf come south several hundred years ago to learn the common tongue for "the Bran boy"?). 13 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: So setting aside the fact that “last greenseer” doesn’t make sense as a title of someone looking for a replacement or trainee... If there are a number of greenseers and the others pass on then the one left is the last. That doesn't stop him from trying to train someone up. Honestly that is a pretty flimsy semantic objection. 13 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: I’m very open as to what exactly the Weirwoods are, how far the network reaches, and what the Children’s motives are... but I do struggle to understand why people see Bloodraven in a positive light. I honk that stems from the text, and I would say the same thing about Tywin or Roose Bolton, but I guess some people don’t care about things like honor and guest right. This is you projecting your ex-story view and information about Bloodraven into how you read about the weirwood magic and by extension the children. In story you don't have any reason to doubt his character or compare him with Tywin or Roose. GRRM has not put those flags in but you are reasoning off them nonetheless. 13 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: I think you might be fundamentally missing the point of the saying... the point isn’t that they are the same... the point is one of them is an asshole for saying something hypocritical about the other, and is used in a mocking/insulting manner most often. Yes that is the point. Would you agree that the point is that one person is accusing another of behaviour they are in fact demonstrating and so have it thrown back at them? 13 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: I think that’s a shallow understanding... but kinda almost I guess... it’s about there being things more important than the letter of the law, or oath... not that oaths or duty are bad... any more than love is bad... but both can lead one to do terrible things... but that doesn’t mean they are inherently wrong. Why thank you. And talk about saying the same thing just with more words......Thank you for saying it back to me and commenting on my lack of undertanding. Pot kettle much? 13 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: I disagree, Jon returns to his post... Bloodraven does not... in addition he was not just another sword, he was the lord commander. Jon should not have tried to march on Winterfell as Lord Commander, it’s not the same as his pretending to be a wildling. The obvious point is that Bloodraven found something more important to do but as it was in direct contradiction of his NW oath (the prison you found so shallow an idea a moment ago) he was forced to go AWOL to carry out a need (or greater duty if you prefer) in contradiction to his oath. 13 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Is that even true? We see the Children in their thrones seemingly still alive... but it does seem like his hour is growing late. He is the only man we meet in the cave, otherwise it’s all children of the Forrest, and bones... there are multiple Children in thrones, but of men only Bloodraven. Bran has explored the cave through Hodor and so have the Reeds. Bloodraven is the only one who retains the power of speech and of any movement at all, beyond an eyelid opening. The extent to which the other dreamers are alive, symbiotically alive as part of the tree ecosystem or absorbed into the tree can be endlessly and pointlessly debated but Bloodraven is the only one who retains self-awareness and the capacity to communnicate and act. Only one in a thousand has green dreams and only one in a thousand of those becomes a greenseer. That's one in a million. The fact that the numbers of the children have dwindled to such an extent that they are no longer able to produce a greenseer of their own (and have not for a hundred / hundreds of years ) and have been forced to co-opt a human into the weirnet speaks of their long decline, something Leaf clearly references as she does in explaining why she learned to speak the common tongue (to be clear: they have been preparing for human greenseers in the weirnet for hundreds of years). 13 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: That’s one take! Haha, I certainly don’t think her role in the story is over... and it’s mind blowing to me that someone can believe that she wasn’t relevant to the plot. But hopefully one day we find out. LMAO. I understand you like your theory but come on: in story Old Nan is a woman who appears on page briefly to read stories to Bran and that is it. For you to say that it is "mindblowing" that anyone could not consider her relevant to the plot is pretty astonishing. Sure she is an infodump on scary old stories blurring into myth about the Night King or the Last Hero but that makes her role one of exposition to the reader not of plot significance in her own right. Clearly the show agreed. My bet is she has fulfilled the infodumps GRRM wanted us to have early on in the story but now Jon and Bran are at or north of The Wall we'll see it all through their povs and we don't need more of Old Nan's oral history / myth to set things up. And we haven't needed it (or her) since ACOK. Sorry but there it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted May 23, 2018 Author Share Posted May 23, 2018 3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: There is no evidence that Bloodraven is immoral or evil, that the weirwood grove north of the wall is a trap and that Bloodraven is a monster trying to hijack Bran. Honestly, I think you sound ridiculous, you even used the word monster, which has been a consistent theme of Bran’s arc: It was the end of the world, Old Nan always said. On the other side were monsters and giants and ghouls, but they could not pass so long as the Wall stood strong. I want to stand on top with Meera, Bran thought. I want to stand on top and see. And even talked about in other arcs: "There's naught to eat in the dark but flesh," she whispered, biting at his neck. Jon nuzzled her hair and filled his nose with the smell of her. "You sound like Old Nan, telling Bran a monster story." Ygritte punched his shoulder. "An old woman, am I?" I won’t quote them all, but here is another suggesting exactly what I am: Bran found himself remembering the tales Old Nan had told him when he was a babe. Beyond the Wall the monsters live, the giants and the ghouls, the stalking shadows and the dead that walk, she would say, tucking him in beneath his scratchy woolen blanket, but they cannot pass so long as the Wall stands strong and the men of the Night's Watch are true. So go to sleep, my little Brandon, my baby boy, and dream sweet dreams. There are no monstershere. The ranger wore the black of the Night's Watch, but what if he was not a man at all? What if he was some monster, taking them to the other monsters to be devoured? Followed by this conversation: "He's dead." Bran could taste the bile in his throat. "Meera, he's some dead thing. The monsters cannot pass so long as the Wall stands and the men of the Night's Watch stay true, that's what Old Nan used to say. He came to meet us at the Wall, but he could not pass. He sent Sam instead, with that wildling girl." Meera's gloved hand tightened around the shaft of her frog spear. "Who sent you? Who is this three-eyed crow?" "A friend. Dreamer, wizard, call him what you will. The last greenseer." The longhall's wooden door banged open. Outside, the night wind howled, bleak and black. The trees were full of ravens, screaming. Coldhands did not move. "A monster," Bran said. The ranger looked at Bran as if the rest of them did not exist. "Your monster, Brandon Stark." "Yours," the raven echoed, from his shoulder. Outside the door, the ravens in the trees took up the cry, until the night wood echoed to the murderer's song of "Yours, yours, yours." Who sent you? A friend. Dreamer, wizard... Who is the three eyed crow? Your monster, Brandon Stark. So yes, there is textual evidence that Coldhands and Bloodraven are monsters, without using all the extra supporting evidence from the other works released about Dunk or the seudo history... in fact Bran says it in just those words. There is plenty more I could quote to this end... opening to any Bran chapter in the most recent few books would do it. He liked it better when the torches were put out. In the dark he could pretend that it was the three-eyed crow who whispered to him and not some grisly talking corpse. And, as you alluded too, Bloodraven is only mentioned three times so far in ASoIaF (of course that isn’t surprising when you realize the character was invented after three books were already released). If you had read nothing else, you would really know about Bloodraven from the series is that he was in the black cells before being sent to the wall and being elected lord commander, that there was a period he, a bastard sorcerer, ruled in all but name, that he has a song called a thousand eyes and one, and that he and Bittersteel both loved Seastar, resulting in Westeros bleeding. I don’t mind that you disagree with me at all. A major reason I posted here, besides entertainment, is to test the theory and let others pick at it. For that I thank everyone who’s posted, I feel more strongly about this than ever. I’m a little surprised you seem to be complaining that I am defending a theory you are commenting on, on a forum for theorizing about the series, but I’d just ask that you try to provide support for the claims you make rather than stating assumptions as fact. When you say things like there is no reason to think someone is a monster, and there are quotes where they are literally called a monster, it makes it hard to take anything you say seriously or believe you have a working understanding of the story. If you provide textual support at least I can try and see where you are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted May 23, 2018 Author Share Posted May 23, 2018 4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: Bran has explored the cave through Hodor and so have the Reeds. The Children have lived there for thousands of years and Leaf says they haven’t explored it all... The Children in the tree thrones react to the torches... given that most of the Children don’t speak the common tongue of Westeros it isn’t surprising they don’t communicate anyway... but they sure don’t seem inanimate or dead to me. 4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: Bloodraven is the only one who retains the power of speech and of any movement at all, beyond an eyelid opening. The extent to which the other dreamers are alive, symbiotically alive as part of the tree ecosystem or absorbed into the tree can be endlessly and pointlessly debated but Bloodraven is the only one who retains self-awareness and the capacity to communnicate and act. This is an assumption, unless you provide some quote or evidence for this claim it’s easy to dismiss as you just leaping to a conclusion... and that’s setting aside the logical issues with the idea you can know there are no other self aware “dreamers” because only one of the critters in the throne reacted to light during the incomplete exploration of a massive cave system. I would point to the Isle of Faces as a reasonable place to find another, to use your words, self aware dreamer. In addition, I see no reason to believe those Children in thrones are not self aware. 4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: Only one in a thousand has green dreams and only one in a thousand of those becomes a greenseer. That's one in a million. The fact that the numbers of the children have dwindled to such an extent that they are no longer able to produce a greenseer of their own (and have not for a hundred / hundreds of years ) and have been forced to co-opt a human into the weirnet speaks of their long decline, something Leaf clearly references as she does in explaining why she learned to speak the common tongue (to be clear: they have been preparing for human greenseers in the weirnet for hundreds of years). Ok, it’s rare to have green dreams and rarer to be a greenseer... but then you lose me and it kinda just sounds like you are making things up... Is there any evidence the Children no longer have green seers of their own? Let alone haven’t for hundreds of years... The long decline of the Children was caused by man. There is no evidence Leaf traveled the lands of men or learned the language in preparation for Bran... Do you have a quote for that clear reference? Because I hope you don’t mean this: And they did sing. They sang in True Tongue, so Bran could not understand the words, but their voices were as pure as winter air. "Where are the rest of you?" Bran asked Leaf, once. "Gone down into the earth," she answered. "Into the stones, into the trees. Before the First Men came all this land that you call Westeros was home to us, yet even in those days we were few. The gods gave us long lives but not great numbers, lest we overrun the world as deer will overrun a wood where there are no wolves to hunt them. That was in the dawn of days, when our sun was rising. Now it sinks, and this is our long dwindling. The giants are almost gone as well, they who were our bane and our brothers. The great lions of the western hills have been slain, the unicorns are all but gone, the mammoths down to a few hundred. The direwolves will outlast us all, but their time will come as well. In the world that men have made, there is no room for them, or us." She seemed sad when she said it, and that made Bran sad as well. It was only later that he thought, Men would not be sad. Men would be wroth. Men would hate and swear a bloody vengeance. The singers sing sad songs, where men would fight and kill. Men are the deer in her analogy, filling up the world when there are no “wolves” to hunt them. The wolves are the Others. Bloodraven is a Man, I believe he is wroth. 4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: 17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: That’s one take! Haha, I certainly don’t think her role in the story is over... and it’s mind blowing to me that someone can believe that she wasn’t relevant to the plot. But hopefully one day we find out. LMAO. I understand you like your theory but come on: in story Old Nan is a woman who appears on page briefly to read stories to Bran and that is it. For you to say that it is "mindblowing" that anyone could not consider her relevant to the plot is pretty astonishing. Sure she is an infodump on scary old stories blurring into myth about the Night King or the Last Hero but that makes her role one of exposition to the reader not of plot significance in her own right. Clearly the show agreed. My bet is she has fulfilled the infodumps GRRM wanted us to have early on in the story but now Jon and Bran are at or north of The Wall we'll see it all through their povs and we don't need more of Old Nan's oral history / myth to set things up. And we haven't needed it (or her) since ACOK. Sorry but there it is. Hopefully one day we find out! But I put a lot more stock in the text, and frequent references to Nan, who is still alive for some reason, than I do in your summary dismissal of her relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 8 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: There is no evidence Leaf traveled the lands of men or learned the language in preparation for Bran... Do you have a quote for that clear reference? Because I hope you don’t mean this: “Who are you?” Meera Reed was asking. Bran knew. “She’s a child. A child of the forest.” He shivered, as much from wonderment as cold. They had fallen into one of Old Nan’s tales. “The First Men named us children,” the little woman said. “The giants called us woh dak nag gran, the squirrel people, because we were small and quick and fond of trees, but we are no squirrels, no children. Our name in the True Tongue means those who sing the song of earth. Before your Old Tongue was ever spoken, we had sung our songs ten thousand years.” Meera said, “You speak the Common Tongue now.” “For him. The Bran boy. I was born in the time of the dragon, and for two hundred years I walked the world of men, to watch and listen and learn. I might be walking still, but my legs were sore and my heart was weary, so I turned my feet for home.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted May 24, 2018 Author Share Posted May 24, 2018 11 hours ago, kissdbyfire said: “Who are you?” Meera Reed was asking. Bran knew. “She’s a child. A child of the forest.” He shivered, as much from wonderment as cold. They had fallen into one of Old Nan’s tales. “The First Men named us children,” the little woman said. “The giants called us woh dak nag gran, the squirrel people, because we were small and quick and fond of trees, but we are no squirrels, no children. Our name in the True Tongue means those who sing the song of earth. Before your Old Tongue was ever spoken, we had sung our songs ten thousand years.” Meera said, “You speak the Common Tongue now.” “For him. The Bran boy. I was born in the time of the dragon, and for two hundred years I walked the world of men, to watch and listen and learn. I might be walking still, but my legs were sore and my heart was weary, so I turned my feet for home.” Thanks for the quote! I see I may have been exaggerating the no reason to believe bit... but she says she’s speaking the common tongue for Bran, not that she learned it for him or wandered looking for him... in fact she says why she was wandering... She was sent to “watch and listen and learn”. She was sent to spy. Also, There have been a lot of Brandon Starks. Including a boy who built The Wall... and who possibly was or another who was the Night King. So when she says “for him. The Bran boy” it isn’t even clear she means our Bran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 On 5/23/2018 at 2:54 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said: Honestly, I think you sound ridiculous Why thank you. Given you are arguing Old Nan is something extraordinary I take that as a compliment in this topsy-turvy picture you are painting. On 5/23/2018 at 2:54 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said: Honestly, I think you sound ridiculous, you even used the word monster, which has been a consistent theme of Bran’s arc: I used monster in an explicit rejection of your argument that he is one. Magic =/= monster. Old Gods =/= monsters. Reanimated people =/= monsters, at least not in the classic or simple understanding that monsters are evil. Mindless zombies under the control of the Others, sure, but Beric was a protector and Catelyn is ambiguous. Magic has a price and its unsettling close up and Beric and Catelyn coming back from the dead is some pretty dark necromantic magic but it doesn't define them any more than the weirwood magic defines the children or Bloodraven. It's just the price to be paid. On 5/23/2018 at 2:54 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said: So yes, there is textual evidence that Coldhands and Bloodraven are monsters, without using all the extra supporting evidence from the other works released about Dunk or the seudo history... This doesn't mean what you want it to mean though. All the Stark children are wargs, none of them are monsters. Or if you prefer, they all are and most likely we need to throw Beric and Catelyn into the mix. What does that tell us about their role in the story or their aims? Nothing. You are using your conclusion as evidence for it. On 5/23/2018 at 2:54 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said: He liked it better when the torches were put out. In the dark he could pretend that it was the three-eyed crow who whispered to him and not some grisly talking corpse. Case in point. Bloodraven is a grisly talking corpse, ipso facto. So, after being killed and reanimated six, seven (?) times, was Beric. Catelyn has mushrooms growing on her face. GRRM likes the macabre but I wouldn't judge the book by the cover which seems your central point about monsters. On 5/23/2018 at 2:54 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said: So yes, there is textual evidence that Coldhands and Bloodraven are monsters, without using all the extra supporting evidence from the other works released about Dunk or the seudo history... And, as you alluded too, Bloodraven is only mentioned three times so far in ASoIaF (of course that isn’t surprising when you realize the character was invented after three books were already released). If you had read nothing else, you would really know about Bloodraven from the series is that he was in the black cells before being sent to the wall and being elected lord commander, that there was a period he, a bastard sorcerer, ruled in all but name, that he has a song called a thousand eyes and one, and that he and Bittersteel both loved Seastar, resulting in Westeros bleeding. This is interesting taking it together. First up I argued that Bloodraven was not mentioned in story at all because I have no recollection of him being mentioned and clearly ascribed no significance to those mentions at all. On reread of ADWD I will likely notice any mention of him due to all these theories but having read AGOT, ACOK and ASOS at least three times and AFFC twice I genuinely do not remember him and only know who he is from this forum mentioning the side novels. So I do indeed think that GRRM could have and would have built up the figure more had he wanted us to pay any particular notice to him or draw any inferences from his back story and past behaviour but he has not which seems rather lazy or careless (and I think he is neither) if that is a smoking gun for Bran's arc and one of the major plot elements of the story. I absolutely do not think that writing a side novel half way through a major epic and expecting the readership to treat it as essential for a proper understanding of the main story is GRRM's intent or good storytelling. Quite the opposite in fact, though I note there are arguments over Bloodraven's character and aims and that your intrepretation of him is not universal (though of course it underpins your argument here). Second, if GRRM had not created the character until after the first three books were in print (this from you) to me argues against the idea that Bran has been hijacked as his path has been carefully laid out from the start and flowed naturally. It looks like you are blowing Bloodraven out of proportion and trying to reinterpret the novels to accommodate your particular view of him which I suppose is a necessary process once you head down a particular fork of the decision tree that says Bloodraven = Bad. I'm happy on the other fork of the tree until GRRM decides to introduce Bloodraven's back story into ASOIAF in a way I actually notice. And it makes his character as dark or malovelent as you claim. Oh, and if Jaime's arc (and to a lesser extent, Theon's) show that men who make awful choices cannot nonetheless make important decisions for the good of others involving some element of self sacrifice. On 5/23/2018 at 5:13 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said: The Children have lived there for thousands of years and Leaf says they haven’t explored it all... Are you suggesting there might be dozens of active greenseers round the corner and after thousands of years the other Children aren't aware of them? Or that they know but are hiding them? If so why do they need Bloodraven or Bran? It's fairly clear that we are meant to understand that there are no active child greenseers, only Bloodraven. You may disagree but then we will have to agree to disagree on this. On 5/23/2018 at 5:13 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said: The Children in the tree thrones react to the torches... given that most of the Children don’t speak the common tongue of Westeros it isn’t surprising they don’t communicate anyway... but they sure don’t seem inanimate or dead to me. Whether the other greenseers are alive, symbiotic organisms or in some other inexplicable transformation into the weirnet is, as I said before, a fairly fruitless debate. The reaction to the torches suggests they are in some sense still alive but rolling an eye is about the smallest movement possible. And if they are capable of communication why do the other children need either Bloodraven or Bran? They can speak with Leaf and the other children just fine. But they are dying out, they tell Ban that themselves, and they needed Bloodraven and now Bran. For what is unclear, though since AGOT Bran was shown something north of the wall and Howland was happy enough to risk both his children to help him learn what he needs to. Bloodraven is the last greenseer and he needs to train Bran while he still can. Seems legit to me. On 5/23/2018 at 5:13 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said: This is an assumption, unless you provide some quote or evidence for this claim it’s easy to dismiss as you just leaping to a conclusion... and that’s setting aside the logical issues with the idea you can know there are no other self aware “dreamers” because only one of the critters in the throne reacted to light during the incomplete exploration of a massive cave system. I would point to the Isle of Faces as a reasonable place to find another, to use your words, self aware dreamer. In addition, I see no reason to believe those Children in thrones are not self aware. It's what the author has shown us. It is what Leaf tells us. If there are other self aware and communicating child greenseers then they have no need of humans for their mysterious purposes. The Isle of Faces would be a good place to find other children and weirwood groves but despite the story taking us to the Riverlands and God's Eye we have seen no hint of them. Surely Bran could have gone to Court and been crippled by Jaime there and had his story arc take him to the Isle of Faces for training? The author has the final say however much sense this might make to us and he built (or grew) his weirwood nexus north of the wall. It doesn't matter how much self-awareness the enthroned children retain - a reasonable assumption would be a gradual decay (physical and mental) until absorption into the weirnet and becoming part of the godhood - and we can theorise endlessly, what matters is that there are none who are able to act, save a human, Bloodraven, who is reaching out to Bran. The others are too far gone or decayed away enitrely to nothing but bones over the millennia. On 5/23/2018 at 5:13 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said: Ok, it’s rare to have green dreams and rarer to be a greenseer... but then you lose me and it kinda just sounds like you are making things up... Is there any evidence the Children no longer have green seers of their own? Let alone haven’t for hundreds of years... The long decline of the Children was caused by man. There is no evidence Leaf traveled the lands of men or learned the language in preparation for Bran... Do you have a quote for that clear reference? Because I hope you don’t mean this: I am not sure where I lost you as the fact that greenseers were always rare and the children dying out is factual and Leaf explains how and why she learned the common tongue (thanks to kiisedbyfire for providing the quote I was referencing). The evidence for the passing on or decline of the child greenseers comes from the cave and from their inclusion of humans in their weirnet. The only assumption is that the last child greenseer reached out to Bloodraven the way he has reached out to Bran but I don't know how else you want to explain how he ended up where he is. The fact that Leaf learned the common tongue in preparation for Bran means they have been planning for this for hundreds of years and planning for Bran since before Bloodraven entered into the reckoning which strongly argues agsinst him being the bogeyman just a character with a specific role in the plot. On 5/24/2018 at 1:47 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said: I see I may have been exaggerating the no reason to believe bit... but she says she’s speaking the common tongue for Bran, not that she learned it for him or wandered looking for him... in fact she says why she was wandering... She was sent to “watch and listen and learn”. She was sent to spy. No. She is speaking the common tongue at that precise moment so all of Meera, Jojen, Bran and Hodor can understand her. It is Meera who she responds to so her meaning cannot be that she is speaking Common because everyone else would be happy conversing with her in the True Tongue but she has to speak Common "for him. The Bran boy". She learned Common so that when the time came she would be able to converse with "the Bran boy". I doubt whether the weirnet granted a greenseer a specific vision of Bran but it seems it granted a vision of a human boy they would need to be able to converse with and Leaf drew the short straw. As to spying how effective would she be at uncovering anything of use to the Children? She hardly blends in. Any intelligence garnered over two hundred years would have become obsolete before she returned home. Human politics wouldn't be of much interest once the Children had lost and been driven into isolation and decline and I'm not sure what she would have learned other than what they already knew: that men are plentiful, well-armed and warlike. It seems she went for the purpose she stated: to learn in order to be able to communicate and to look for something - and she would have been looking still if she had not got tired and homesick. On 5/24/2018 at 1:47 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said: Also, There have been a lot of Brandon Starks. Including a boy who built The Wall... and who possibly was or another who was the Night King. So when she says “for him. The Bran boy” it isn’t even clear she means our Bran. The children are long lived but they are not immortal. She means our Barn, "for him", this Bran boy. And if Leaf had been looking for Bran ten thousand years ago I think you can rule out Bloodraven as the arch-manipulator. On 5/23/2018 at 5:13 PM, LiveFirstDieLater said: Hopefully one day we find out! But I put a lot more stock in the text, and frequent references to Nan, who is still alive for some reason, than I do in your summary dismissal of her relevance. The text is the only thing really worth putting stock in though other posters - and particularly those who think differently but not too differently can be very worth listening to. Benjen Stark gets lots of mentions in the text too but whatever GRRM may have planned for him at one time I doubt we'll see him again. Gerion Lannister and Tysha get plenty of mentions too but I doubt we'll ever see them and if we do / did (Tysha as The Sailor's Wife) I don't think it will be of any great consequence. Hopefully we will find out indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted May 29, 2018 Author Share Posted May 29, 2018 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: Why thank you. Given you are arguing Old Nan is something extraordinary I take that as a compliment in this topsy-turvy picture you are painting. She’s the oldest woman in Winterfell and maybe all of Westeros... she is extraordinary. Haha but I will grant you it is a topsy turvy tale! 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: I used monster in an explicit rejection of your argument that he is one. Magic =/= monster. Old Gods =/= monsters. Reanimated people =/= monsters, at least not in the classic or simple understanding that monsters are evil. Mindless zombies under the control of the Others, sure, but Beric was a protector and Catelyn is ambiguous. Magic has a price and its unsettling close up and Beric and Catelyn coming back from the dead is some pretty dark necromantic magic but it doesn't define them any more than the weirwood magic defines the children or Bloodraven. It's just the price to be paid. You are the one fixated on the magic thing... that doesn’t bother me... I’m laughing because Bran literally calls Coldhands a “Monster” and worries he is being taken to other monsters to be eaten... that’s not my take... it’s straight of the text... no confusing pronouns nor frequently repeated surnames... monster. Everything we know and have heard about Bloodraven cooroborates this concern. He was universally despised by common folk and lords alike, he ruled during a reign of terror, he broke just about every law of the old gods and the new, he was condemned by Egg to die and the sentence commuted to service on the Wall, and he abandoned his post! 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: This doesn't mean what you want it to mean though. All the Stark children are wargs, none of them are monsters. Or if you prefer, they all are and most likely we need to throw Beric and Catelyn into the mix. What does that tell us about their role in the story or their aims? Nothing. You are using your conclusion as evidence for it. No! I’m not concerned about the magic! I’m basing my conclusion on the man! This guy strings up people who speak against him to die slowly in cages, he promises safe passage and executes claimants to the throne, he sends peasants back to lands which can’t support them... forget the magic all together, this guy isn’t a good dude! 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: Case in point. Bloodraven is a grisly talking corpse, ipso facto. No no no... he happens to be a grisly talking corpse, that’s not the reason for my opinion or the quote... the quote is ironic because it says Bran can pretend he’s a three eyed crow... he’s not the three eyed crow and Bran will realize it soon enough. 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: So, after being killed and reanimated six, seven (?) times, was Beric. Catelyn has mushrooms growing on her face. GRRM likes the macabre but I wouldn't judge the book by the cover which seems your central point about monsters. Beric was somewhat less himself, but not evil, as I keep saying, I don’t have anything against magic itself... Cat I have issues with to begin with... 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: This is interesting taking it together. First up I argued that Bloodraven was not mentioned in story at all because I have no recollection of him being mentioned and clearly ascribed no significance to those mentions at all. On reread of ADWD I will likely notice any mention of him due to all these theories but having read AGOT, ACOK and ASOS at least three times and AFFC twice I genuinely do not remember him and only know who he is from this forum mentioning the side novels. Well he wasn’t invented until later (after the first few books), like the Blackfyres and Bittersteel... so I’m not sure what you are saying is relevant... Illyrio is still important to the story and deeply involved with the Blackfyre plot... and Jon Connington even became a POV. Not to mention Old Nan was there from the start. 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: So I do indeed think that GRRM could have and would have built up the figure more had he wanted us to pay any particular notice to him or draw any inferences from his back story and past behaviour but he has not which seems rather lazy or careless (and I think he is neither) if that is a smoking gun for Bran's arc and one of the major plot elements of the story. Except that Bran and our POVs have no real reason to know much about or think much of Bloodraven... 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: I absolutely do not think that writing a side novel half way through a major epic and expecting the readership to treat it as essential for a proper understanding of the main story is GRRM's intent or good storytelling. I don’t think it’s necessary... that’s like saying you need the simarilon to understand Sauron’s story... it’s true, but hardly necessary to understand the plot. 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: Quite the opposite in fact, though I note there are arguments over Bloodraven's character and aims and that your intrepretation of him is not universal (though of course it underpins your argument here). I guess, it seems to me there is less debate over all the things Bloodraven did and more just people making excuses for his actions... like violating guest right, oathbreaking, and kinslaying. 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: Second, if GRRM had not created the character until after the first three books were in print (this from you) to me argues against the idea that Bran has been hijacked as his path has been carefully laid out from the start and flowed naturally. Did it though? I mean Theon came and sacked Winterfell, leaving a bunch of children to basically make it up as they went along... and George has said point blank he didn’t have it all written before hand or even laid out if that’s what you meant. But I agree the general strokes were there, including the Weirwood and 3EC being separate distinct entities right from Bran’s first falling dream. And the distinction between crows and ravens. 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: It looks like you are blowing Bloodraven out of proportion and trying to reinterpret the novels to accommodate your particular view of him which I suppose is a necessary process once you head down a particular fork of the decision tree that says Bloodraven = Bad. I hear you, I don’t think I am, but I hear you. It’s like how I think others are being sheeple about this character... 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: I'm happy on the other fork of the tree until GRRM decides to introduce Bloodraven's back story into ASOIAF in a way I actually notice. And it makes his character as dark or malovelent as you claim. Oh, and if Jaime's arc (and to a lesser extent, Theon's) show that men who make awful choices cannot nonetheless make important decisions for the good of others involving some element of self sacrifice. There is no doubt that good and bad are not mutually exclusive, especially in a well written character... I would imagine Bloodraven is more of a best intentions leading to hell... while Jaime is stuck between The Rock and a hot place, torn between obligations... and Theon was just a self absorbed, immature and entitled punk. 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: Are you suggesting there might be dozens of active greenseers round the corner and after thousands of years the other Children aren't aware of them? What? No... 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: Or that they know but are hiding them? We saw the greenseers, the kids saw he greenseers, the greenseers saw them... what are you talking about? 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: If so why do they need Bloodraven or Bran? I’m not sure they do... 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: It's fairly clear that we are meant to understand that there are no active child greenseers, only Bloodraven. Wait, then who do you think was in the tree thrones? 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: You may disagree but then we will have to agree to disagree on this. Ya, I should think so... I can’t just ignor them! 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: Whether the other greenseers are alive, symbiotic organisms or in some other inexplicable transformation into the weirnet is, as I said before, a fairly fruitless debate. The reaction to the torches suggests they are in some sense still alive but rolling an eye is about the smallest movement possible. And if they are capable of communication why do the other children need either Bloodraven or Bran? Why do you assume they do need them and not the other way around? Why would the Children want to save the realms of Men? 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: They can speak with Leaf and the other children just fine. But they are dying out, they tell Ban that themselves, and they needed Bloodraven and now Bran. Wait, what? Who tells Bran what themselves? When? 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: For what is unclear, though since AGOT Bran was shown something north of the wall and Howland was happy enough to risk both his children to help him learn what he needs to. Bran saw something in the Heart of Winter... We do not know how Howland feels, and there is no indication he was willing to risk his children any further than Winterfell. 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: Bloodraven is the last greenseer and he needs to train Bran while he still can. Seems legit to me. And I don’t bye it... 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: It's what the author has shown us. I disagree.... 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: It is what Leaf tells us. If there are other self aware and communicating child greenseers then they have no need of humans for their mysterious purposes. How could you possibly know that if we dont even know what their purposes are? You need to use evidence to back up what you are saying and not just state assumptions as fact! 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: The Isle of Faces would be a good place to find other children and weirwood groves but despite the story taking us to the Riverlands and God's Eye we have seen no hint of them. This is just incorrect... we do have evidence of Green men and the Isle of the Gods Eye being defended by flocks of birds, not to Mention Howland’s visit... 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: Surely Bran could have gone to Court and been crippled by Jaime there and had his story arc take him to the Isle of Faces for training? The author has the final say however much sense this might make to us and he built (or grew) his weirwood nexus north of the wall. Face palm... silly hypotheticals aside... literally the whole point would be to have two groups of Children, because, like Men, they might not all agree and there would be one group on either side of the Wall. One on the Isle of Faces who made the pact with mankind, while those beyond the Wall did not. 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: It doesn't matter how much self-awareness the enthroned children retain - a reasonable assumption would be a gradual decay (physical and mental) until absorption into the weirnet and becoming part of the godhood - and we can theorise endlessly, what matters is that there are none who are able to act, save a human, Bloodraven, who is reaching out to Bran. The others are too far gone or decayed away enitrely to nothing but bones over the millennia. How do you know that... why do you even suspect it? 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: I am not sure where I lost you as the fact that greenseers were always rare and the children dying out is factual and Leaf explains how and why she learned the common tongue (thanks to kiisedbyfire for providing the quote I was referencing). But they live a really long time... part of the same quote I think... so again, I don’t know how you kept to these assumptions... 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: The evidence for the passing on or decline of the child greenseers comes from the cave and from their inclusion of humans in their weirnet. I don’t understand what you mean. 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: The only assumption is that the last child greenseer reached out to Bloodraven the way he has reached out to Bran but I don't know how else you want to explain how he ended up where he is. I don’t even understand what you are saying... those Children in thrones like Bloodraven’s aren’t greenseers? Or aren’t alive? Because, if so, I clearly don’t agree... 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: The fact that Leaf learned the common tongue in preparation for Bran means they have been planning for this for hundreds of years and planning for Bran since before Bloodraven entered into the reckoning which strongly argues agsinst him being the bogeyman just a character with a specific role in the plot. Like Old Nan coming to Winterfell to take care of a Bran, and all the Bran’s blending together... Not only does it not indicate planning... but what planning are you even talking about? What the hell kind of plan did they even have? Isn’t it more likely that this is like the Prince That was Promised and there was a prophesy which multiple generations thought referred to themselves? 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: No. She is speaking the common tongue at that precise moment so all of Meera, Jojen, Bran and Hodor can understand her. It is Meera who she responds to so her meaning cannot be that she is speaking Common because everyone else would be happy conversing with her in the True Tongue but she has to speak Common "for him. The Bran boy". She learned Common so that when the time came she would be able to converse with "the Bran boy". I doubt whether the weirnet granted a greenseer a specific vision of Bran but it seems it granted a vision of a human boy they would need to be able to converse with and Leaf drew the short straw. Does that explanation make any sense in your head? Because I can’t follow it... Leaf wandered the lands of men for two hundred years... 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: As to spying how effective would she be at uncovering anything of use to the Children? She hardly blends in. Any intelligence garnered over two hundred years would have become obsolete before she returned home. Human politics wouldn't be of much interest once the Children had lost and been driven into isolation and decline and I'm not sure what she would have learned other than what they already knew: that men are plentiful, well-armed and warlike. It seems she went for the purpose she stated: to learn in order to be able to communicate and to look for something - and she would have been looking still if she had not got tired and homesick. So you don’t think she was Nettles? anyway, disguises are becoming easier and easier to come by as the story progresses... but the short answer is she could have returned with anything from information to a dragon. 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: The children are long lived but they are not immortal. She means our Barn, "for him", this Bran boy. And if Leaf had been looking for Bran ten thousand years ago I think you can rule out Bloodraven as the arch-manipulator. Well if there is body snatching going on, it’s going to be hard to be sure how long people can hang around... and the point is you could read her quit as the Bran Boy was the one to order her to learn Common... or maybe she was looking for the answer to a prophesy as I suggested above. 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: The text is the only thing really worth putting stock in though other posters - and particularly those who think differently but not too differently can be very worth listening to. Benjen Stark gets lots of mentions in the text too but whatever GRRM may have planned for him at one time I doubt we'll see him again. Gerion Lannister and Tysha get plenty of mentions too but I doubt we'll ever see them and if we do / did (Tysha as The Sailor's Wife) I don't think it will be of any great consequence. Hopefully we will find out indeed. Hey I might come across aggressive or argumentative, but I swear it’s all good natured! It’s just that the more I explain this the more obvious it becomes to me... and I do expect Bran to make it out of the cave! Cheers... The gods could not kill Bran, no more than I could. It was a strange thought, and stranger still to remember that Bran might still be alive. -Theon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Everything we know and have heard about Bloodraven cooroborates this concern. He was universally despised by common folk and lords alike, he ruled during a reign of terror, he broke just about every law of the old gods and the new, he was condemned by Egg to die and the sentence commuted to service on the Wall, and he abandoned his post! I'm sorry, I keep butting in but... this is speculation, all of it. I mean, not really, we do have facts but not the circumstances around them, and that makes a huge difference imo. For instance, why/how do you think Bloodraven's sentence was commuted? For me, in case you're curious, it went down like this: Egg can't let BR's crime go unpunished, but he kindof gets why even if he doesn't necessarily agree. But he doesn't want to kill BR, and finds the loophole: the Wall! Another example, sorry but you cannot state BR "left his post" w/ that level certainty. We have no info other than BR went to the Wall, at one point is elected LC and 13 yrs later or whatever he "vanishes". I understand that "abandoned his post" fits w/ your theory but the truth of the matter is, we do not actually know what happened or how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted May 30, 2018 Author Share Posted May 30, 2018 13 hours ago, kissdbyfire said: I'm sorry, I keep butting in but... this is speculation, all of it. I mean, not really, we do have facts but not the circumstances around them, and that makes a huge difference imo. For instance, why/how do you think Bloodraven's sentence was commuted? For me, in case you're curious, it went down like this: Egg can't let BR's crime go unpunished, but he kindof gets why even if he doesn't necessarily agree. But he doesn't want to kill BR, and finds the loophole: the Wall! Another example, sorry but you cannot state BR "left his post" w/ that level certainty. We have no info other than BR went to the Wall, at one point is elected LC and 13 yrs later or whatever he "vanishes". I understand that "abandoned his post" fits w/ your theory but the truth of the matter is, we do not actually know what happened or how. So my point here was that the facts are clear and it’s just the “interpretation” we disagree on... From the world book: The first act of Aegon's reign was the arrest of Brynden Rivers, the King's Hand, for the murder of Aenys Blackfyre. Bloodraven did not deny that he had lured the pretender into his power by the offer of a safe conduct, but contended that he had sacrificed his own personal honor for the good of the realm. Though many agreed, and were pleased to see another Blackfyre pretender removed, King Aegon felt he had no choice but to condemn the Hand, lest the word of the Iron Throne be seen as worthless. Yet after the sentence of death was pronounced, Aegon offered Bloodraven the chance to take the black and join the Night's Watch. This he did. Ser Brynden Rivers set sail for the Wall late in the year of 233 AC. (No one intercepted his ship). Two hundred men went with him, many of them archers from Bloodraven's personal guard, the Raven's Teeth. The king's brother, Maester Aemon, was also amongst them. Bloodraven would rise to become Lord Commander of the Night's Watch in 239 AC, serving until his disappearance during a ranging beyond the Wall in 252 AC. He was convicted of murder (also violating guestright and committing kindlaying), his sentence was commuted to service on the Wall, no loyal friends came to save him like Bittersteel, and after serving as Lord Commander for 13 years DISAPPEARED, aka abandoned his post. I’m not exactly adding much interpretation... it seems to me like it would take a lot more willpower to try and excuse his behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 16 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: < snip > For the love of God man, discuss reasonably not with the salami slicer approach to chopping a train of thought into pieces and pretending you don't understand or reject a part of it in isolation. Now that's off my chest....... 16 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: You are the one fixated on the magic thing... that doesn’t bother me... I’m laughing because Bran literally calls Coldhands a “Monster” and worries he is being taken to other monsters to be eaten... that’s not my take... it’s straight of the text... no confusing pronouns nor frequently repeated surnames... monster. Well, to repeat myself, none of this makes Bloodraven a monster, merely a man undergoing a magical / inexplicable transformative process, or if you're quibbling over semantics, it doesn't make him an evil monster any more than Beric or Dany's dragons. There's only so many times I'm interested in making the same point and you must surely acknowledge your argument is speculative interpretation not something you can treat as fact. Quite clearly he's a man rooted in a cave and whether he's a grisly talking corpse that unsettles eight year old Bran or your projection of the Night King is up to the reader's interpretation right now. 17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Everything we know and have heard about Bloodraven cooroborates this concern. He was universally despised by common folk and lords alike, he ruled during a reign of terror, he broke just about every law of the old gods and the new, he was condemned by Egg to die and the sentence commuted to service on the Wall, and he abandoned his post! No! I’m not concerned about the magic! I’m basing my conclusion on the man! This guy strings up people who speak against him to die slowly in cages, he promises safe passage and executes claimants to the throne, he sends peasants back to lands which can’t support them... forget the magic all together, this guy isn’t a good dude! Except we don't know anything about Bloodraven in story. Your conclusions are based on extra-textual material which added some texture as all the companion novesl do but nothing is included in story for us to take note of. If GRRM wanted us to, he would. The fact that he doesn't diminishes the importance of who this guy was as a man because it's irrelevant, he's just the other human greenseer GRRM needed to be the bridge between Bran and the weirnet - except in the trap scenario you have tried to shoehorn into the story from the start. This being GRRM and not JRRT he's no Gandalf making fireworks to delight the Hobbit children but (like Mel or Mirri Maz Duur) he's GRRM's take on a wizard, and GRRM's magic is darker and costlier than JRRT's. And again, your interpretaion of Bloodraven (which I'll say again is not universally accepted) seems to colour your interpretation of the weirnet and the weirwood magic. I wonder if you subscribe to Jojenpaste and other macabre theories. Try and put aside your view of Bloodraven and look at everything we see of the children / weirwood magic in ADWD and I imagine you'll see it differently. 17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: No no no... he happens to be a grisly talking corpse, that’s not the reason for my opinion or the quote... the quote is ironic because it says Bran can pretend he’s a three eyed crow... he’s not the three eyed crow and Bran will realize it soon enough. I understand this is your interpretation I just don't happen to agree. 17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Cat I have issues with to begin with... I well remember. Could it be another example of letting personal feelings towards a character skew your assessment of what is happening? 17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Well he wasn’t invented until later (after the first few books), like the Blackfyres and Bittersteel... so I’m not sure what you are saying is relevant... Illyrio is still important to the story and deeply involved with the Blackfyre plot... and Jon Connington even became a POV. Not to mention Old Nan was there from the start. Bran's arc begins with his fall very early on in AGOT. The arrival of the Reeds, the begining of his training with Jojen and the journey north all take place long before the character was invented and you don't think that's relevant even though you argue Bloodraven has been luring Bran off course and duping everyone throughout? It's far more likely GRRM put an easter egg in so people who read the side novels could pick up on who the three eyed crow is and understand where Bloodraven went when he left the Wall. In story he is the bridge between a human child and the magic of the Children of The Forest, who he was before is irrelevant, just an easter egg for some to find. Old Nan, gone but not forgotten. RIP Story teller to small children par excellence! 17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Except that Bran and our POVs have no real reason to know much about or think much of Bloodraven... Much like the reader then 17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: I don’t think it’s necessary... that’s like saying you need the simarilon to understand Sauron’s story... it’s true, but hardly necessary to understand the plot. I'm glad you agree though, weirdly, your whole argument rests on the reader understanding that Bloodraven is a bad dude, something only to be garnered (if it is to be) from those side novels. And JRRT never published the Silmarilion, which together with Unfinished Tales and The Book of Lost Tales and other fragments published by Christopher Tolkien after his father's death were different stories from a different age, which hardly contain the key to spotting a signficant plot development in TLOTR before the author deigned to explain who Sauron was on page. 17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Did it though? I mean Theon came and sacked Winterfell, leaving a bunch of children to basically make it up as they went along... And yet Jojen seemed intent from the start on what his role was with Bran and what he needed to do to get Bran to his teacher. That doesn't change with the Sack of Winterfell, the sack is actually a necessary precondition as the journey would never have been possible without it. "Say, Ser Rodrik, I need to go north of the Wall to learn to be a greenseer, is that ok?" "You must be the Stark in Winterfell Prince Bran".... 17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: and George has said point blank he didn’t have it all written before hand or even laid out if that’s what you meant. But I agree the general strokes were there, including the Weirwood and 3EC being separate distinct entities right from Bran’s first falling dream. And the distinction between crows and ravens. Of course he didn't but the main arcs were planned in broad strokes otherewise there would be no story at all. But I don't agree that the trap you see is woven into Bran's story from the start. It would be interesting to know when you decided on this and whether you believed it so before you came upon the character of Bloodraven in a side novel... 17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: I hear you, I don’t think I am, but I hear you. It’s like how I think others are being sheeple about this character... Ugh. In a thread that has dealt with elitism and the general disdain the author may (he doesn't) have for his readership and whether he writes for the few cognoscenti rather than the unwashed masses it's really not nice to come across this sort of dismissive assessment of people who hold different opinions. 17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: There is no doubt that good and bad are not mutually exclusive, especially in a well written character... I would imagine Bloodraven is more of a best intentions leading to hell... while Jaime is stuck between The Rock and a hot place, torn between obligations... and Theon was just a self absorbed, immature and entitled punk. All possible interpertations but none of them has finished his story yet so it's speculative until the author inks it in. Clearly Jaime and Theon's actions are shown and explained in story while Bloodraven's are not, and thus unknown and quite possibly irrelevant as we have not been asked to pay any attention to them. I had to go and make a cup of tea before this next bit................... 17 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: What? No... We saw the greenseers, the kids saw he greenseers, the greenseers saw them... what are you talking about? I’m not sure they do... Wait, then who do you think was in the tree thrones? Ya, I should think so... I can’t just ignor them! You are being deliberately obtuse. Bran, Jojen and Meera explore the cave. They find plenty of guys rooted in trees who have clearly been there a long, long, time, some are merely bones, some appear dead but react to the torchlight. None attempt to communicate or appear to be capable of communication as they appear to have been absorbed into the weirnet over time. As I have said repeatedly, and you really cannot have missed this, whether they are alive or dead or somewhere in between does not matter, whether they retain a shred of consciousness or self-awareness or are completely absorbed into the weirnet does not matter, what matters is that their time has effectively passed and only Bloodraven remains as a greenseer capable of acting, hence "the last greenseer" tag. It's not cryptic, it's not hard to follow and I don't know why you persist in trying to muddy the waters or pretend confusion here. 18 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Why do you assume they do need them and not the other way around? Why would the Children want to save the realms of Men? Bloodraven is only rooted in the cave because the Children allowed him to be. In all probability they guided and trained him. If there were other child greenseers they would have no need to do this. However, it appears a child greenseer saw something that prompted the Children to send Leaf to learn the Common Tongue and look for a human child, for Bran as it happens, perhaps she also found Bloodraven himself (?) and later the children enthroned Bloodraven as their own greenseers were passing on and he in turn found and summoned Bran. Too crazy for you? What the Children want is unclear but it is indeed unlikley they have any particular interest in preserving the realms of men per se, more likely they want to preserve the weirnet to keep alive the memories of the dreamers so even if they die out something remains. And yet you can't dismiss the ambiguous relationship between humanity and the Children for all the conflict either: The First Men adopted the Old Gods, The Order of the Green Men was established to protect the weirwoods, those with first men blood can be greenseers, Sam found records of the Nights Watch trading with the Chidren, not to mention the The Last Hero went looking for the Children in extremis and whatever happened the Others were contained and both humanity and the Children survived. So First Men and Children share the same gods and have a history of cooperation and here we are in the cave, Children and First Men working together agaisnt something glimpsed in the Heart of Winter while the Others rise.... 18 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Wait, what? Who tells Bran what themselves? When? A Dance with Dragons - Bran III "Where are the rest of you?" Bran asked Leaf, once. "Gone down into the earth," she answered. "Into the stones, into the trees. Before the First Men came all this land that you call Westeros was home to us, yet even in those days we were few. The gods gave us long lives but not great numbers, lest we overrun the world as deer will overrun a wood where there are no wolves to hunt them. That was in the dawn of days, when our sun was rising. Now it sinks, and this is our long dwindling. The giants are almost gone as well, they who were our bane and our brothers. The great lions of the western hills have been slain, the unicorns are all but gone, the mammoths down to a few hundred. The direwolves will outlast us all, but their time will come as well. In the world that men have made, there is no room for them, or us." She seemed sad when she said it, and that made Bran sad as well That seems pretty unambiguous. The inference is that there are no child greenseers left among the small remaining population, those in the cave passing on (as I said before), hence teh need for Bloodraven and Bran to be co-opted into the weirnet. You can dismiss this if you want but I would like a good counter-explanation for why Bloodraven was guided to the cave and accepted and why we see no active child greenseers all while Leaf talks about their looming extinction. 18 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Bran saw something in the Heart of Winter... We do not know how Howland feels, and there is no indication he was willing to risk his children any further than Winterfell. And I don’t bye it... I disagree.... Bran was shown something in the Heart of Winter, his powers were unwoken and untrained at this point in the story. The entire point of his arc is to be trained to oppose it in some way. The only place you differ is in arguing that he has been hijacked. Now that I don't buy. Jojen is remarkably clear on his role in guiding Bran to his tutor and remarkably determiend to undertake such a journey. And Meera does nothing to talk him out of it. They know what they need to do. Why Howland is so zen about it is a mystery but given his visit to the Isle of Faces he may know more than we do about what is going on. It is what the author shows us in the cave. That is fact. You can invent objections like they have not fully explored the cave so there could be more active greenseers or that the dreamers they find are fully compos mentis just taking a trip but this is not what the author shows us. And you have not tried to explain the children's interest in two humans if the weirnet is fully supplied and active child greenseers are leading the children. 18 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: How could you possibly know that if we dont even know what their purposes are? You need to use evidence to back up what you are saying and not just state assumptions as fact! #Irony given your argument.... Explain then why Leaf tells us the children are facing inevitable extinction and the only greenseer we find active is a human plugged into the weirnet within the last hundred or so years. Why talk of extinction and then say she learned the common tongue to be able to communicate with Bran? You are ignoring the evidence from the text and treating a logical and supported argument as an asumption. That seems rather silly. 18 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: This is just incorrect... we do have evidence of Green men and the Isle of the Gods Eye being defended by flocks of birds, not to Mention Howland’s visit... I think you'll find it's not. We have not stepped foot on The Isle of Faces in story and there is no evidence there are any Children there. Howland visited the Isle to seek out the Order of the Green Men but we know nothing of this and it's quite possible he only found First Men descendents continuing their traditions. I certainly hoped we would visit the Isle and find lots of children but GRRM sent us north of the wall instead and Leaf seems to have dampened hopes for a Child sanctuary or metropolis hidden away there. You can hope but you can't point to the text to back up any claim of such. 18 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Face palm... silly hypotheticals aside... literally the whole point would be to have two groups of Children, because, like Men, they might not all agree and there would be one group on either side of the Wall. One on the Isle of Faces who made the pact with mankind, while those beyond the Wall did not. Don't be snide. If GRRM had wanted to have children on the Isle of Faces there was a simple way to incorporate them in story. Illustrating that is the purpose of my "silly hypothetical". Your pure conjecture that the Children had political divisions and were divided into factions has absolutely no basis in story. I'm sure you know but the more assumptions you make the weaker your argument looks and you are making nothing but assumptions here. 18 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: How do you know that... why do you even suspect it? But they live a really long time... part of the same quote I think... so again, I don’t know how you kept to these assumptions... I don’t understand what you mean. I don’t even understand what you are saying... those Children in thrones like Bloodraven’s aren’t greenseers? Or aren’t alive? Because, if so, I clearly don’t agree... You are being deliberately obtuse again. It is what the author shows us in the cave, the dreamers in the dark, barely moving an eyelid when Bran and co march through, the bones in the cave further down where they have entirely withered away. How long do you think they live? If you want to argue they are effectively immortal we'll have to agree to disagree. If you want to argue that Leaf wandered the realms of men for several hundred years but that she may have been looking for Bran the Builder (10,000 years ago right after the Long Night) rather than our Bran but that she was actually Nettles in disguise (some hundred or so years ago) then your argument doesn't stack up and you are just raising objections piecemeal for the sake of it. She actually tells us she was born in the time of the dragon so she is about 300 years old give or take. You do understand what I mean as I have repeated the argument a number of times. You may not agree but you do understand and are just being difficult. Or you want to bore me out of the discussion by making me repeat myself ad infinitum, a questionable tactic but often an effective one.... 19 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Like Old Nan coming to Winterfell to take care of a Bran, and all the Bran’s blending together... Not only does it not indicate planning... but what planning are you even talking about? What the hell kind of plan did they even have? Isn’t it more likely that this is like the Prince That was Promised and there was a prophesy which multiple generations thought referred to themselves? Well, if Old Nan can be immortal I guess it must be a slam dunk for you that the children are immortal. I hate to break it to you but Old Nan blurs the Brans together because she is very old and that is what happens to memory as you age. Leaf on the other hand, nowever old she may be for one of the children, is in perfect possession of her faculties and memories and you can try a bit of sleight of hand to make it look like she doesn't know which Bran she is talking about but she is very clear that it's the one in front of her: "for him". The him has to be present for that statement to make any sense. The planning very clearly involves Leaf going and learning the Common Tongue. Like she tells us. So she can assist Bran in his training. Bran's training has barely begun so it's a little early to drop too much in his eight year old crippled lap at the moment but that doesn't mean there isn't a plan and that co-opting Bloodraven is not part of it. That's what the hell I'm talking about. What are you confused about? And make your mind up! Either Leaf went looking for Brandon the Builder right after the Long Night (a bit early to be expecting the Others back surely?) or she went looking for our Bran a hundred years ago. I'm sure she would know if she had been sent out right after the Long Night or last century. Or you think there is a Leaf every couple of centuries as each greenseer thinks now is the time? Or you could just accept her word but that's too straightforward I suppose. 19 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Does that explanation make any sense in your head? Because I can’t follow it... Leaf wandered the lands of men for two hundred years... QED. You know very well that I am proving her words relate to learning the Common Tongue in order to be able to communcate with Bran but seem determined to make me explain it once again in ever more painstaking detail. Your argument that she means she is merely speaking Common now so that Bran can understand her (and not that she learned Common to be able to communicate with him) is false as she is speaking to all of Meera, Jojen, Hodor and Bran and is replying to Meera but says it is "for him". She continues with an explanation of what she was doing and it is all one speech. She wandered because she was looking for him and she would have kept looking for him but she grew tired and homesick and turned for home. Wrong child for the job clearly, no staying power.... 19 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: So you don’t think she was Nettles? anyway, disguises are becoming easier and easier to come by as the story progresses... but the short answer is she could have returned with anything from information to a dragon. Well I have no idea who Nettles is as she does not appear in ASOIAF but of course I have seen references on this forum. As to what you think she was doing and what she returned with that is purely speculative. What she is doing now, on the other hand, is what she tells us she was sent to do (or at least part of it), to learn the Common Tongue to be able to talk with Bran. 19 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Well if there is body snatching going on, it’s going to be hard to be sure how long people can hang around... and the point is you could read her quit as the Bran Boy was the one to order her to learn Common... or maybe she was looking for the answer to a prophesy as I suggested above. She was born in the time of the dragon, she was chosen to walk the realms of men, to listen and watch and learn the Common Tongue for Bran. And, nah, you can't. She says "for him" not "by him". If you want to pull some future Bran manipulating events shizzle then I'm gonna think you are grasping at straws. That thing about one assumption requiring another assumption to stand up not being the most convincing argument. As to the prophecy. Sure. That is exactly what she was sent out for, it's just the greenseer probably saw something different through the trees than others through the flames and so on. The Last Hero, Azor Ahai, an all-powerful greenseer, they're all different interpretaitons or magical / cultural / religious expressions of the same thing. Either way she got tired and gave up (!) but now Bran was sent to the cave by courier so it's all good. 20 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Hey I might come across aggressive or argumentative, but I swear it’s all good natured! It’s just that the more I explain this the more obvious it becomes to me. No, really? That's ok, so can I. But I am unconvinced for reasons stated. Bloodraven and the Children have ambiguity around them, I'll grant you, but Bran seems to be unwittingly replaying the role of the Last Hero to me, at least in outline if not in detail. I don't expect a rehash of a myth, just a different story grounded in the old one, and I hope he makes it out of the cave but I don't think it's a trap with evil intent behind it. And Old Nan is too much for me to swallow. 17 hours ago, kissdbyfire said: I'm sorry, I keep butting in but... this is speculation, all of it. Please do, this isn't a private debate and unless the thread is petering out, more voices freshen things up and change the paradigm - which has become rather stale. 4 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Bloodraven would rise to become Lord Commander of the Night's Watch in 239 AC, serving until his disappearance during a ranging beyond the Wall in 252 AC. and after serving as Lord Commander for 13 years DISAPPEARED, aka abandoned his post. I’m not exactly adding much interpretation... it seems to me like it would take a lot more willpower to try and excuse his behavior. See, that's not really objective. He disappeared (so did Benjen Stark) and we have absolutely no reason to conclude he abandoned his post. Given we now know where he is and where he has been since I find it strange you would be so critical. The crime he committed involved sacrificing his personal honour for the good of the realm and earned him exile to the Wall. It is an entirely reasonable supposition that what he is doing is replacing his duty / oath to the NW with a more important duty for the Good of the Realm at the cost of being subsumed into a tree yet you are determnined to paint him as black as can be, a ghoulish figure who somehow managed to gain the children's assistance (why?) and hook himself into the weirnet to extend his lifespan and is now seeking to force his life essence into poor Bran's host body and presumably on again in time. Maybe, it could just be you are wrong about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted May 30, 2018 Author Share Posted May 30, 2018 4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: For the love of God man, discuss reasonably not with the salami slicer approach to chopping a train of thought into pieces and pretending you don't understand or reject a part of it in isolation. Now that's off my chest....... Ok, I have to be honest, I don’t think we are communicating well nor do I think you are showing proper support from the text. For instance... You say the Children don’t have greenseers, a wild thing to suggest, especially since we see them... But you doubled down, acknowledged the scene where they appear, but then deny they count... because they are dead or that doesn’t matter and they’ve been absorbed or don’t react or try to communicate or something... it was hard to follow. Also, it makes no sense and leaves me wondering if you are just trolling? One last time, here is the room full of Child Greenseers: One was full of singers, enthroned like Brynden in nests of weirwood roots that wove under and through and around their bodies. Most of them looked dead to him, but as he crossed in front of them their eyes would open and follow the light of his torch, and one of them opened and closed a wrinkled mouth as if he were trying to speak. Not only are they described just like Bloodraven, they react to light and try to speak... but it would be no surprise if the one trying to talk doesn’t speak common. But either way, I honestly don’t know why you would think they don’t exist... Leaf uses the analogy of a wood to pretty clearly show Children were few to begin with and now almost extinct since Westeros was overrun by Men... I don’t know how you got from there to them not having Greenseers. Am I missing some other quote or something... I make mistakes... But, you’ll see it’s really hard to take you seriously when you present speculation as fact without siting the text. Rather than address your points one by one, which seemed to offend you somehow, I’ll just point out a few things you wrote which jump out to me... I have no idea what you are suggesting by saying Benjen disappeared also... yes that’s true, but have some perspective on time that’s passed since his and Bloodraven’s disappearance and more importantly we don’t even know if he’s alive, let alone absent by choice... unlike Bloodraven. If we meet Benjen again we will expect an explanation right? “Just make up your mind” isn’t how evidence works, I’m pointing out possibilities and possible conclusions, not the one divine truth... that’s why I ask for evidence and quotes. So in the case of Leaf learning common, I was presenting other ways one could read the text, since the text doesn’t say she learned Common in order to speak to Bran... just that she is speaking for the Bran boy... that is just what it says, sorry if that’s not how you read it or you added motive in your head, but it isn’t in the text. She clearly says why she wandered. Leaf being born in the time of the dragon isn’t as definite as you make it seem... could it be Aegon the Conqueror, absolutely, but she might also mean during Valyria’s pinnacle... or even at some point when dragons were roaming Westeros before the Andals came, after all if there are dragon bones there were once dragons. We just don’t know... Children live for hundreds of years at least, maybe thousands, we have no way to judge. The idea that she is Nettles appeals somewhat to me, and the heartbreak fits, but I’m not going out on a limb for it, nor am I defending the idea here, just saying, it’s a possibility. 4 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: I well remember. Could it be another example of letting personal feelings towards a character skew your assessment of what is happening? Or maybe I just have an odd thing about people who abuse power and start massive civil wars, like Cat abducting Tyrion for a crime he didn’t commit and Bloodraven sending the Kingsguard to arrest Daemon for a claim on the throne he hadn’t made yet. Or maybe it’s that I do think there is something to the logic that you can learn a lot about a person by who their friends are... Does Cat have friends besides Littlefinger? Does Bloodraven have friends? "You can know a man by his friends, Egg. Daeron surrounded himself with maesters, septons, and singers. Always there were women whispering in his ear, and his court was full of Dornishmen. How not, when he had taken a Dornishwoman into his bed, and sold his own sweet sister to the prince of Dorne, though it was Daemon that she loved? Daeron bore the same name as the Young Dragon, but when his Dornish wife gave him a son he named the child Baelor, after the feeblest king who ever sat the Iron Throne. "Daemon, though . . . Daemon was no more pious than a king need be, and all the great knights of the realm gathered to him. It would suit Lord Bloodraven if their names were all forgotten, so he has forbidden us to sing of them, but I remember. Robb Reyne, Gareth the Grey, Ser Aubrey Ambrose, Lord Gormon Peake, Black Byren Flowers, Redtusk, Fireball . . . Bittersteel! I ask you, has there ever been such a noble company, such a roll of heroes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 45 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Ok, I have to be honest, I don’t think you have a very good understanding of the text or how to make an argument using textual support. For instance... You say the Children don’t have greenseers, a wild thing to suggest, especially since we see them... But you doubled down, acknowledged the scene where they appear, but then deny they count... because they are dead or that doesn’t matter and they’ve been absorbed or don’t react or try to communicate or something... it was hard to follow. Also, it makes no sense and leaves me wondering if you are just trolling? One last time, here is the room full of Child Greenseers: One was full of singers, enthroned like Brynden in nests of weirwood roots that wove under and through and around their bodies. Most of them looked dead to him, but as he crossed in front of them their eyes would open and follow the light of his torch, and one of them opened and closed a wrinkled mouth as if he were trying to speak. Not only are they described just like Bloodraven, they react to light and try to speak... but it would be no surprise if the one trying to talk doesn’t speak common. But either way, I honestly don’t know why you would think they don’t exist... Leaf uses the analogy of a wood to pretty clearly show Children were few to begin with and now almost extinct since Westeros was overrun by Men... I don’t know how you got from there to them not having Greenseers. Am I missing some other quote or something... I make mistakes... But, you’ll see it’s really hard to take you seriously when you present speculation as fact without siting the text. Rather than address your points one by one, which seemed to offend you somehow, I’ll just point out a few things you wrote which jump out to me... I have no idea what you are suggesting by saying Benjen disappeared also... yes that’s true, but have some perspective on time that’s passed since his and Bloodraven’s disappearance and more importantly we don’t even know if he’s alive, let alone absent by choice... unlike Bloodraven. If we meet Benjen again we will expect an explanation right? “Just make up your mind” isn’t how evidence works, I’m pointing out possibilities and possible conclusions, not the one divine truth... that’s why I ask for evidence and quotes. So in the case of Leaf learning common, I was presenting other ways one could read the text, since the text doesn’t say she learned Common in order to speak to Bran... just that she is speaking for the Bran boy... that is just what it says, sorry if that’s not how you read it or you added motive in your head, but it isn’t in the text. She clearly says why she wandered. Leaf being born in the time of the dragon isn’t as definite as you make it seem... could it be Aegon the Conqueror, absolutely, but she might also mean during Valyria’s pinnacle... or even at some point when dragons were roaming Westeros before the Andals came, after all if there are dragon bones there were once dragons. We just don’t know... Children live for hundreds of years at least, maybe thousands, we have no way to judge. The idea that she is Nettles appeals somewhat to me, and the heartbreak fits, but I’m not going out on a limb for it, nor am I defending the idea here, just saying, it’s a possibility. Or maybe I just have an odd thing about people who abuse power and start massive civil wars, like Cat abducting Tyrion for a crime he didn’t commit and Bloodraven sending the Kingsguard to arrest Daemon for a claim on the throne he hadn’t made yet. Or maybe it’s that I do think there is something to the logic that you can learn a lot about a person by who their friends are... Does Cat have friends besides Littlefinger? Does Bloodraven have friends? "You can know a man by his friends, Egg. Daeron surrounded himself with maesters, septons, and singers. Always there were women whispering in his ear, and his court was full of Dornishmen. How not, when he had taken a Dornishwoman into his bed, and sold his own sweet sister to the prince of Dorne, though it was Daemon that she loved? Daeron bore the same name as the Young Dragon, but when his Dornish wife gave him a son he named the child Baelor, after the feeblest king who ever sat the Iron Throne. "Daemon, though . . . Daemon was no more pious than a king need be, and all the great knights of the realm gathered to him. It would suit Lord Bloodraven if their names were all forgotten, so he has forbidden us to sing of them, but I remember. Robb Reyne, Gareth the Grey, Ser Aubrey Ambrose, Lord Gormon Peake, Black Byren Flowers, Redtusk, Fireball . . . Bittersteel! I ask you, has there ever been such a noble company, such a roll of heroes? This is absurd. Be mature enough to disagree without being angry or insulting. I have laboured over the beyond obvious point about the capacity of the throned singers to do anything as we see the gradual stages of decay from the most recent, Bloodraven, to those who are nothing but bones. This is clear. The only one who speaks or acts is Bloodraven. If they are alive and active then Leaf can translate into Common for them and we can dispense with Bloodraven entirely. Except we can't because, well, they can't, and so we need him as Bran's tutor. You offer no explanation for the need for Bloodraven and Bran's involvement in the Children's plans just loudly and repeatedly insist there are competent Child greenseers popping out of the woodwork all over the place while there are oodles more chilling on the Isle of Faces while Leaf tells us they are dying out and you accuse me of trolling? They don't have any left who are able to act, hence Bloodraven's tag as the last greeneseer, I don't know why this would be so perplexing to you except you are too closely attached to your theory to be objective. I mentioned Benjen's disappearance for the obvious reason you quoted the world book as saying Bloodraven was a member of the NW for some 19 years before disappearing and yet you leaped to the unsupported assertion that he abandoned his post. I'll even give you your quote back: " Ser Brynden Rivers set sail for the Wall late in the year of 233 AC..... Bloodraven would rise to become Lord Commander of the Night's Watch in 239 AC, serving until his disappearance during a ranging beyond the Wall in 252 AC. " Disappeared during a ranging after 19 years service, hey? Eerily similar to Benjen Stark I would say. Can't fathom why I would point out that disappearing during a ranging doesn't mean you abandoned your duty? Or mention the disappearance of the First Ranger while you are raising that of the Lord Commander? Clearly you think Benjen deserted or you're just prepared to apply a double standard to blacken Bloodraven in furtherance of your argument. I don't mean to be rude, so forgive me if I am here but are you a native English speaker? Leaf is speaking to Meera, Jojen, Bran and Hodor and is replying to Meera when she explains that she speaks the Common Tongue "for him. For the Bran boy". Then she explains where and how she learned. She is not explaining she learned Common so she could chat with human visitors who just happened to drop in on a buried cave an almost unreachable distance north of the Wall. She doesn't say "for you. For our human visitors", her meaning is far greater and far more specific in that she learned to be able to talk with Bran in furtherance of their plans or visions or however you choose to phrase it. I think Leaf tells us roughly when she was born clearly enough. If she walked the realms of men for several hundred years she would know exactly how the 7K were united by Aegon the Conqueror and what "in the time of the dragon" meant in common parlance. I really don't see a reason to doubt this information, she's clearly conveying information in a way she thinks will be understood by our small party and by the reader alike. And God help us, Cat did not start any civil war or abuse any power. She was told by the Minister of Finance in the presence of the Head of MI5 that the dagger used in the assasination attempt on her son and in her wounding was owned by Tyrion which led her to arrest him pending trial. I have zero appetite for a pointless debate on this but would suggest your read the Catnapping thread by Butterbumps which was the best discussion I remember on this forum. Equating arrest on reasonable grounds with execution or murder based on realpolitik is not a good comparison to make. And what's this about friends? I guess you have it in for introverts then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted May 30, 2018 Author Share Posted May 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: I have laboured over the beyond obvious point about the capacity of the throned singers to do anything as we see the gradual stages of decay from the most recent, Bloodraven, to those who are nothing but bones. The Children in the thrones aren’t nothing but bones... they have red and can move... which is all Bloodraven can say... I cannot follow your leap of logic to them not existing? The bones of children who are not green seeds are littering the caverns, the ones in thrones are different... why don’t you think they exist? Or don’t count? I really don’t understand... 2 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: This is clear. The only one who speaks or acts is Bloodraven. The one tries to talk to them... even Bloodraven has difficulty speaking, and he speaks common not the True Tounge which sounds like the sounds of nature. 2 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: If they are alive and active then Leaf can translate into Common for them and we can dispense with Bloodraven entirely. Why do you know Bloodraven is there to speak for them? It seems to me there is power in King’s Blood (and probably in human blood/sacrifice as a whole)... there are plenty of other reasons for the Children and Bloodraven to work together, or one for the other. 2 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Except we can't because, well, they can't, and so we need him as Bran's tutor. Why? I don’t think they brought Bran there to be tutored per day so much as raised as a lamb to the slaughter (or to have his body taken, which as we learn from Varamyr includes the Warging powers, they are part of the blood/body not the mind/spirit). 2 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: You offer no explanation for the need for Bloodraven and Bran's involvement in the Children's plans As a warg/greenseer to be possessed. For his blood. 2 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: just loudly and repeatedly insist there are competent Child greenseers popping out of the woodwork all over the place while there are oodles more chilling on the Isle of Faces while Leaf tells us they are dying out and you accuse me of trolling? Yes, I’m not saying they are piping out... you claimed they didn’t exist... I pointed out they not only exist, we’ve seen them, here’s a quote, they’re the ones in Weirwood thrones, and by the way there are other possible places they could still be hiding. 2 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: They don't have any left who are able to act, hence Bloodraven's tag as the last greeneseer, I don't know why this would be so perplexing to you except you are too closely attached to your theory to be objective. I don’t see the textual evidence to be so sure this is the case. I do think it would be a strange title to give a guy if you’ve spent hundreds of years ostensibly looking for his replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.