Jump to content
scumhorror

the dwarf woman's dream in storm of swords.

Recommended Posts

I'm doing a reread of the series and I came across this quote...

"I dreamt of a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, venom dripping from their fangs. And later I dreamt that maid again, slaying a savage giant in a castle built of snow.”

The first half sounds like it is foreshadowing sansa at joffery's wedding so what is the deal with the second half? I'm sure this has been discussed to exhaustion but I can't find anything on it in the search engine (not really sure if I am using it correctly.) If there is an existing thread on it I would love to read it if some one could post a link.

Thanks.

Edited by scumhorror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, scumhorror said:

I'm doing a reread of the series and I came across this quote...

"I dreamt of a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, venom dripping from their fangs. And later I dreamt that maid again, slaying a savage giant in a castle built of snow.”

The first half sounds like it is foreshadowing sansa at joffery's wedding so what is the deal with the second half? I'm sure this has been discussed to exhaustion but I can't find anything on it in the search engine (not really sure if I am using it correctly.) If there is an existing thread on it I would love to read it if some one could post a link.

Thanks.

Unlike some people here, I believe the second part refers to Sansa destroying Robert's doll inside the Winterfell snow castle, at the end of the novel, as one would realize after reading that part. But apparently that's too simple for some folks. I do not envy Mr. Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lady Anna said:

Unlike some people here, I believe the second part refers to Sansa destroying Robert's doll inside the Winterfell snow castle, at the end of the novel, as one would realize after reading that part. But apparently that's too simple for some folks. I do not envy Mr. Martin. 

It's possible but there is no significance in Sansa destroying a doll so it's ruled out. But this is a common plot tactic by Alfred Hitchcock

Quote

“There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I'll explain what I mean.

We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!"

In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.”

This could be the case for the doll, GRRM is foreshadowing what seems to be an important event, but instead he builds suspense and in a plot twist never sets "the bomb" off. Another Alfred Hitchcock quote

Quote

There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kleevedge said:

It's possible but there is no significance in Sansa destroying a doll so it's ruled out. But this is a common plot tactic by Alfred Hitchcock

This could be the case for the doll, GRRM is foreshadowing what seems to be an important event, but instead he builds suspense and in a plot twist never sets "the bomb" off. Another Alfred Hitchcock quote

 

What do you mean it's 'ruled out'? Sansa destroying the doll IS what the dream refers to. Or are you saying that that scene is just a coincidence matching the old woman's dream? It's not a red herring, it is what it says. But - and this is what I thought you guys mean with all those threads - some people say it will be used later by Martin as foreshadowing something else. I disagree.

The ''significance'' is in the dream being metaphorical; by reading it you would never think of a doll and a small snow castle, but of a more literal event, or at least the ''giant'' representing a person. And the fact it's Sansa would be surprising, but it turns out to be a doll and a snow castle, naturally. Neither that part or the first part of the dream are straight, literal, visions (is Sansa's hair actually made of serpents?) (Oh but apparently the second part is not, according to some, Sansa! Woah. We're at the 'directly contradicting the text' phase.)

I don't see the problem with it. And I don't need a Hitchcock explanation to explain something so simple, that million writers have done before, and continue to do. But you guys are free to think of endless possibilities that will never happen about something that has already happened, and I am free to not be interested in discussing those alternate realities.

Edited by Lady Anna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lady Anna said:

What do you mean it's 'ruled out'? Sansa destroying the doll IS what the dream refers to. Or are you saying that that scene is just a coincidence matching the old woman's dream? It's not a red herring, it is what it says. But - and this is what I thought you guys mean with all those threads - some people say it will be used later by Martin as foreshadowing something else. I disagree.

The ''significance'' is in the dream being metaphorical; by reading it you would never think of a doll and a small snow castle, but of a more literal event, or at least the ''giant'' representing a person. And the fact it's Sansa would be surprising, but it turns out to be a doll and a snow castle, naturally. Neither that part or the first part of the dream are straight, literal, visions (is Sansa's hair actually made of serpents?) (Oh but apparently the second part is not, according to some, Sansa! Woah. We're at the 'directly contradicting the text' phase.) 

I don't see the problem with it. And I don't need a Hitchcock explanation to explain something so simple, that million writers have done before, and continue to do. But you guys are free to think of endless possibilities that will never happen about something that has already happened, and I am free to not be interested in discussing those alternate realities.

Just FYI the purpose of the Hitchcock quote was to validate you're theory...but that seems to have went over your head. Also the reason I said It's "ruled out" is referring to people's interpretation of the prophecy, not due to lack of evidence. A general consensus believe the prophecy is signifying something more substantial than just Sansa destroying a doll, though if you reread what I said about building false suspense you will see that it is still a possibility. You are as free to discuss your alternate theories, as anyone else is, but I was not discussing an alternate theory, merely expanding on the principles of your theory.

Edited by kleevedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The doll scene could have been written to confirm for the reader that Sansa was the fair maid with purple serpents, or it could have been written to add to the foreshadowing of the vision. I suspect it was written for the latter reason, and to help the reader relate the savage giant to Petyr. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

The doll scene could have been written to confirm for the reader that Sansa was the fair maid with purple serpents, or it could have been written to add to the foreshadowing of the vision. I suspect it was written for the latter reason, and to help the reader relate the savage giant to Petyr. 

I think it was written to show the reader that you can't trust prophecy, you never know when it will bite your prick off.

Prophecy may be about an important event physically, or an important event metaphorically. It is subject to the limited understanding and interpretation of the prophet, who not only doesn't necessarily understand the 'correct' context for what they 'see', but also has to choose the imperfect language used to convey what they saw.

I think Sweetrobin's giant doll destroying Sansa's Winterfell snowcastle was the start of a pivotal metaphorical moment for her. It was the first time she actually defended her family, the first moment she took on agency of her own as a Stark. A pivotal point in the fair maid's journey.
So for the fair maid it was a prophecy-worthy moment, but to us it seemed minor and inconsequential. Because its prophecy, we are inclined to look for something more dramatic, more worthy on a world stage of prophecy. And so, while accurate (not even Gorghan said it was inaccurate), it bites off our prick because we misunderstand it and apply it wrongly.

Or maybe not, we'll see. :read:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2018 at 1:49 AM, kleevedge said:

Just FYI the purpose of the Hitchcock quote was to validate you're theory...but that seems to have went over your head. Also the reason I said It's "ruled out" is referring to people's interpretation of the prophecy, not due to lack of evidence. A general consensus believe the prophecy is signifying something more substantial than just Sansa destroying a doll, though if you reread what I said about building false suspense you will see that it is still a possibility. You are as free to discuss your alternate theories, as anyone else is, but I was not discussing an alternate theory, merely expanding on the principles of your theory.

Well I first responded to the part where you said it was ''ruled out''. Excuse me if I misread it but I assumed you meant that it was impossible that it referred to the scene with the doll. And I did get the Hitchcock thing, but since my interpretation of Sansa's scene is different, I don't see it as the kind of situation he refers to. 

Edited by Lady Anna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could simply refer to Robert Arryn’s pretend giant (his doll). But it could hint that in the future Sansa will take out Littlefinger and take his place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×