Heresy 213 Death aint what it used to be

[Brad Stark]

33 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

I didn't mean to imply they built Moat Cailin, just that they called down their hammer from a tower at Moat Cailin. We do know though that they were allies of the First Men, so if the First Men were holding back some enemy at Moat Cailin, then there could have been some Children there with them.

The Ironborn are First Men too, but there is a mention of raiders trying to land by boat, which sounds like the Ironborn culture, so there could have been fighting between various factions of First Men against each other. There could be some First Men aligned with the Children, and some that were not.

It is possible that the Children were allies of the First Men and called down the Hammer against the Andals from Moat Caitlin.  But that isn't the history we are given, that the Hammer was used to stop the First Men before the pact. 

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, Brad Stark said:

It is possible that the Children were allies of the First Men and called down the Hammer against the Andals from Moat Caitlin.  But that isn't the history we are given, that the Hammer was used to stop the First Men before the pact. 

 I never mentioned Andals! I said “raiders” who were likely Ironborn, who are also First Men.

[St Daga]

50 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

A reversal of the Red Wedding would mean that the host dies instead of the guests, and the people killed need to be Freys. This is a revenge kill. Everyone is at Winterfell, because they were invited to Ramsay's wedding to fArya. The Boltons believe that Wyman's main beef and tensions lay with the Freys. Roose tries to defuse this tension by sending Manderly men out to engage Stannis, but I think Wyman intends to parlay with Stannis. At the parlay Stannis will learn that Rickon is still alive - which should help Theon, and Wyman will offer to help Stannis from the inside. 

Wyman put on a great show of loyalty to Roose at White Harbor when he had Davos, but after the Frey envoys left, he freed Davos and sent him to go find Rikon in a secret plot to unite the north against the Boltons and Freys. Then the missing Frey envoys were presumably captured shortly after, and turned into pies, which were then served at the Bolton wedding - a gift to the Freys and Boltons signalling Manderly's intentions. The Manderlys are a Trojan Horse. Do you honestly believe that Wyman is plotting a double-fake here, and that his true intentions are to turn on the Starks? That doesn't make a bit sense!

I know you are looking for an inverse to happen, but in this case, I don't know if we will see a revenge red wedding scenario. I also don't think that the Frey's are the only people that need to be fed some vengeance for the Red Wedding. The Bolton's were there and partially responsible, and while no Lannister's were there, they also deserve a bit of karma. I know Joffrey died at his own wedding, but I am pretty sure that was going to happen no matter what happened at the Twins. The Lannister's still have some justice coming for them, and Lady Stoneheart seems well aware of this.

If there is another wedding going to happen, where the host is killed by his guests, where and who does this involve. As I said, Ramsay and fArya's wedding was the perfect opportunity for Wyman and the north to strike, but he didn't. Nope, he just served his pie and got drunk. I think Wyman is playing for something bigger than revenge. 

Do I really believe that Wyman is plotting a double-fake here? I don't know if he is, but I think he is certainly capable of it. And I don't find him very trustworthy. Yes, there is the whole Frey pie incident, but perhaps Wyman felt like he needed to seek a little vengeance against the Frey's. It was the Frey's who killed Wendel, not Roose's men, and perhaps Wendel wasn't meant to die. If Robb had attended Roselyn and Edmure to the wedding chamber, it is likely he would have been killed either in the halls or in the bedding chamber, and Wendel might not have been involved. If Wendel was only meant to be taken prisoner, then he still is a sacrifice of sorts, just not a blood sacrifice. Of course, Wendel died and Wyman can't bargain to get him back. Some of this comes from me trying to make sense of the "leg of lamb" symbolism that involves Wendel Manderly. 

How are the Manderly's the Trojen Horse? They are currently out of Winterfell, or directly on their way, gathering at the east gate, and I would bet money that Roose won't let them back in the castle. What good is a trojen horse if it's outside the castle it needs to be in? Even if Wyman parlay's with Stannis, are we to think that Stannis will pretend to lose the battle to allow the Manderly's back into Winterfell? I don't see how a parlay can happen right under the eyes of the Frey's. Wyman does hold a large and powerful force, but would it be enough to take the castle?  But I admit I haven't read any of the Wind's chapters that deal with this, so it's possible that this could happen.

Davos show's up at the New Castle at night and he doesn't announce who he is. Wyman could have secretly seen him and the Frey's might never have known about it. But Wyman chooses to keep him prisoner for 2 weeks, letting it be known that he has Davos, then parades him in front of his whole court, including the Frey's. He used Davos and would have killed him if he needed to. Then, Wyman gives the impression, to the Frey's and Lannister's that he has killed Davos and put his head on a pike to satisfy Cersei. Partly, this ruse makes sense in some ways, because Wyman needs to get his son Wylis back from the Lannister's, his only son now, the son who could give house Manderly the male heir it probably needs. Wyman is playing the Frey's and he is playing the Lannister's, and perhaps any Bolton spies in the castle, as well. But I think he is playing Davos, too. He has Davos unsteady, expecting death, but then Davos is part of an impassioned speech about loyalty and a plot to save a son of Eddard Stark. Wyman gives the impression he is both loyal to Roose and the Lannister's publically, but he secretly gives Davos the impression that he is loyal to the Stark's, and that he would support Stannis as king. It's very smartly done! IF Davos finds Rickon and brings him back to Manderly, there is no guarantee that Rickon is at all safe in Wyman's hands.  Or that Davos' life will be spared after Rickon is found. Also, if Davos believes in Wyman's loyalty, this he could pass this information on to Stannis, which could cause Stannis to trust Wyman. Or if Rickon is safe, then he is major chess piece for Wyman to control. A son trumps a daughter. I don't think Wyman knows that Arya is fake. It's smartly done, since this way, no matter if Stannis takes the Iron Throne or the Lannister's manage to hold onto it, Wyman looks like an ally to both parties. And if the Bolton's can't hold Winterfell and the North, then someone with power, influence and money might step into the breech, especially if they have a young granddaughter to marry to a Stark, if Rickon survives.  

Another thing that is odd about Wyman is that Davos thinks he looks like "half a corpse" something that Davos thinks about Stannis after Renly's death. Kinslaying is frowned on in this world, and it might take a physical toll on the perpetrator. "Old gods or new, it makes no matter, no man is so accursed as the kinslayer",  "No man is as cursed as the kinslayer" and "the gods hate kinslaying, even when they kill unknowing". Setting your son up to be part of a slaughter, even if you didn't intend his death, might be unknowing kinslaying. It's pretty plain in the text that kinslaying has a toll in this world, and I think that Wyman's corpse-like appearance might be that toll.

I admit it does't all fit together nicely, but something seems off about Wyman Manderly. Each time I read his explanation to Davos, it all makes sense, and I doubt my own suspicions, but there are some things that just don't make sense to me in the text. It's just a possibility I am pursuing. I have to admit, I would be so emotionally satisfied if Wyman Manderly turned out to be a loyal supporter of the Stark's and trying to reestablish their rule in the north, but for some reason I have a hard time buying it. 

 

[St Daga]

5 hours ago, SirArthur said:

7 hours ago, St Daga said:

Theon is seeing many things here, but he notes that Luwin was speared by a knight on a warhorse, who then swung back to ride over him. Lined up outside Winterfell in Ser Rodrik's ranks are knights from House Manderly. Knights are not common in the north, and since Roose holds to the old gods, I doubt any of the dreadfort men are considered knights. Warriors on horses, yes, but not knights. It is House Manderly who has the knights. And it was a knight that was determined to kill Luwin. Even if you don't like the citadel, Maester's are important to castles and communication. Killing Luwin makes no sense except he would be able to tell what he saw at that battle. I think this is another subtle sign that House Manderly was working with the Bolton's to take the Stark's down. 

A knight could just be a hint at a southron support force. 

It could,if we had any hint that there were southron knights in the war party, but Theon looks over the men and counts them to be over 1000 men and names the banners as Cerwyn, Tallhart, Manderly, Flint, Karstark, Hornwood and later we hear of Bolton men attacking the other northmen. No hints of southron banner's in the mix. It's also possible that it was a hedge knight for hire. But why would any knight kill a maester? Luwin was a target, I think. He was speared and as if that wasn't enough, he was rundown with a charging war horse. What purpose does that serve but death? I suppose it could be chalked up to blood lust, and that is possible, but I find it highly suspicious.

It's possible that I am making to much of a "knight" on a warhorse, and it was any mounted warrior, but it's still very odd that Luwin, a maester and important man, seems to be a target.

 

[Tucu]

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

 I never mentioned Andals! I said “raiders” who were likely Ironborn, who are also First Men.

I can't avoid thinking that the Starks were part-Ironborn. The iron and bronze crown, Theon Stark raiding Andalos, Brandon the Shipwright, Rodrik Stark winning Bear Island on a wrestling match with the Ironborn. Some of these point towards a raiding culture; something like the relationship between Vikings and Normans.

[Melifeather]

18 hours ago, St Daga said:

I know you are looking for an inverse to happen, but in this case, I don't know if we will see a revenge red wedding scenario. I also don't think that the Frey's are the only people that need to be fed some vengeance for the Red Wedding. The Bolton's were there and partially responsible, and while no Lannister's were there, they also deserve a bit of karma. I know Joffrey died at his own wedding, but I am pretty sure that was going to happen no matter what happened at the Twins. The Lannister's still have some justice coming for them, and Lady Stoneheart seems well aware of this.

If there is another wedding going to happen, where the host is killed by his guests, where and who does this involve. As I said, Ramsay and fArya's wedding was the perfect opportunity for Wyman and the north to strike, but he didn't. Nope, he just served his pie and got drunk. I think Wyman is playing for something bigger than revenge. 

Do I really believe that Wyman is plotting a double-fake here? I don't know if he is, but I think he is certainly capable of it. And I don't find him very trustworthy. Yes, there is the whole Frey pie incident, but perhaps Wyman felt like he needed to seek a little vengeance against the Frey's. It was the Frey's who killed Wendel, not Roose's men, and perhaps Wendel wasn't meant to die. If Robb had attended Roselyn and Edmure to the wedding chamber, it is likely he would have been killed either in the halls or in the bedding chamber, and Wendel might not have been involved. If Wendel was only meant to be taken prisoner, then he still is a sacrifice of sorts, just not a blood sacrifice. Of course, Wendel died and Wyman can't bargain to get him back. Some of this comes from me trying to make sense of the "leg of lamb" symbolism that involves Wendel Manderly. 

How are the Manderly's the Trojen Horse? They are currently out of Winterfell, or directly on their way, gathering at the east gate, and I would bet money that Roose won't let them back in the castle. What good is a trojen horse if it's outside the castle it needs to be in? Even if Wyman parlay's with Stannis, are we to think that Stannis will pretend to lose the battle to allow the Manderly's back into Winterfell? I don't see how a parlay can happen right under the eyes of the Frey's. Wyman does hold a large and powerful force, but would it be enough to take the castle?  But I admit I haven't read any of the Wind's chapters that deal with this, so it's possible that this could happen.

Davos show's up at the New Castle at night and he doesn't announce who he is. Wyman could have secretly seen him and the Frey's might never have known about it. But Wyman chooses to keep him prisoner for 2 weeks, letting it be known that he has Davos, then parades him in front of his whole court, including the Frey's. He used Davos and would have killed him if he needed to. Then, Wyman gives the impression, to the Frey's and Lannister's that he has killed Davos and put his head on a pike to satisfy Cersei. Partly, this ruse makes sense in some ways, because Wyman needs to get his son Wylis back from the Lannister's, his only son now, the son who could give house Manderly the male heir it probably needs. Wyman is playing the Frey's and he is playing the Lannister's, and perhaps any Bolton spies in the castle, as well. But I think he is playing Davos, too. He has Davos unsteady, expecting death, but then Davos is part of an impassioned speech about loyalty and a plot to save a son of Eddard Stark. Wyman gives the impression he is both loyal to Roose and the Lannister's publically, but he secretly gives Davos the impression that he is loyal to the Stark's, and that he would support Stannis as king. It's very smartly done! IF Davos finds Rickon and brings him back to Manderly, there is no guarantee that Rickon is at all safe in Wyman's hands.  Or that Davos' life will be spared after Rickon is found. Also, if Davos believes in Wyman's loyalty, this he could pass this information on to Stannis, which could cause Stannis to trust Wyman. Or if Rickon is safe, then he is major chess piece for Wyman to control. A son trumps a daughter. I don't think Wyman knows that Arya is fake. It's smartly done, since this way, no matter if Stannis takes the Iron Throne or the Lannister's manage to hold onto it, Wyman looks like an ally to both parties. And if the Bolton's can't hold Winterfell and the North, then someone with power, influence and money might step into the breech, especially if they have a young granddaughter to marry to a Stark, if Rickon survives.  

Another thing that is odd about Wyman is that Davos thinks he looks like "half a corpse" something that Davos thinks about Stannis after Renly's death. Kinslaying is frowned on in this world, and it might take a physical toll on the perpetrator. "Old gods or new, it makes no matter, no man is so accursed as the kinslayer",  "No man is as cursed as the kinslayer" and "the gods hate kinslaying, even when they kill unknowing". Setting your son up to be part of a slaughter, even if you didn't intend his death, might be unknowing kinslaying. It's pretty plain in the text that kinslaying has a toll in this world, and I think that Wyman's corpse-like appearance might be that toll.

I admit it does't all fit together nicely, but something seems off about Wyman Manderly. Each time I read his explanation to Davos, it all makes sense, and I doubt my own suspicions, but there are some things that just don't make sense to me in the text. It's just a possibility I am pursuing. I have to admit, I would be so emotionally satisfied if Wyman Manderly turned out to be a loyal supporter of the Stark's and trying to reestablish their rule in the north, but for some reason I have a hard time buying it. 

 

I agree that the leg of lamb is symbolic of something, but I don't agree with your interpretation. There's a book called Lamb to the Slaughter where a leg of lamb is served, but it's intended as a symbol of revenge.  Lord Wyman Manderly wants revenge!

The motivations of Lord-too-fat-to-sit-a-horse are explicitly detailed in ADWD chapter 29 in a Davos POV. I'm going to paste some passages, which are extensive, but I've tried to condense it down to the most relevant parts.

First of all, Davos’s cell in the Wolf’s Den was quite comfortable:
 

Quote

 

The sounds coming through the door were faint and muffled. Davos rose and paced his cell. As cells went, it was large and queerly comfortable. He suspected it might once have been some lordling’s bedchamber. It was thrice the size of his captain’s cabin on Black Bessa, and even larger than the cabin Salladhor Saan enjoyed on his Valyrian. Though its only window had been bricked in years before, one wall still boasted a hearth big enough to hold a kettle, and there was an actual privy built into a corner nook. The floor was made of warped planks full of splinters, and his sleeping pallet smelled of mildew, but those discomforts were mild compared to what Davos had expected.

  The food had come as a surprise as well. In place of gruel and stale bread and rotten meat, the usual dungeon fare, his keepers brought him fresh-caught fish, bread still warm from the oven, spiced mutton, turnips, carrots, even crabs. Garth was none too pleased by that. “The dead should not eat better than the living,” he complained, more than once. Davos had furs to keep him warm by night, wood to feed his fire, clean clothing, a greasy tallow candle. When he asked for paper, quill, and ink, Therry brought them the next day. When he asked for a book, so he might keep at his reading, Therry turned up with The Seven-Pointed Star.

 

 

Lord Manderly could have placed Davos in true cells, but he didn't.
 

Quote

 

He knew there were true dungeons down in the castle cellars— oubliettes and torture chambers and dank pits where huge black rats scrabbled in the darkness. His gaolers claimed all of them were unoccupied at present. “Only us here, Onion,” Ser Bartimus had told him.

 

 

 

 

Lord Manderly has Robett bring Davos to him via a secret passage. Robett praises Stannis for delivering Deepwood Motte back to his family. 

 

Quote

 

He was still hunched over the letters when he heard the sound of iron keys rattling on a ring. Half a heartbeat later, the door to his cell came swinging open. The man who stepped through the door was not one of his gaolers. He was tall and haggard, with a deeply lined face and a shock of grey-brown hair. A longsword hung from his hip, and his deep-dyed scarlet cloak was fastened at the shoulder with a heavy silver brooch in the shape of a mailed fist. “Lord Seaworth,” he said, “we do not have much time. Please, come with me.”

  Davos eyed the stranger warily. The “please” confused him. Men about to lose their heads and hands were not oft accorded such courtesies. “Who are you?”

  “Robett Glover, if it please, my lord.”

  “Glover. Your seat was Deepwood Motte.”

  “My brother Galbart’s seat. It was and is, thanks to your King Stannis. He has taken Deepwood back from the iron bitch who stole it and offers to restore it to its rightful owners. Much and more has happened whilst you have been confined within these walls, Lord Davos. Moat Cailin has fallen, and Roose Bolton has returned to the north with Ned Stark’s younger daughter. A host of Freys came with him. Bolton has sent forth ravens, summoning all the lords of the north to Barrowton. He demands homage and hostages … and witnesses to the wedding of Arya Stark and his bastard Ramsay Snow, by which match the Boltons mean to lay claim to Winterfell. Now, will you come with me, or no?”

  “What choice do I have, my lord? Come with you, or remain with Garth and Lady Lu?”

  “Who is Lady Lu? One of the washerwomen?” Glover was growing impatient. “All will be explained if you will come.”

  Davos rose to his feet. “If I should die, I beseech my lord to see that my letters are delivered.”

  “You have my word on that … though if you die, it will not be at Glover’s hands, nor Lord Wyman’s. Quickly now, with me.”

 

 

 

 

Robett took Davos through many cellars and tunnels, and pushed on a wall that turned to reveal a long tunnel and then a flight of stairs…

Quote

  “Where are we?” asked Davos as they climbed. His words echoed faintly though the darkness.

  “The steps beneath the steps. The passage runs beneath the Castle Stair up to the New Castle. A secret way. It would not do for you to be seen, my lord. You are supposed to be dead.”

 

 

Lord Manderly treats Davos as an honored guest.

Quote

 

  “Please sit.” Lord Manderly was richly garbed. His velvet doublet was a soft blue-green, embroidered with golden thread at hem and sleeves and collar. His mantle was ermine, pinned at the shoulder with a golden trident. “Are you hungry?”

  “No, my lord. Your gaolers have fed me well.”

  “There is wine, if you have a thirst.”

  “I will treat with you, my lord. My king commanded that of me. I do not have to drink with you.”

  Lord Wyman sighed. “I have treated you most shamefully, I know. I had my reasons, but … please, sit and drink, I beg you. Drink to my boy’s safe return. Wylis, my eldest son and heir. He is home. That is the welcoming feast you hear. In the Merman’s Court they are eating lamprey pie and venison with roasted chestnuts. Wynafryd is dancing with the Frey she is to marry. The other Freys are raising cups of wine to toast our friendship.”

  Beneath the music, Davos could hear the murmur of many voices, the clatter of cups and platters. He said nothing.

  “I have just come from the high table,” Lord Wyman went on. “I have eaten too much, as ever, and all White Harbor knows my bowels are bad. My friends of Frey will not question a lengthy visit to the privy, we hope.” He turned his cup over. “There. You will drink and I will not. Sit. Time is short, and there is much we need to say. Robett, wine for the Hand, if you will be so good. Lord Davos, you will not know, but you are dead.”

  Robett Glover filled a wine cup and offered it to Davos. He took it, sniffed it, drank. “How did I die, if I may ask?”

  “By the axe. Your head and hands were mounted above the Seal Gate, with your face turned so your eyes looked out across the harbor. By now you are well rotted, though we dipped your head in tar before we set it upon the spike…

 

 

Quote

 

…My lord, I bear you no ill will. The rancor I showed you in the Merman’s Court was a mummer’s farce put on to please our friends of Frey.”

 

 

 

 

Lord Manderly's daughters helped him fool the Freys. One is even going so far as to be promised in marriage to a Frey. Perhaps her father will have the groom killed at Winterfell?

Quote

 

  “My lord should take up a life of mummery,” said Davos. “You and yours were most convincing. Your good-daughter seemed to want me dead most earnestly, and the little girl …”

  “Wylla.” Lord Wyman smiled. “Did you see how brave she was? Even when I threatened to have her tongue out, she reminded me of the debt White Harbor owes to the Starks of Winterfell, a debt that can never be repaid. Wylla spoke from the heart, as did Lady Leona. Forgive her if you can, my lord. She is a foolish, frightened woman, and Wylis is her life. Not every man has it in him to be Prince Aemon the Dragonknight or Symeon Star-Eyes, and not every woman can be as brave as my Wylla and her sister Wynafryd … who did know, yet played her own part fearlessly.

  “When treating with liars, even an honest man must lie. I did not dare defy King’s Landing so long as my last living son remained a captive. Lord Tywin Lannister wrote me himself to say that he had Wylis. If I would have him freed unharmed, he told me, I must repent my treason, yield my city, declare my loyalty to the boy king on the Iron Throne … and bend my knee to Roose Bolton, his Warden of the North. Should I refuse, Wylis would die a traitor’s death, White Harbor would be stormed and sacked, and my people would suffer the same fate as the Reynes of Castamere.

  “I am fat, and many think that makes me weak and foolish. Mayhaps Tywin Lannister was one such. I sent him back a raven to say that I would bend my knee and open my gates after my son was returned, but not before. There the matter stood when Tywin died. Afterward the Freys turned up with Wendel’s bones … to make a peace and seal it with a marriage pact, they claimed, but I was not about to give them what they wanted until I had Wylis, safe and whole, and they were not about to give me Wylis until I proved my loyalty. Your arrival gave me the means to do that. That was the reason for the discourtesy I showed you in the Merman’s Court, and for the head and hands rotting above the Seal Gate.”

 

 

Wyman has to go through the motions of showing loyalty to the crown, and to the Boltons and Freys, because he has been threatened. 

Quote

 

“Soon I must return to the feast to toast my friends of Frey,” Manderly continued. “They watch me, ser. Day and night their eyes are on me, noses sniffing for some whiff of treachery. You saw them, the arrogant Ser Jared and his nephew Rhaegar, that smirking worm who wears a dragon’s name. Behind them both stands Symond, clinking coins. That one has bought and paid for several of my servants and two of my knights. One of his wife’s handmaids has found her way into the bed of my own fool. If Stannis wonders that my letters say so little, it is because I dare not even trust my maester. Theomore is all head and no heart. You heard him in my hall. Maesters are supposed to put aside old loyalties when they don their chains, but I cannot forget that Theomore was born a Lannister of Lannisport and claims some distant kinship to the Lannisters of Casterly Rock. Foes and false friends are all around me, Lord Davos. They infest my city like roaches, and at night I feel them crawling over me.” The fat man’s fingers coiled into a fist, and all his chins trembled. “My son Wendel came to the Twins a guest. He ate Lord Walder’s bread and salt, and hung his sword upon the wall to feast with friends. And they murdered him. Murdered, I say, and may the Freys choke upon their fables. I drink with Jared, jape with Symond, promise Rhaegar the hand of my own beloved granddaughter … but never think that means I have forgotten. The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer’s farce is almost done. My son is home.”

  Something about the way Lord Wyman said that chilled Davos to the bone. “If it is justice that you want, my lord, look to King Stannis. No man is more just.”

  Robett Glover broke in to add, “Your loyalty does you honor, my lord, but Stannis Baratheon remains your king, not our own.”

  “Your own king is dead,” Davos reminded them, “murdered at the Red Wedding beside Lord Wyman’s son.”

  “The Young Wolf is dead,” Manderly allowed, “but that brave boy was not Lord Eddard’s only son. Robett, bring the lad.”

  “At once, my lord.” Glover slipped out the door.

  The lad? Was it possible that one of Robb Stark’s brothers had survived the ruin of Winterfell? Did Manderly have a Stark heir hidden away in his castle? A found boy or a feigned boy? The north would rise for either, he suspected … but Stannis Baratheon would never make common cause with an imposter.

 

 

Robett brings in Wex - the Ironborn mute that was Theon’s squire who knows that Bran and Rickon were not captured and killed. It's because of this information that Lord Manderly has put together his plan. He didn't know Davos was coming, but now that he is there he can act on his plan. In exchange he will rally the north to support Stannis. It's implied that he wants to reinstall Rickon as Lord of Winterfell. Lord Wyman knows the same tales that Davos has heard, but he corrects it all with the truth, including that Theon is still alive and that Ramsay Bolton is the bastard that put Winterfell to the sword. He also tells Davos about Ramsay’s sport of hunting maids through the woods.
 

Quote

 

  Davos paled. “Gods be good. How could any man—”

  “The evil is in his blood,” said Robett Glover. “He is a bastard born of rape. A Snow, no matter what the boy king says.”

  “Was ever snow so black?” asked Lord Wyman. “Ramsay took Lord Hornwood’s lands by forcibly wedding his widow, then locked her in a tower and forgot her. It is said she ate her own fingers in her extremity … and the Lannister notion of king’s justice is to reward her killer with Ned Stark’s little girl.”

  “The Boltons have always been as cruel as they were cunning, but this one seems a beast in human skin,” said Glover.

  The Lord of White Harbor leaned forward. “The Freys are no better. They speak of wargs and skinchangers and assert that it was Robb Stark who slew my Wendel. The arrogance of it! They do not expect the north to believe their lies, not truly, but they think we must pretend to believe or die. Roose Bolton lies about his part in the Red Wedding, and his bastard lies about the fall of Winterfell. And yet so long as they held Wylis I had no choice but to eat all this excrement and praise the taste.”

  “And now, my lord?” asked Davos.

  He had hoped to hear Lord Wyman say, And now I shall declare for King Stannis, but instead the fat man smiled an odd, twinkling smile and said, “And now I have a wedding to attend. I am too fat to sit a horse, as any man with eyes can plainly see. As a boy I loved to ride, and as a young man I handled a mount well enough to win some small acclaim in the lists, but those days are done. My body has become a prison more dire than the Wolf’s Den. Even so, I must go to Winterfell. Roose Bolton wants me on my knees, and beneath the velvet courtesy he shows the iron mail. I shall go by barge and litter, attended by a hundred knights and my good friends from the Twins. The Freys came here by sea. They have no horses with them, so I shall present each of them with a palfrey as a guest gift. Do hosts still give guest gifts in the south?”

  “Some do, my lord. On the day their guest departs.”

  “Perhaps you understand, then.” Wyman Manderly lurched ponderously to his feet. “I have been building warships for more than a year. Some you saw, but there are as many more hidden up the White Knife. Even with the losses I have suffered, I still command more heavy horse than any other lord north of the Neck. My walls are strong, and my vaults are full of silver. Oldcastle and Widow’s Watch will take their lead from me. My bannermen include a dozen petty lords and a hundred landed knights. I can deliver King Stannis the allegiance of all the lands east of the White Knife, from Widow’s Watch and Ramsgate to the Sheepshead Hills and the headwaters of the Broken Branch. All this I pledge to do if you will meet my price.”

  “I can bring your terms to the king, but—”

  Lord Wyman cut him off. “If you will meet my price, I said. Not Stannis. It’s not a king I need but a smuggler.”

  Robett Glover took up the tale. “We may never know all that happened at Winterfell, when Ser Rodrik Cassel tried to take the castle back from Theon Greyjoy’s ironmen. The Bastard of Bolton claims that Greyjoy murdered Ser Rodrik during a parley. Wex says no. Until he learns more letters we will never know half the truth … but he came to us knowing yes and no, and those can go a long way once you find the right questions.”

  “It was the Bastard who murdered Ser Rodrik and the men of Winterfell,” said Lord Wyman. “He slew Greyjoy’s ironmen as well. Wex saw men cut down trying to yield. When we asked how he escaped, he took a chunk of chalk and drew a tree with a face.”

  Davos thought about that. “The old gods saved him?”

  “After a fashion. He climbed the heart tree and hid himself amongst the leaves. Bolton’s men searched the godswood twice and killed the men they found there, but none thought to clamber up into the trees. Is that how it happened, Wex?”

  The boy flipped up Glover’s dagger, caught it, nodded.

  Glover said, “He stayed up in the tree a long time. He slept amongst the branches, not daring to descend. Finally he heard voices down beneath him.”

  “The voices of the dead,” said Wyman Manderly.

  Wex held up five fingers, tapped each one with the dagger, then folded four away and tapped the last again.

  “Six of them,” asked Davos. “There were six.”

  “Two of them Ned Stark’s murdered sons.”

  “How could a mute tell you that?”

  “With chalk. He drew two boys … and two wolves.”

  “The lad is ironborn, so he thought it best not to show himself,” said Glover. “He listened. The six did not linger long amongst the ruins of Winterfell. Four went one way, two another. Wex stole after the two, a woman and a boy. He must have stayed downwind, so the wolf would not catch his scent.”

  “He knows where they went,” Lord Wyman said.

  Davos understood. “You want the boy.”

  “Roose Bolton has Lord Eddard’s daughter. To thwart him White Harbor must have Ned’s son … and the direwolf. The wolf will prove the boy is who we say he is, should the Dreadfort attempt to deny him. That is my price, Lord Davos. Smuggle me back my liege lord, and I will take Stannis Baratheon as my king.”

 

 

 

[Melifeather]

18 hours ago, Tucu said:

I can't avoid thinking that the Starks were part-Ironborn. The iron and bronze crown, Theon Stark raiding Andalos, Brandon the Shipwright, Rodrik Stark winning Bear Island on a wrestling match with the Ironborn. Some of these point towards a raiding culture; something like the relationship between Vikings and Normans.

I do believe the Ironborn and the Stark ancestors were related thousands of years ago. They are both of First Men ancestry, but I think they split into two main groups or tribes, with the Ironborn continuing to cut down weirwoods and fight the Children, while the Starks grew closer to the Children and adopted their gods of nature.

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

My body has become a prison more dire than the Wolf’s Den. Even so, I must go to Winterfell.

Wyman Manderly could have remained at White Harbor and not gone to the Bolton wedding. He's spent the last year building up his fleet, and he commands more heavy horse (knights on horses) than any house in the north, and he's rich with coin. He also has an escape route at the ready if need be, so he doesn't need to harm Rickon to maintain his power. But he does have to power to return Winterfell to the Starks. Wyman needed a way to "prove" his loyalty, before he could execute his revenge. "Killing" Davos provided the means.

GRRM said ADWD is the midpoint and widest part of the story, and that it would narrow down to an ending after it. It's about time that the Starks start winning instead of continuing to have failure after failure. This Manderly/Davos chapter is a turning point.

[Tucu]

17 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

I do believe the Ironborn and the Stark ancestors were related thousands of years ago. They are both of First Men ancestry, but I think they split into two main groups or tribes, with the Ironborn continuing to cut down weirwoods and fight the Children, while the Starks grew closer to the Children and adopted their gods of nature.

I was thinking of later remerge between Ironborn and northern First Men. Similar to how the Vikings and Franks were germanic tribes and then the Normans were a merge of Vikings and Franks.

[St Daga]

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

I agree that the leg of lamb is symbolic of something, but I don't agree with your interpretation. There's a book called Lamb to the Slaughter where a leg of lamb is served, but it's intended as a symbol of revenge.  Lord Wyman Manderly wants revenge!

If it's the short story by Roald Dahl that you are talking about, I know the story. While some interpretations are about revenge, I don't see it that way. The wife does murder her husband with a leg of lamb/mutton, but I feel it's not really revenge, more than a sudden reaction. Yes, the husband seems to want a divorce, but revenge seems a bit much of a motive for me to buy. Had he left her or divorced her, then perhaps her murder would be vengeance. But it's only mentioned and she goes off the deep end. Her actions are not of a rational human. Of course, people can interpret things as they chose. After the death, then the wife starts thinking of ways to cover her crime, and ends up feeding the murder weapon, "the evidence" to detectives who happen to be her husbands coworkers. It's more a symbol of a crime that goes unpunished, actually.

We do have hints of Wyman feeding "Frey pies" to people, but that certainly doesn't cover up a murder weapon, although it is a way of getting ride of evidence of bodies I suppose. Except bodies are more than just meat and blood! They are bones and teeth and cartilage and hair, things that still can't be hidden in plain site. 

I have no problem with your interpretation differing from mine, but I certainly don't think it's as clean cut as you make it seem. It does hint at Tyrion's leg of lamb passage, though. If there is a revenge for the Red Wedding, I don't think it will be a reversal of what we have already seen, or even a similar plot. Time will tell, of course.

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

The motivations of Lord-too-fat-to-sit-a-horse are explicitly detailed in ADWD chapter 29 in a Davos POV. I'm going to paste some passages, which are extensive, but I've tried to condense it down to the most relevant parts.

First of all, Davos’s cell in the Wolf’s Den was quite comfortable:

Yes, I know the passage. And Davos' chambers are noted to be a bedchamber of sorts, but his bed also smells of mildew, not necessarily honored accommodations. He is also locked up and has only seen two jailer's, which keeps him hidden from prying eyes, which might not be the case if he was in a regular gaol. 

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Lord Manderly treats Davos as an honored guest.

He is feed well, and warm, and given a book,  but Davos understands its a cell and he is kept behind a heavily locked door and every day Davos thinks this could be the day he is executed, which is not how you treat a valued guest.  One of the gaolers reminds Davos daily that Wyman demanded his death, and he harasses Davos with the sight of his weapons and threatens to burn his genitals off. That's not very friendly treatment. And Wyman tells Davos quite plainly that he would have killed him if he had too and produced the body. Davos feels a shiver go up his spine. His life was never safe or guaranteed. 

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Robett took Davos through many cellars and tunnels, and pushed on a wall that turned to reveal a long tunnel and then a flight of stairs…

I have no doubt that Wyman want's it to be a secret that Davos is alive. If the man is declared dead, and then never seen again, who would be wiser. Oh, Robett and Wex? Well, Wex is disposable and it's hard to say what Robett's part is, if Manderly is plotting against the Starks. 

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Lord Manderly's daughters helped him fool the Freys. One is even going so far as to be promised in marriage to a Frey. Perhaps her father will have the groom killed at Winterfell?

Granddaughters. They are Wylis's daughters. Wynifryd whom he implies knows what is going on, and Wylla who does not. And who is threatened with the Silent Sister's if she continues to speak. It is Wynifryd that is betrothed to Rhaegar Frey, who is one of the missing Frey's and is already dead, if he was truly killed and baked into a pie. There won't be a marriage there, and with the hostilities currently between House Frey and Manderly, I doubt we will see another betrothal. Although Rhaegar isn't officially dead, he is missing and I think that betrothal is defunct.

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Wyman has to go through the motions of showing loyalty to the crown, and to the Boltons and Freys, because he has been threatened. 

 And he is still showing loyalty to the Bolton's, only seems to be feuding with the Frey's. In the north, Roose doesn't seem to be getting much blame for the Red Wedding, but the Frey's are openly despised. So, Manderly smartly appears loyal to Roose, but bumps heads with the Frey's, which is probably earning Manderly some friends in the north who are loyal to the Starks, who hate the Frey's and want to see them punished.

He is also apparently promising loyalty to Stannis, IF Davos does his biding. He is using Davos to perform a function for him, while keeping the fact that Davos is alive very secretive. It would be easy to kill Davos and very few people would not know that Davos really didn't die and had his head and hand placed on pike on a castle wall. This works if the Lannister's keep the throne. IF for some reason that Stannis should prevail and take the Iron Throne, then Manderly looks like an ally to Stannis. It's really smart, the way he could potentially be playing both sides, depending on the outcome. 

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Robett brings in Wex - the Ironborn mute that was Theon’s squire who knows that Bran and Rickon were not captured and killed. It's because of this information that Lord Manderly has put together his plan. He didn't know Davos was coming, but now that he is there he can act on his plan. In exchange he will rally the north to support Stannis. It's implied that he wants to reinstall Rickon as Lord of Winterfell. Lord Wyman knows the same tales that Davos has heard, but he corrects it all with the truth, including that Theon is still alive and that Ramsay Bolton is the bastard that put Winterfell to the sword. He also tells Davos about Ramsay’s sport of hunting maids through the woods.

I think Manderly is using Davos  to get to Rickon, but there is no way I think that Davos is the only man in Westeros who can take a ship into Skagos and take a boy out. How is this a smuggling mission? This is a cloak and dagger, smash and grab mission. Or a mission for a warrior, which Davos is not. I think the reason that Manderly wants it to be secret is because he is still not sure what he might want to do with Rickon, if he get's his hands on him.

Now, it's possible that Manderly does want to set Rickon on the seat of Winterfell, but he will do it with the boy (is Rickon 5 now, maybe 6?) as a puppet with Wyman in charge and running the show. And there is possibly a marriage in Rickon's future to a Manderly granddaughter in this case, both Wynifryd and Wylla are free, but much older than Rickon, not that age really matters in marriage. We have seen that already in this story, with Margaery and Tommen or with Tyrek Lannister and his infant bride Ermesande. 

Painting Ramsey's crimes to Davos is only a way to help paint Ramsay as a blackguard, which helps motivate Davos in this mission. But Davos has no choice. It's either help or die. IF Stannis does prevail, then Davos could tell Stannis how loyal that Manderly has been to the Starks, which will make Manderly seem like an easy ally for Stannis, someone to put in charge of the rule of the north. 

I am not saying that Wyman wants the seat of Winterfell for himself, but he want's the power and prestige, not unlike Tywin attempting to rule the kingdom for Joffrey, and later Tommen.

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Wyman Manderly could have remained at White Harbor and not gone to the Bolton wedding.

I don't know that he could avoid going to Winterfell if he doesn't want to thumb his nose at Roose. Roose has called the houses of the north to Winterfell and to avoid going is just the same as declaring against the Bolton rule. Even if Manderly has a fleet and an army (which is really helpful that he didn't use them when Robb needed them. Okay, the fleet needed to be built, but what about the money he is holding that could have helped Robb's effort or the apparent armed men he was withholding from the war effort. Sounds like Barbrey Dustin, to me) 

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

GRRM said ADWD is the midpoint and widest part of the story, and that it would narrow down to an ending after it. It's about time that the Starks start winning instead of continuing to have failure after failure. This Manderly/Davos chapter is a turning point.

How do we really know the Starks are ever going to win? I hope so, but it's just one kick in the teeth after another. If the 5th book is the midpoint, then we have 4 or 5 books to possibly tell the rest of the story? That's a lot of story telling. And most stories are actually divided into three act's, so I don't even know if we have gotten to the end of the second act yet, which in movies and stories has rising action and is when it seems like the protagonists will not be able to resolve the problem because they don't have the necessary skills needed to accomplish their goals. The second act is usually the longest part of the story. I have no idea of GRRM is dividing his story this way, but it's a common writing structure and is used in movies and television, which GRRM certainly has experience with.

I am not saying the way you have defined things isn't going to happen, and it very well could. But I see a different possibility. One thing that has become apparent to me in GRRM's writing is that we need to look beyond the words and look at the hidden narrative. It the story proceeds just as you have described and just as the narrative lays it out, then there is no surprise or twist. And I think GRRM loves twists, and has several coming for us.

Of course, if Wylis told Wyman he was feed human meat at Harrenhal, this could continue Wyman's need for vengeance and explain the idea of the pies, but that wasn't the Frey's that did that, it was Gregor Clegane (under a Lannister banner) who ruled Harrenhal while that occurred.

Wex's numbers are off. He claims there were six people, but in reality there were seven under that tree. Bran and Rickon, Osha and Hodor, Meera and Jojen, and Luwin makes seven. Now, I understand the implication is that Luwin was mercy killed by Osha, and that might be why Wex's numbers seem off, but it's still odd. Osha was left alone with Luwin and it's possible he told her something important before she ended his life. Even if the six came to Luwin after the Boltons had searched the godswood, then Luwin was alive and Wex should count him. And if Luwin was alive under the heart tree, how did Ramsay's men not see him? And how do Summer and Shaggy not notice Wex following them? Something about this doesn't seem quite right to me, but I could be looking at it too hard.

Wyman tells Davos that all he is waiting for is to get Wylis back from the Lannister's and then his subterfuge can end. Except Wylis is back and Wyman hasn't changed his plan. He is still playing. He could just thumb his nose at Roose, but he doesn't. There is more to his plot than he claims. I remain suspicious of Wyman Manderly but its fine if other people don't. We all interpret this story differently. I have fallen into a bit of a "trust no one" hole in my last couple of rereads. As I said up thread, I would be very satisfied if Wyman proves to be loyal to the Starks. I hope that is what happens. Hope for the best, expect the worst has become my motto while reading these books.

[Brad Stark]

We are inclined to trust Wyman as we hate the Freys.  But he has done cruel things to people who don't necessarily deserve it and I don't doubt he'd do anything to get ahead.  I don't trust him. 

[Melifeather]

17 hours ago, St Daga said:

If it's the short story by Roald Dahl that you are talking about, I know the story. While some interpretations are about revenge, I don't see it that way. The wife does murder her husband with a leg of lamb/mutton, but I feel it's not really revenge, more than a sudden reaction. Yes, the husband seems to want a divorce, but revenge seems a bit much of a motive for me to buy. Had he left her or divorced her, then perhaps her murder would be vengeance. But it's only mentioned and she goes off the deep end. Her actions are not of a rational human. Of course, people can interpret things as they chose. After the death, then the wife starts thinking of ways to cover her crime, and ends up feeding the murder weapon, "the evidence" to detectives who happen to be her husbands coworkers. It's more a symbol of a crime that goes unpunished, actually.

Lambs are a traditional sacrifice for gods, but you typically don't get to eat it afterward. It's slaughtered to allow the blood (life-force) to run over the altar, and then burned (cremated) afterward. If you ate it, it wouldn't be a true sacrifice for you to kill it. Therefore, eating a leg from the lamb is sort of like an abomination of the sacrifice. It would be a shocking rebuke or insult, which fits with the idea of revenge, especially if it were to be eaten in front of the person that you felt did you wrong. 

[St Daga]

8 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

17 hours ago, St Daga said:

If it's the short story by Roald Dahl that you are talking about, I know the story. While some interpretations are about revenge, I don't see it that way. The wife does murder her husband with a leg of lamb/mutton, but I feel it's not really revenge, more than a sudden reaction. Yes, the husband seems to want a divorce, but revenge seems a bit much of a motive for me to buy. Had he left her or divorced her, then perhaps her murder would be vengeance. But it's only mentioned and she goes off the deep end. Her actions are not of a rational human. Of course, people can interpret things as they chose. After the death, then the wife starts thinking of ways to cover her crime, and ends up feeding the murder weapon, "the evidence" to detectives who happen to be her husbands coworkers. It's more a symbol of a crime that goes unpunished, actually.

Lambs are a traditional sacrifice for gods, but you typically don't get to eat it afterward. It's slaughtered to allow the blood (life-force) to run over the altar, and then burned (cremated) afterward. If you ate it, it wouldn't be a true sacrifice for you to kill it. Therefore, eating a leg from the lamb is sort of like an abomination of the sacrifice. It would be a shocking rebuke or insult, which fits with the idea of revenge, especially if it were to be eaten in front of the person that you felt did you wrong. 

Even the Christian bible is conflicted on eating the meat of sacrificed animals. Here is a quote from Rational Christianity. 

Quote

 

Paul's teaching, which he explains in Romans 14:14-23 and 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, is that eating food sacrificed to idols is not wrong in and of itself, but is better avoided for the sake of Christians who think it is wrong and would consequently be led into sin (Rom 14:23).

While eating food that has been sacrificed to idols is not wrong, participating in idol worship is. Part of the idol worship of the time may have involved sacrificing meat to an idol and then feasting on the meat in celebration of the idol. In this case, participating in the feast would be participating in the worship of the idol, just as partaking of Communion is an act of worshiping Christ - a parallel Paul draws in 1 Corinthians 10:15-18. Therefore vv. 20-21 refer to eating sacrificed meat at an idol feast and thus practicing idolatry (as opposed to buying sacrificed meat in the market, or eating sacrificed meat at an ordinary meal in someone's home).

 

I am under the belief that in some Norse culture, when a sacrifice was placed before the gods, part of that sacrifice could be consumed by people, in a method of feasting with the gods. This might not be correct all of the time, but there is evidence of this from Iceland. This is some information on blot, the sacred sacrifice time of the Norse peoples, from the National Museum of Denmark.

Quote

 

It was always important for the Vikings to be on good terms with the gods. In order to ensure that this was the case they made “blót” sacrifices. The blót was an exchange, in which they sacrificed to the gods in order to get something back in return. For example, this might the gods’ goodwill regarding weather, fertility or luck in battle.

Various forms of rituals were presumably practised on small farms, but the larger ceremonies took place at the magnates residences. Here the farmers of the area met on certain occasions to worship the gods in a great sacrifice knows as "blot". At the great blot celebrations the local magnate functioned as a "gode" (a pagan preist)- the practitioner of the cult. The blot feasts were also a way in which the magnate could display his wealth and power, for instance, by supplying food and drink to all.

One of the most comprehensive descriptions of a blót sacrifice in the North can be found in Hakon the Good’s Saga, which was written by the Icelander Snorri Sturluson in the 1200s.

Sigurd Håkonsson, like his father, frequently made sacrifices. It was the common practice that all farmers from the area gathered at the temple to sacrifice. All were given food throughout the celebration.

Many different animals were sacrificed, especially horses. The blood from the sacrificed animals was collected in bowls and twigs were used to spatter the blood on altars, walls and cult participants. The meat was cooked and then eaten by all in attendance. It was boiled in cauldrons that hung over a fire in the middle of the hall. Full cups of beer were carried around the fire and the magnate, who was the pagan priest, then blessed the meat and the cups.

The sacrificial rituals of the Vikings ranged from great festivals in magnate’s halls to offerings of weapons, jewellery and tools in lakes.  Humans and animals were also hung from the trees in holy groves, according to written sources. The Vikings repeatedly used certain sacrificial sites, because they believed that there was particularly strong contact with the gods at these locations. From the accounts of the Christian missionaries we know that the Vikings sacrificed to statues, which stood out in natural surroundings or in cult buildings.

It is believed that there were four fixed blót sacrifices a year at the following times: winter solstice, spring equinox, summer solstice and autumn equinox. The Vikings also held additional blót sacrifices, for example, if a crisis arose that required help from the gods.

 

 

However, I am not suggesting that the leg of lamb has anything to do with eating of a sacrifice, I am suggesting that we see Wendel holding it as a sign that he has perhaps been a sacrifice. If it wasn't just Wendel, three times in that chapter, noted to be holding his leg of lamb, I might not lean toward this so heavily. I think perhaps you are saying that it's a symbol (to us) that Wyman will take revenge on Wendel's death, and I guess that can be possible. But since I don't view that leg of lamb as a sign of revenge, I lean toward it being a symbol of a sacrifice. 

Now, if Wendel had been holding something besides a leg of lamb, perhaps a lamb chop, I would still see this connection, because was part of the symbolism involved as lambs as sacrifices. I suppose it could be argued that this whole Red Wedding slaughter was a sacrifice that Walder Frey paid. But why is it Wendel three times with his leg of lamb?

Quote

By the time the telling was done, it was dark outside and Sam was licking his fingers. "That was good, but now I'd like a leg of lamb. A whole leg, just for me, sauced with mint and honey and cloves. Did you see any lambs?" ACOK-Jon III

This is the passage where Jon and Sam eat Gilly's rabbit, but Sam want's more. He wants a leg of lamb and he is asking Jon if he'd seen any lambs, presumably to kill and offer up as dinner. In that case, the lamb would be a sacrifice to Sam and his hunger. Lambs are often used as a sacrificial animal, and the term "lead like a lamb to slaughter" also describes those who go innocently and unconcernedly into a dangerous or life threatening situation. That could describe every person who feasted and celebrated and then died at the Red Wedding, but the imagery hangs only over Wendel Manderly. If multiple legs of lamb had been served, and noted with different characters, then it would highlight the whole group as being led to slaughter, but the Leg of Lamb belongs only to Wendel's imagery in this scene. I think that is a clue from the author, but if other people don't see it that way, that is fine. We all interpret things differently.

 

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

Paul's teaching, which he explains in Romans 14:14-23 and 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, is that eating food sacrificed to idols is not wrong in and of itself, but is better avoided for the sake of Christians who think it is wrong and would consequently be led into sin (Rom 14:23).

While eating food that has been sacrificed to idols is not wrong, participating in idol worship is. Part of the idol worship of the time may have involved sacrificing meat to an idol and then feasting on the meat in celebration of the idol. In this case, participating in the feast would be participating in the worship of the idol, just as partaking of Communion is an act of worshiping Christ - a parallel Paul draws in 1 Corinthians 10:15-18. Therefore vv. 20-21 refer to eating sacrificed meat at an idol feast and thus practicing idolatry (as opposed to buying sacrificed meat in the market, or eating sacrificed meat at an ordinary meal in someone's home).

No, I'm cool with agreeing to disagree with this whole leg of lamb issue, so perhaps I'm going too far off on a tangent with this, but I wanted to point out that Paul's teachings came after Jesus was dead. The disciples preached "the good news" about what Jesus's death meant, and made converts by telling them that there was a new covenant. The Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy, had a lot of rules that the Jews were obligated to follow, and if they sinned by breaking one of those rules there were instructions - a specific sacrifice which included burning so that God would be pleased by being able to discern the sacrifice. However, those that followed Jesus's teachings were taught that HE was the ultimate sacrifice, therefore they did not have to follow the old covenant. Every sin could be forgiven, because Jesus was their sacrificial "lamb", but you obviously didn't have his body to burn repeatedly every time someone sinned. His death paid for every sin, so all that is left is repentance. This is the confusion that Paul was trying to rectify in the passage you've quoted. The various congregations (Ephesians, Corinthians, Romans, etc)  wrote to Paul asking for clarifications whenever they weren't sure if they were following this new Christian faith correctly, and then he would write back. That is why Paul's books in the Bible are referred to as "letters". 

Edited to add: Paul was telling the Romans and Corinthians that idol worship is wrong, and if you're eating food that was sacrificed to an idol, then you are committing idolatry. 

[St Daga]

9 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

No, I'm cool with agreeing to disagree with this whole leg of lamb issue, so perhaps I'm going too far off on a tangent with this, but I wanted to point out that Paul's teachings came after Jesus was dead. The disciples preached "the good news" about what Jesus's death meant, and made converts by telling them that there was a new covenant. The Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy, had a lot of rules that the Jews were obligated to follow, and if they sinned by breaking one of those rules there were instructions - a specific sacrifice which included burning so that God would be pleased by being able to discern the sacrifice. However, those that followed Jesus's teachings were taught that HE was the ultimate sacrifice, therefore they did not have to follow the old covenant. Every sin could be forgiven, because Jesus was their sacrificial "lamb", but you obviously didn't have his body to burn repeatedly every time someone sinned. His death paid for every sin, so all that is left is repentance. This is the confusion that Paul was trying to rectify in the passage you've quoted. The various congregations (Ephesians, Corinthians, Romans, etc)  wrote to Paul asking for clarifications whenever they weren't sure if they were following this new Christian faith correctly, and then he would write back. That is why Paul's books in the Bible are referred to as "letters". 

Edited to add: Paul was telling the Romans and Corinthians that idol worship is wrong, and if you're eating food that was sacrificed to an idol, then you are committing idolatry. 

 

Quote

 

1 Corinthians 8:4-13 New International Version (NIV)

⁴ So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” ⁵ For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), ⁶ yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

⁷ But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. ⁸ But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

⁹ Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. ¹⁰ For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? ¹¹ So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.¹² When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. ¹³ Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

 

 

Quote

 In 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, Paul clarifies the teaching on this subject. First, he says that eating meat offered to an idol is not immoral, because “an idol is nothing at all.” An idol is an inanimate object. “Food,” he says, “does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.” The meat itself is amoral. However, there is more to consider, namely the brother with a weak conscience. Some believers, especially those with a background of idol worship, were still very sensitive concerning this issue and considered it morally wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Under no circumstances, Paul says, should a believer encourage another believer to violate his conscience. To the pure, all things are pure (Titus 1:15), but to one with a weak conscience, meat taken from pagan temples was spiritually defiled. It would be better never to eat meat again than to cause a believer to sin against his conscience. 

I basically interpret this to say that if I am not bothered by eating this meat, then I can eat it and my conscious is clear. But if you (my neighbor) are bothered by me eating this meat and it tempts you (my neighbor) then I should abstain so as not to tempt you (my neighbor) into activity you (my neighbor) considers a sin. However, if you don't know where the meat comes from, and I don't tell you, then you can eat the meat with a clear conscious, as can I. Of course, that is subterfuge and so it's best not to serve the meat to you (my neighbor) to start with. It's a whole lot of gray area, but there is a lot of gray in this world. But the meat itself is not amoral and neither am I for eating it, since I don't consider it a sin. It's a bit like the military's "don't ask, don't tell" past directive, which really didn't work well, and is no longer in use. 

*Of course, the blot sacrifice that I talked up up thread would be considered immoral in these terms, as it occurs during active worship of gods (idols) other than God, and would be considered a sin, both the eating of the meat and the act of the sacrifice.

**Sorry about all the odd fonts, formatting and sizes. Sometimes cutting and pasting is not the best option, but I am lazy. And yes, we can agree to disagree on this. 

[St Daga]

On 8/31/2018 at 4:32 AM, Black Crow said:

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

http://www.newrepubl...artin-interview#
“You have to turn on the computer, and just look at the scene,” he said, “and suddenly Jon Snow is in the forest and there are enemies after him and what is he gonna eat and what is your next sentence, what is your next word?” 

Their passion will continue to torment Jon and Arya throughout the trilogy, until the secret of Jon's true parentage is finally revealed in the last book

 

Oh you think he's dead do you?

To turn back to the idea presented early in this thread, there has been debate on whether Jon is dead and will be in need of resurrection. There has also been discussion, perhaps in Heresy 212, that both Bran and Arya might have died and also been resurrected on the down low (Bran with his fall and Arya with her drinking from the pool in the House of Black and White). Tyrion also had his drowning/near drowning in the Sorrows, and Dany has walked into Drogo's pyre and herself might have died and been reborn. 

So, taking all this into consideration, how ironic would it be if the 5 people that GRRM's initial outline for this story listed as "making it" through all three volumes all actually died earlier in the narrative and were reborn. They only "make it" to the end because they are not truly the same as when they started. That gives them all a Jesus-like quality, perhaps tied to them being children of gods or chosen by the gods?

If this is the case, then Jon's death and rebirth would need to be just as subtle as the possible deaths and rebirths of Bran, Arya, Tyrion and Daenerys. In the category of speculation but no confirmation, perhaps until the very conclusion of the story.

This would certainly set these five in a different category than other characters who we know have died and still manage to walk the earth, like Beric (I know he's dead now, but...) and Catelyn. And possibly Gregor Clegane fit's in this category as well. A much changed version of themselves then they were before, not just emotionally, but physically altered and emotionally distanced from who they were before.

[Melifeather]

3 hours ago, St Daga said:

 

 

I basically interpret this to say that if I am not bothered by eating this meat, then I can eat it and my conscious is clear. But if you (my neighbor) are bothered by me eating this meat and it tempts you (my neighbor) then I should abstain so as not to tempt you (my neighbor) into activity you (my neighbor) considers a sin. However, if you don't know where the meat comes from, and I don't tell you, then you can eat the meat with a clear conscious, as can I. Of course, that is subterfuge and so it's best not to serve the meat to you (my neighbor) to start with. It's a whole lot of gray area, but there is a lot of gray in this world. But the meat itself is not amoral and neither am I for eating it, since I don't consider it a sin. It's a bit like the military's "don't ask, don't tell" past directive, which really didn't work well, and is no longer in use. 

*Of course, the blot sacrifice that I talked up up thread would be considered immoral in these terms, as it occurs during active worship of gods (idols) other than God, and would be considered a sin, both the eating of the meat and the act of the sacrifice.

**Sorry about all the odd fonts, formatting and sizes. Sometimes cutting and pasting is not the best option, but I am lazy. And yes, we can agree to disagree on this. 

Isn’t it amusing then that Wyman may or may not have butchered the missing Freys and baked their meat in some pies. If he doesn’t tell the wedding guests, then their conscious is clear.

[St Daga]

9 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Isn’t it amusing then that Wyman may or may not have butchered the missing Freys and baked their meat in some pies. If he doesn’t tell the wedding guests, then their conscious is clear.

That is how I see it. And even the story of the rat cook hints to us that feeding human meat isn't really a problem, nor is outright murder, but the murder of a guest is a problem, that is what got the Rat Cook his eternal curse.  Of course, Wyman seems to skirt this pitfall by giving his three Frey's parting gifts that seem to indicate the end of the guest right that was offered, leaving the Frey's open to be killed (and perhaps eaten) with no curse directed down on Wyman. In this case, it does seem like Wyman is very aware of curses and superstition and appears to be protecting himself. 

[Melifeather]

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

That is how I see it. And even the story of the rat cook hints to us that feeding human meat isn't really a problem, nor is outright murder, but the murder of a guest is a problem, that is what got the Rat Cook his eternal curse.  Of course, Wyman seems to skirt this pitfall by giving his three Frey's parting gifts that seem to indicate the end of the guest right that was offered, leaving the Frey's open to be killed (and perhaps eaten) with no curse directed down on Wyman. In this case, it does seem like Wyman is very aware of curses and superstition and appears to be protecting himself. 

Revising my thoughts on this somewhat. While I agree the parting guest gifts indicate they were no longer guests, feeding unaware guests human flesh may not remove any liability. I'm thinking on the Bael the Bard story and how his son killed him - cursing the son, even though the son killed his father unawares, he's still a kinslayer in the eyes of the old gods. Being unaware may not be protective enough for eating human flesh unawares, although I find it hard to believe the Children would be apposed to eating human flesh. It seems to me that they view any type of flesh as food, if the scattered bones in the caves are any indication.

[Brad Stark]

Wyman is not so much worried about what the old gods may do as his own sense of right and wrong.  The Freys broke the guest right, which was wrong.  Wyman clearly avoided breaking the rules doing what he felt was right.  

If he feared the old gods would take revenge themselves (either on him or the Freys) he never would have made the pies, instead waiting for the old gods to take their own revenge.