Heresy 209 Of Ice and of Fire

[JNR]

16 hours ago, Matthew. said:

telling some version of ancient history where all of those stories come together for the Long Night would basically just be a repeat of ASOIAF

Yes, it would, and more to the point (since the huge majority of show fans have never read the books) it will basically just be a repeat of GOT.

Except, probably, no Wall... and definitely none of the characters who are the primary draw for current show fans... and a governmental structure of dozens of petty kingdoms instead of one realm ruled from an Iron Throne. 

I'm skeptical this is going to work out very well, and I still think Dunk and Egg would have been a better idea.

20 hours ago, Matthew. said:

It also firmly puts to rest the notion that any of that Empire of the Dawn/Color Emperors business is a part of some deeply embedded world lore that was present from the outset

Yes, it does appear to... though I'm sure LmL will come up with some extraordinary justification so he can continue to believe his version of reality.

However, with respect to

On 6/8/2018 at 1:38 PM, Matthew. said:

the maps in The Lands of Ice and Fire - a project which GRRM has candidly admitted was supposed to be an easy cash grab

...your phrasing is a little unfair.  It was not GRRM's cash grab, but his publishers', to which he agreed because they pitched it as involving no new work for him, and therefore, not something that would delay TWOW.

Then the publishers realized the maps in certain areas were mostly empty and asked him to fill them in... and because he had signed a contract he agreed to do this... which required thinking through huge areas such as everything east of Qarth... and this in turn did drag him away from the canonical writing.

Well, I'm not going to blame him for that.  He also admits openly something we all already knew, which is that some of the place names and mythology of eastern Essos are directly yoinked from Lovecraft, which he intended as a form of homage, and also reflect his weariness at drumming up half a continent on demand.

[JNR]

Oh, and at about 3:20 in that video he starts talking about how Dany is "making her way back to Westeros."

Well, that's certainly an interesting and very flat statement.  

[Melifeather]

Regarding Craster's sons...we have a few "facts" which dictate our conclusions, but are then influenced by our biases based on our preferred narratives.

1) Craster gives his sons "to the woods", because he's a "godly man". And he "bears a heavy curse".

2) Bran, Hodor, Jojen, and Meera walked through a passage full of bones in Bloodraven's cave. 

  “Bones,” said Bran. “It’s bones.” The floor of the passage was littered with the bones of birds and beasts. But there were other bones as well, big ones that must have come from giants and small ones that could have been from children. On either side of them, in niches carved from the stone, skulls looked down on them. Bran saw a bear skull and a wolf skull, half a dozen human skulls and near as many giants. All the rest were small, queerly formed. Children of the forest. The roots had grown in and around and through them, every one.

Bran concluded that the small, queerly formed skulls were those of the Children of the Forest, but it's also possible that they're the bones of Craster's sons - the "queerly formed" skulls could be genetic deformities much like the deformed Targaryen infants with wings and tails. What I find interesting is that most readers conclude that the Children must have eaten the meat from all these carcasses, and then left all the bones in one place - taking the time to put the skulls into niches in the wall.

3) Craster's wives believe the white walkers - the cold gods - collect the sons, and this belief is perpetuated with Craster's penchant for sacrificing sheep or goats when there are no sons. If the infant sons are sacrificed to create white walkers, what are sheep and goats used for?

Do all these "facts" go together? Or are they unrelated and isolated incidences that have been spoon-fed to the reader to purposely lead us astray until the author can surprise us with a reveal?

 

[Black Crow]

3 hours ago, JNR said:

This has been discussed many times.  Jon (like many readers) is fooled by Gilly's knowledge of the Popsicles' eye color into thinking she has seen them.  

But Jon also knows their eye color, and Jon has never seen a Popsicle in his life.   Somehow Jon fails to realize this, and he also fails to realize that Craster is a religious nutjob with a very dubious comprehension of the Popsicles that's shared by no one outside his keep.   For instance, the concept that by sacrificing sheep he can keep himself safe from the Popsicles is manifestly absurd, but Craster believes it anyway and so do his wives.  These are not informed authorities.

Well that's because you keep bringing it up  

GRRM is fond of his unreliable narrators, but the context of neither the Jon/Gilly conversation and the coven/Sam conversation suggests that we're being misled and that on the contrary we're being given important, albeit dramatically cryptic, information. Notwithstanding your personal scepticism, the text is there and nothing we have learned since contradicts us. There may be a little clumsiness in the phrasing by the author but none of the characters are in any doubt as to what they are telling the reader.

[Black Crow]

56 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

 

Bran concluded that the small, queerly formed skulls were those of the Children of the Forest, but it's also possible that they're the bones of Craster's sons - the "queerly formed" skulls could be genetic deformities much like the deformed Targaryen infants with wings and tails.

 

There's no suggestion that Craster's son by Gilly is deformed

[Matthew.]

11 hours ago, JNR said:

In both the scenarios you dropped, the return of the Popsicles is quite recent relative to the full history of the Watch.

Well, I break from Heresy here, in that I do indeed think their return (with 'return' here being defined as them being active in the world, as opposed to them openly attacking and revealing their presence) is recent, in relative terms--maybe upwards of 50 years on the long end, but I'm personally inclined to think they were either unbound or regained their magic only within the last few years before aGoT.
 

11 hours ago, JNR said:

And the Watch was observant enough that (per Jeor Mormont), all the rangers knew Craster was dumping his sons into the woods, and none of the rangers knew the Popsicles were picking the babies up.  

This struck me as preposterous, and still does, and is essentially ruled out by any theory in which the Popsicles have only just begun (as of AGOT) to move into the territory where the Watch ventures, which is at least as far as nine days' ride north by northwest from the Wall.  Such as both of the concepts you posited.

While I understand your incredulity, I feel that this only makes the case for reasonable doubt--it observes that there are unanswered questions, which doesn't necessarily mean they're unanswerable questions, particularly in the context of an incomplete story.

Craster giving his sons to the cold, Craster's claim that he has no cause to fear the Others (I think the context is compelling on this front), "they'll be here soon, the sons;" this may be unproven text, but it is still text. And not just a throwaway blurb--the author introduced a story, expanded and reinforced that story in a subsequent volume, and capped the whole thing off with a potential revelation. A red herring, perhaps, but persistent enough to be treated credibly.

To return to Mormont and co., I agree that the Watch's ostensible ignorance here might be silly (though, I think GRRM has the wiggle room to say that, just as nobody except Sam cared enough to help Gilly, nobody stuck around to see Craster's cruelty play out, especially if they just think it's superstitious nonsense)... but verisimilitude is a subjective thing. Ultimately, we're at the mercy of what GRRM defines as believable--or where he thinks he can get away with people suspending disbelief.

I'm being repetitive in this criticism of GRRM, but I find that he generally relies way too much on the selective and overly convenient ignorance of his characters for the sake of his reveals, which leads to situations like the Green Men sitting in the center of Westeros for 10,000 years, but remaining essentially unknowable, all so he can surprise the reader later; or the Watch forgetting about obsidian killing Others (even though that information is definitely in their annals...nobody thought it'd be a good idea to read that shit as a part of the preparations for the Great Ranging?), Eddard apparently being skeptical about magic and the CoTF despite his friendship with Howland Reed, and so forth...
______

I'll also note that, with one of the storytelling themes being the return of magic, it is entirely possible that two things are true of Craster's Keep: for a long time, his sons were given to the cold, and simply died of exposure...and more recently, his sons are being given to the cold, and something else entirely has been happening. The offerings were just one of many things he did to fulfill his duties as a "godly man," except being a godly man has gained new significance in a world where rituals have power once again.

We might make a comparison to Targaryens who self-immolated, drank wildfire, or tried to awaken dragons at Summerhall: for a long time, all of that stuff ended in tragedy and futility. Now... dragons have returned to the world, Dany is Unburnt, the glass candles are burning, the Starks have collectively awakened their magic, and the trees have eyes again. 

[Matthew.]

10 hours ago, Black Crow said:

...Ygritte's reference toa curse suggests that whatever the arrangement or its purpose its being going on since before Craster himself was born...

Since we're re-litigating ancient disagreements, it's interesting (to me, anyway) how we can sometimes be both so close and so far in certain things; I believe Craster's sons are being given to the WWs, but I'm drawing almost the opposite significance from both Ygritte's comments, and even Craster's own comments.

For one thing, Ygritte says that Craster is "more Jon's kind" than a wildling within that same conversation, which I'm not sure lends itself to reading Craster as someone who has inherited a wildling role (no matter how distasteful the wildlings might find that role); indeed, Ygritte says Craster's blood is black, and the one other reference to the idea of sacrificing to the Others does not regard a wildling, it regards a Lord Commander of the ancient Night's Watch--a Stark, if Old Nan is to be believed.

Furthermore, how Craster perceives himself and his offerings seems pretty blunt:

Quote

There had been no attacks while they had been at Craster's, neither wights nor Others. Nor would there be, Craster said. "A godly man got no cause to fear such. I said as much to that Mance Rayder once, when he come sniffing round. He never listened, no more'n you crows with your swords and your bloody fires. That won't help you none when the white cold comes. Only the gods will help you then. You best get right with the gods."

Craster doesn't view himself as a cursed man, carrying the burden of Mance and the wildling's sins--Mance's sins are his own problem to solve, and he better get right with the gods.

[Black Crow]

59 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

Since we're re-litigating ancient disagreements, it's interesting (to me, anyway) how we can sometimes be both so close and so far in certain things; I believe Craster's sons are being given to the WWs, but I'm drawing almost the opposite significance from both Ygritte's comments, and even Craster's own comments.

For one thing, Ygritte says that Craster is "more Jon's kind" than a wildling within that same conversation, which I'm not sure lends itself to reading Craster as someone who has inherited a wildling role (no matter how distasteful the wildlings might find that role); indeed, Ygritte says Craster's blood is black, and the one other reference to the idea of sacrificing to the Others does not regard a wildling, it regards a Lord Commander of the ancient Night's Watch--a Stark, if Old Nan is to be believed.

Furthermore, how Craster perceives himself and his offerings seems pretty blunt:

Craster doesn't view himself as a cursed man, carrying the burden of Mance and the wildling's sins--Mance's sins are his own problem to solve, and he better get right with the gods.

I don't disagree, but it was Ygritte who spoke of him baring the heavy curse. I would return to earlier suggestions that Craster may not be the one initiating the process, but that the women themselves may be, or were, more actively involved than at first appears. Craster's beliefs may not be at the centre of what's happening but are his rationalisation of a situation in which he finds himself to be as trapped as the women appear to be. As I mentioned earlier his mother appeared to be trying to do a Gilly, and while three of the women urged Sam to get Gilly and her baby away before his brothers tooled up, they themselves made no attempt to escape

[Melifeather]

7 hours ago, Black Crow said:

There's no suggestion that Craster's son by Gilly is deformed

Yes, but not every Targaryen babe is deformed either.

[Black Crow]

6 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Yes, but not every Targaryen babe is deformed either.

Perfectly true but you can't advance a theory which is contradicted by the only extant example

[JNR]

21 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Notwithstanding your personal scepticism, the text is there and nothing we have learned since contradicts us. There may be a little clumsiness in the phrasing by the author but none of the characters are in any doubt as to what they are telling the reader.

None of the wives, or Craster himself, are in doubt.  

But as for "the chraracters," it's obvious quite a few of them are full of doubt about any sort of Craster/Popsicles connection.  

100% of the rangers, for instance, knew Craster was dumping his sons in the woods.  But 0% of the rangers knew there were ice demons picking the babies up for multiple decades.  This complete contrast seems quite striking -- apparently the rangers were incredibly observant of babies, but completely blind to ice demons.

Also, of course, there's Sam.  We need only consider:

1. Sam was standing right there when Craster's wife said the sons are the Popsicles

2. Sam was subsequently commanded by his best friend and LC to learn all he could about the Popsicles

3. Sam failed to mention Craster or his wives or his sons in any way in his report on the Popsicles

4. We know this not just from Jon's POV, but Sam's --Sam didn't even think of Craster or his wives

It's perfectly obvious Sam doesn't believe there's any Craster/Popsicle link meriting so much as a sentence, which is why he doesn't utter one.  He's a bright boy; it's no wonder GRRM frequently says in interviews that Sam is probably the best representation of himself in canon.

[Tucu]

22 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Regarding Craster's sons...we have a few "facts" which dictate our conclusions, but are then influenced by our biases based on our preferred narratives.

1) Craster gives his sons "to the woods", because he's a "godly man". And he "bears a heavy curse".

2) Bran, Hodor, Jojen, and Meera walked through a passage full of bones in Bloodraven's cave. 

  “Bones,” said Bran. “It’s bones.” The floor of the passage was littered with the bones of birds and beasts. But there were other bones as well, big ones that must have come from giants and small ones that could have been from children. On either side of them, in niches carved from the stone, skulls looked down on them. Bran saw a bear skull and a wolf skull, half a dozen human skulls and near as many giants. All the rest were small, queerly formed. Children of the forest. The roots had grown in and around and through them, every one.

Bran concluded that the small, queerly formed skulls were those of the Children of the Forest, but it's also possible that they're the bones of Craster's sons - the "queerly formed" skulls could be genetic deformities much like the deformed Targaryen infants with wings and tails. What I find interesting is that most readers conclude that the Children must have eaten the meat from all these carcasses, and then left all the bones in one place - taking the time to put the skulls into niches in the wall.

3) Craster's wives believe the white walkers - the cold gods - collect the sons, and this belief is perpetuated with Craster's penchant for sacrificing sheep or goats when there are no sons. If the infant sons are sacrificed to create white walkers, what are sheep and goats used for?

Do all these "facts" go together? Or are they unrelated and isolated incidences that have been spoon-fed to the reader to purposely lead us astray until the author can surprise us with a reveal?

 

I always assumed that the bones were rests from food/compost for the trees as the roots are growing around the bones. There are a few legends and customs that support that the trees feed on flesh:

-Ygg, the demon tree that feed on flesh

-the First Men hanging entrails of captives in the trees

-Need cleaning Ice next to the tree

-Bran vision of the execution of who probably was the first Brandon Stark (and Brandon/Bran/weirwood tasting blood)

Craster feeding the gods in exchange for food during coming winter sounds like a reasonable agreeement.

[JNR]

18 hours ago, Matthew. said:

Craster giving his sons to the cold, Craster's claim that he has no cause to fear the Others (I think the context is compelling on this front), "they'll be here soon, the sons;" this may be unproven text, but it is still text.

See above.  Don't you find it interesting that the rangers never detected the presence of ice demons picking up babies so close to the Wall, going back multiple decades (which we know because there isn't a single son at the keep, but multiple generations of wives)?

"Text" is nearly meaningless per se.  In this world, virtually all the characters, if asked, would express the confident belief that the sun flies around the world every day; they would virtually all be wrong.   They would say the world is flat.  Wrong.  They believe what it pleases them to believe, or what seems most obvious, and routinely even believe things that a moment's reflection should demonstrate are silly. 

Quote

 

"As it happens, this fool is utterly devoted to the girl and follows her everywhere. They even look somewhat alike. Shireen has a mottled, half-frozen face as well."

Pycelle was lost. "But that is from the greyscale that near killed her as a babe, poor thing."

"I like my tale better," said Littlefinger, "and so will the smallfolk. Most of them believe that if a woman eats rabbit while pregnant, her child will be born with long floppy ears."

 

Even the best-informed characters, whose information is most thoroughly vetted -- the maesters -- are routinely, constantly wrong about some awfully important stuff (the existence of the Popsicles, the existence of the CotF, the reality of magic).  Science and objectivity have yet to be invented.

So I can't say I'm very surprised that the wives, who greatly remind me of brainwashed cult victims, should all believe without evidence Craster's bizarre religion... which no one else among the free folk shares.  It's quite similar to what brainwashed cult victims in our world do too -- find a way to believe that which really makes no logical sense.  David Koresh's victims did not have truth justifying their worldview.

[JNR]

18 hours ago, Matthew. said:

I'm being repetitive in this criticism of GRRM, but I find that he generally relies way too much on the selective and overly convenient ignorance of his characters for the sake of his reveals

I think he is skillfully recreating the broad nonexistence of applied reason in a Middle Ages world (which hasn't much improved in the modern world).  

He tips the reader off multiple times that this is what he is doing, too, and leaves it to us to deduce the truth. The tale of the Sealord's Cat is an early instance; ADWD also provides a lesson in epistemology to Arya:

Quote

“Is that what they are saying at the Inn of the Green Eel?”

“Yes.”

The kindly man took a bite of his egg. The girl heard him chewing. He never spoke with his mouth full.

He swallowed, and said, “Some men say there is wisdom in wine. Such men are fools. At other inns other names are being bruited about, never doubt.” He took another bite of egg, chewed, swallowed. “What three new things do you know , that you did not know before?”

“I know that some men are saying that Tormo Fregar will surely be the new sealord,” she answered. “Some drunken men.”

“Better."

That's a lesson to the smart reader, too.  A thing said is not a truth.  Truth remains to be seen.

But re criticism, I also think GRRM relies way too much on coincidence... such as Tyrion and Jorah just happening to bump into each other in a whorehouse in the vast expanse of Essos in ADWD, or rather similarly, Cat and Tyrion bumping into each other in an inn AGOT.  Not all those joints dovetail very well.

[Matthew.]

10 hours ago, JNR said:

"Text" is nearly meaningless per se.  In this world, virtually all the characters, if asked, would express the confident belief that the sun flies around the world every day; they would virtually all be wrong.   They would say the world is flat.  Wrong.  They believe what it pleases them to believe, or what seems most obvious, and routinely even believe things that a moment's reflection should demonstrate are silly. 

Even the best-informed characters, whose information is most thoroughly vetted -- the maesters -- are routinely, constantly wrong about some awfully important stuff (the existence of the Popsicles, the existence of the CotF, the reality of magic).  Science and objectivity have yet to be invented.

This is still, for all intents and purposes, a case for reasonable doubt, and not a true refutation. My view of the "Crasters Sons" theory is that it is plausibly built from the text, not that it is de facto canon, or the only plausible theory. Subjectively, it's also the route I expect the author to go, but to the extent that it is possible, I try to separate what I think is plausible from what I expect, and what I expect from what I think would be "good writing." (eg, "Bran interacts with the past" is an idea that I hate, but think is plausible)

I am not assuming that what Craster's wives believe must be true, I'm assuming it could be true--and unless there's text that authoritatively refutes the abstract idea that the Others could be collecting sacrifices, I see no reason to not take Craster's Keep into consideration when discussing what revelations may unfold when it comes to the Others. In other words, if truth remains to be seen, and it would be presumption to treat the wives words as confirmed truth (which, to be clear, I have not done), it would also be presumption to treat them as false.

When I treat all text as having inherent potential, I am not talking about the credibility of fictional characters as witnesses, I am talking about the meta-awareness that their words were written by GRRM, that everything was written by GRRM, and while he may be using their words to confuse or deceive, he might also be using their words to inform and contextualize. 

[Brad Stark]

2 hours ago, JNR said:

None of the wives, or Craster himself, are in doubt.  

But as for "the chraracters," it's obvious quite a few of them are full of doubt about any sort of Craster/Popsicles connection.  

100% of the rangers, for instance, knew Craster was dumping his sons in the woods.  But 0% of the rangers knew there were ice demons picking the babies up for multiple decades.  This complete contrast seems quite striking -- apparently the rangers were incredibly observant of babies, but completely blind to ice demons.

Also, of course, there's Sam.  We need only consider:

1. Sam was standing right there when Craster's wife said the sons are the Popsicles

2. Sam was subsequently commanded by his best friend and LC to learn all he could about the Popsicles

3. Sam failed to mention Craster or his wives or his sons in any way in his report on the Popsicles

4. We know this not just from Jon's POV, but Sam's --Sam didn't even think of Craster or his wives

It's perfectly obvious Sam doesn't believe there's any Craster/Popsicle link meriting so much as a sentence, which is why he doesn't utter one.  He's a bright boy; it's no wonder GRRM frequently says in interviews that Sam is probably the best representation of himself in canon.

Craster obviously didn't start giving his first sons to his sons, since they didn't exist yet.  So he could have given them to other Others, but my bet is he originally gave them to whatever human is controlling the Others.

[Brad Stark]

2 hours ago, JNR said:

Even the best-informed characters, whose information is most thoroughly vetted -- the maesters -- are routinely, constantly wrong about some awfully important stuff (the existence of the Popsicles, the existence of the CotF, the reality of magic).  Science and objectivity have yet to be invented.

The maesters aren't wrong, they are deliberately suppressing belief in magic. 

[Matthew.]

3 hours ago, JNR said:

Don't you find it interesting that the rangers never detected the presence of ice demons picking up babies so close to the Wall, going back multiple decades (which we know because there isn't a single son at the keep, but multiple generations of wives)?

Yes, but that still comes with the caveat that I think GRRM relies on convenient ignorance--and, as you say, coincidence. So, some thoughts...

For one, the wiggle room I'll grant GRRM here is that he has established a context in which the Others are well suited to stealth--they do not leave tracks in the snow, they're compared to shadows and tricks of light, their armor is reflective...and should any rangers happen to catch them in the act and go missing, the default assumption of the Watch is going to be that the missing rangers ran afoul of wildlings. And, explicitly, Mormont's policy is "don't meddle in Craster's business."

Edit: For clarity, my interpretation would be that the Watch believes the sons are dying of exposure, but doesn't actually know what is happening.

Nonetheless, you're right, if the 'Crasters Sons' theory is correct, then the author is asking us to suspend a certain amount of disbelief; yet I think that's also true if everything surrounding Craster's Keep is just misdirection and misinformation--that interpretation comes packed with its own set of overly convenient coincidences. 

From the outset, we are trading decades of Watch ineptitude for decades of wildlings ineptitude...or extraordinary luck or martial prowess on Craster's part. Jon sums it up:

Quote

"I didn't see any men. Just Craster and his women and a few small girls. I wonder [sic] he's able to hold the place. His defenses were nothing to speak of, only a muddy dike.

Like Jon, I find that awfully curious.

Craster lives in a poorly defended compound full of daughters in a culture where they steal wives; he's also notorious, as Tormund, Ygritte, and Mance at the least all know of him. He's a friend to the Watch, and has a reputation as a kinslayer. Everything about Craster screams "this is a guy who should have been killed years ago by his fellow wildlngs;" instead he appears to have lived a fairy long life.

Another obverse to the Watch's well maintained ignorance is Craster and his wives maintaining their convictions; have they never discovered a tiny corpse? Sheep dead of exposure, half eaten by animals? Have no wives, like Gilly, been so desperate to save the sons that they've defied Craster and gone into the white cold, only to discover that there's nothing really out there?
_____

Other overly convenient factors, if nothing is actually happening at Craster's Keep--

In a story where "the Others are back" is a major plot element, there's a character practicing a seemingly singular, decades long religion that coincidentally pays obeisance to the Others at the exact same time that the Others have returned, a religion that posits that obeisance keeps his compound safe, and coincidentally, all circumstantial evidence reinforces his belief:

Royce attacked after visiting his compound, Benjen and crew attacked looking for Royce, Othor and Jaffer showing up well southeast of Craster's compound (suggesting Craster's Keep is not too far south to have been attacked by that point), game long fled (fleeing what?) in the lead up to Craster's Keep, the NW being attacked and harried after the Fist, yet going for days afterward without the Others attacking the Keep, without incident until Craster was killed.

In short, while I understand skepticism of taking Craster's Keep at face value, "Craster's Keep as red herring" is also assuming quite a lot of contrivance on the author's part in order to 'sell' the misdirect.

[Brad Stark]

We have an apparent contradiction,  even if Craster is a red herring.

The Night's Watch leaving Craster alone but knowing he is bringing back the White Walkers is a contradiction,  but we can get around that by saying Craster is a red herring or the Watch was ignorant. 

The wildlings not stealing Craster's daughters is much harder.  Craster being a red herring doesn't deter wildlings from stealing his wives, the opposite is true.  Craster is immune to raiders coming for women, sheep and goods only if the wildlings have strong reasons to avoid him or he has supernatural protection. 

I can only think of 2 answers.   Craster really is helping the Others and the wildlings knew.  Or Craster physically defended his wives in the beginning and grew lax is his defense as the raiders stopped.  The 2nd possibility seems more likely. 

[Brad Stark]

6 rangers disappeared with Benjen.  Is Benjen 1 of 6, or did we have 7?  Jafer and Othor were 2, do we know anything about the other 3 or 4?