Theories on Magic in Westeros

[chrisdaw]

Magic is fuelled by souls. Souls can be divided. Valyrian steel for example are blades in which part of a soul has entered and exists within the steel. Varamyr's death is a first hand account of the process of a soul leaving the body and ending up in something else.

The magical attributes persist but wane over time. Every magical ability a bloodline possesses began with death, most probably a sacrifice.

[Lord Varys]

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

If you say so?

Well, yeah. Or can you deny that I could just as well reduce as magic to ice, or air, or divine intervention (all magic caused by one of the gods from the various religions which might all be real) and so on. All we can say is that magic works to various degrees, and certain spells work better for some reasons since the dragons are back.

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

Which is what tinfoil is for. Bridging the gaps between facts with speculation in order to try and piece together something that makes sense to us for the purpose of this discussion. ;-)

I'm interested in how George actually portrays magic, not how it could be seen if we assume it unified system explaining every aspect of it.

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

That's obviously the simplest, least-entity-multiplying explanation. I have no idea when GRRM is aiming for that or for bucking that trend and going full-bore sillymarillion-level complexity.

If George wanted gods to play a role in his story they would feature much more prominently in the story. For instance, we would only have priests or pious followers of certain religions actually to have 'magical powers'. But that's not how things are. There are priests with magical power, but there are also people with magical power who don't follow any religion at all as far as we know.

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

But she wasn't burning. Rattleshirt was. Something about the magic she was using created a psychic link that exhausted her physically and caused her to feel as though she were burning.  To me that seems more than just "magic is magic".

Yeah, there was a link there. And this link implies that Melisandre would actually burn and die if thrown into a fire. She is not immune to fire, just as dragons are not immune to it.

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

And indeed it doesn't mean that she can't burn, but I don't think not feeling the cold means she can't freeze either? As I said, I'm not sure what's going on with Melisandre. I'm sure we're not meant to be.

Doesn't she feel the cold? I think she just doesn't freeze at the Wall. But she may still feel that it is colder up there compared to Dragonstone. And she might certainly freeze if she ended up at a very cold place like the Heart of Winter, etc.

I mean, we recently learned that dragons, too, feel the cold.

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

We don't see what the fire mage did to perform that conjuration or to learn the art itself, only that this feat was something he could not have done until recently. As for wildfire that seems to be more alchemy than sorcery in that the "substance" can be produced even during a time of "magic drought" with apparently only a minor loss of efficiency.

Hallyne implies that spells are part of the production process of wildfire, indicating that this is magic. We have no reason to presuppose that all spells or magic was prepared/made possible by (blood) sacrifices just because some are. There is no evidence indicating that this is the case.

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

Tyrion speculates as to the mundane nature of the traps that they use to extinguish runaway cubicles and then we are presented with an increase in production after the return of dragons/red comet/whatever. Not sure what the magic part of wildfire's production is but I wouldn't bet money it didn't involve some kind of bloodshed. These guys were in pretty thick with the Mad King and generous with green stuff and of course there was Westeros' own Fiery Hand, extinguished during the Sack. I don't think they would flinch from it but I also doubt it would be the kind of thing that would require slitting a throat for every batch- but we don't really know. Valyrian steel swords swallowed the incomes of families and kingdoms, wilfire seems to be much more modest. What is the going rate for magic and for human life?

There is evidence for any of that, either. Some spells need blood sacrifices, others do not. Valyrian steel needs them, apparently, especially for the reforging spells, but pretending all spells do need such things is just not indicated by the text.

Glamors don't need blood sacrifices, nor does taking on a face the Faceless Men method. And it is a spell/magic wearing such a face. Something happens to you and the face.

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

Or at least we know that some maesters said that?

No, that was a picture description and stands as such outside the in-universe status of the book. The illustrations are not part of Yandel's book.

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

I don't think any magic is natural, or that it "just works". I do think it involves tapping into a network of energy that exists outside of linear space-time. This is why things like greendreams and prophecy are possible and why sacrifice is not always directly associated with action but is always a part of the process. In the cases that we see the best, the Stark children and their various inheritances, we can see through Bran's vision the progression of his ancestors up to that point where I believe they first became part of this system through blood sacrifice.

Magic is certainly natural in the world. It exists and it works. There is no reason to believe magic comes from the outside or shouldn't be an integral part of Martinworld. 

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

As for additional sacrifices, I'm open to the idea(s). What do you mean, exactly?

I think the Northmen are going to revive the blood sacrifice practice to literally feed Bran.

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

Exactly. I think that the world is already paying a heavy toll for the use of magic.

I don't think so. Magic is natural in this world, and you can use it as a weapon, and some magics are very terrible weapons. But this doesn't make magic as such bad.

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

As for who can do it, my suspicion is that anyone willing to pay the price can do blood magic and anyone who is part of a system of soul energy has at least some potential to participate in some of that system- only a small number of those in the Old Gods' system are skinchangers, for example, and a smaller number greenseers it has been said. I don't know why certain people are "chosen" but I feel that taking part in said systems has the explanatory power of "destiny fulfillment", perhaps? The weirnet to some extant exists beyond time as humans perceive it. The acorn, the tree, the stump, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps the cycle itself has some influence over how it manifests its gifts- the weirnet certainly seems to be devoid of any guiding intelligence so perhaps it is either chance or "fate"?

I'd rather say that this is chance. Completely meaningless in the long run of things.

The idea that blood sacrifices give you longterm magical abilities down the road doesn't sound really convincing to me. Magic and spells are done individually. One spell at a time, one shadow assassin at a time, etc. The Targaryen thing seems to go back to a literally mingling of blood. The blood of the dragon simply is inherited.

22 hours ago, hiemal said:

Incidentally, I do think it is possible that the sacrifice of body parts may also play a role- is that what you mean? BR's eye, Bran's legs?

There is talked about greenseers being marked (and Children greenseers having a shorter rather than a longer lifespan) but this seems to be realized in Bloodraven being an albino. Bran might be marked by his legs, but he is not really marked by birth, so he is special in that case (or George only came up with the marked thing long after he had first described Bran).

[Lady Barbrey]

13 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Kings Blood is not genetic. It’s spiritual. Theon has King’s blood, but his grandfather didn’t, because the Iron Isles had no King in his day. 

Robb had King’s blood, but Ned didn’t, or at least, it was heavily diluted by 300 years of the Starks not being Kings anymore.

Mance has King’s Blood, but his nameless father didn’t. Drogo had King’s blood enough to raise a Dragon, even though he was descended from a savage.

King’s blood has power invested in it due to the intangible status imbued into a King by some spiritual aspect of his status. Not by some genetic lineage to some ancient hero, which a hundred million people on the planet will share after so many generations.

I liken it to a scene in one of David Gemmell’s Druss the Legend books, where a shaman looks at Druss and Ulric Khan through his second sight, seeing not their physical statures but their spiritual auras. And in spiritual form they tower as giants over lesser men. It is that spiritual power that is akin to the lifeforce generated by a blood sacrifice.

Possibly.  I suppose we base our theories on matters of preference too, and I Iean more to genetics than spirituality, and I would argue there is a strong emphasis on power in bloodline not title in the series.  And yes, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, would share in kingsblood as I've described it but only a much smaller number, where it is interbred, would still retain it as a power in the blood to the present day.  These people would most likely be amongst royalty and nobility, who marry within a small population, or conversely, amongst the commonest of common, people whose communities have been isolated so inbreeding is also common.  We see that with Craster and other Wildlings, whose communities are completely or somewhat isolated, and the incestuous Valyrians the most, but there are also families like the Starks and possibly Blackwoods within the nobility that produce skinchangers because of intermarriage within a smaller pool so it has never been bred out.  And there will always be a genetic throwback once in a while.

But It's always possible to read this spirituality as the magical quality of the initial family as well, so we might not be too far off.

Your comparison to Druss reminds me of Tyrion being described as a giant among men or snarling amongst dragons or casting a big shadow.  If you don't subscribe to the A+J=T theory, then it might seem more likely a spiritual quality to Tyrion that people with sight are picking up on.  I, on the other hand, think the Lannisters likely have their share of the initial kingsblood, and Tywin did marry his cousin.  But I also subscribe to the A+J=T theory, in which case Tyrion is of a line of known incestuous recent interbreeders on one side, and still of a nobility that intermarried within a small pool on the other.  If this spiritual essence you advocate is tied as magical power essence to kingsblood as I advocate, Tyrion's kingsblood should be amongst the most powerful in the World, and thus so should his 'spritual' signature.

I just can't subscribe to the idea that just naming someone a king would give that person more spiritual power in essence than someone not so titled.  

[hiemal]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, yeah. Or can you deny that I could just as well reduce as magic to ice, or air, or divine intervention (all magic caused by one of the gods from the various religions which might all be real) and so on. All we can say is that magic works to various degrees, and certain spells work better for some reasons since the dragons are back.

 

I'm open to all ideas on the subject and I think it is worth discussing. I bring up specific examples or ideas partially to have run through the gauntlet of fact-checkers and partly because they may interesting implications on some other area. I do think there is meat on these bones and that with group effort it may be possible to glean something that sheds light on the story as a whole. Obviously we disagree on that.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If George wanted gods to play a role in his story they would feature much more prominently in the story. For instance, we would only have priests or pious followers of certain religions actually to have 'magical powers'. But that's not how things are. There are priests with magical power, but there are also people with magical power who don't follow any religion at all as far as we know.

I don't think anything currently being called a god is a actually a god. To some extant we have seen the Old Gods, at best R'hlorr is a usurper/pretender if not just a garbled legend/etc, the Seven are impotent if anything but symbols, etc etc.

There is something going on, however. It could be, for example, that when Thoros gave Beric the Kiss of Life and it actually worked, it was simply like he was flipping a switch he had flipped a hundred times before only now someone turned on the electricity again without telling him. It could also be that there is something like volition going on here and that someone/thing is choosing which miracles to grant.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Glamors don't need blood sacrifices, nor does taking on a face the Faceless Men method. And it is a spell/magic wearing such a face. Something happens to you and the face.
 

We don't know what is needed to cast a glamor, but it does seemed to cost Melisandre some effort to maintain it. More interesting is the illusion maintained on Mance, who bears his own pendant. That one seems much less... exhausting.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, there was a link there. And this link implies that Melisandre would actually burn and die if thrown into a fire. She is not immune to fire, just as dragons are not immune to it.

Doesn't she feel the cold? I think she just doesn't freeze at the Wall. But she may still feel that it is colder up there compared to Dragonstone. And she might certainly freeze if she ended up at a very cold place like the Heart of Winter, etc.

I mean, we recently learned that dragons, too, feel the cold.

I didn't realize we had learned that, but it doesn't surprise me. If a dragon can be incinerated I imagine it could be frozen, and perhaps far more easily. Maybe we'll find out. Eventually,

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Hallyne implies that spells are part of the production process of wildfire, indicating that this is magic. We have no reason to presuppose that all spells or magic was prepared/made possible by (blood) sacrifices just because some are. There is no evidence indicating that this is the case.

There is evidence for any of that, either. Some spells need blood sacrifices, others do not. Valyrian steel needs them, apparently, especially for the reforging spells, but pretending all spells do need such things is just not indicated by the text.

Glamors don't need blood sacrifices, nor does taking on a face the Faceless Men method. And it is a spell/magic wearing such a face. Something happens to you and the face.

We don't know what part the spells play in making wildfire, however, since the pyromancers were making the substance uninterrupted, as far as I know, since gods know when I don't think it could be anything central to the process.

I don't think that all spells are prepared or made possible by blood sacrifice. But sacrifice, yes.

And wearing a skinned face does suggest a certain amount of bloodshed. Even if they just slip on they didn't just slip off and we don't know how they are prepared. I do think it is interesting that Arya experiences flashes of the Ugly Girl's memories when she dons her face.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that was a picture description and stands as such outside the in-universe status of the book. The illustrations are not part of Yandel's book.

Ah- that's good to know. I wonder what it means? What was the pyromancer's magic? How were the Valyrian pyromancers different from their westerosi counterparts? Valyrian Steel, fused black stone, proabably Glass Candles?

Quote

"The fires of the Fourteen Flames coursing through Valyria, fuel for the pyromancer's magic."

TWoIaF

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Magic is certainly natural in the world. It exists and it works. There is no reason to believe magic comes from the outside or shouldn't be an integral part of Martinworld.

The mess the world in is in seems a powerful argument to me, time seems confused and full of unnatural twists and repetitions and anachronisms, the seasons are unpredictable and mankind has powerful enemies who use it to break the laws of nature and use the dead as a weapon. I admit it is an assumption and I'm perfectly willing to explore other lines of reasoning, like Lady B's idea of the natural order being thrown into chaos by magic's misuse and for many theories it isn't an essential difference, anyways.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I think the Northmen are going to revive the blood sacrifice practice to literally feed Bran.

Hmmm, yeah that makes sense. A lot of cannibalism going on lately. I'm not sure what the acceptable amount is in a fantasy novel but I think we passed that Donner Party milestone a while back.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd rather say that this is chance. Completely meaningless in the long run of things.

The idea that blood sacrifices give you longterm magical abilities down the road doesn't sound really convincing to me. Magic and spells are done individually. One spell at a time, one shadow assassin at a time, etc. The Targaryen thing seems to go back to a literally mingling of blood. The blood of the dragon simply is inherited.

That's a clean, economical answer.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There is talked about greenseers being marked (and Children greenseers having a shorter rather than a longer lifespan) but this seems to be realized in Bloodraven being an albino. Bran might be marked by his legs, but he is not really marked by birth, so he is special in that case (or George only came up with the marked thing long after he had first described Bran).

Gotcha.

[Lady Barbrey]

8 hours ago, By Odin's Beard said:

Quick thought, I think Jon Snow will be the new Night's King, "Jon Snow" is an "evil name" and he has had dreams of usurpation taking Winterfell for himself and killing his siblings, he has strong ambitions that he has kept repressed, but when he is raised from the dead he will be colder/harder all memory of warmth drained from him.  And he or Bran could reanimate the giant bat skeletons in Bloodraven's cave, or the one's under Harrenhal.

I just listened to the Call of Cthulhu again yesterday and there is a line

"There were legends of a hidden lake unglimpsed by mortal sight, in which dwelt a huge, formless white polypous thing with luminous eyes; and squatters whispered that bat-winged devils flew up out of caverns in inner earth to worship it at midnight."

The hidden lake is the God's Eye, the white polypous thing with luminous eyes is the weirwood on the Isle of Faces, and the bat-winged devils that flew out of caverns are the Harpies, midnight is the Long Night, they offer blood sacrifices to the polypous thing.

I think it quite possible the Night's King was called Jon Snow based on Ygritte's reaction to the name.  The Wildlings didn't abolish all mention of his name like they did South of the Wall so that seems a valid theory to me.  But as for Jon being the new Night's King with evil intent, an Other (which I think debatable re the NK, It's just as likely the NK himself wasn't an Other but had a bloodline that could be transformed to father them and so regenerate the 'species') we have to remember that he has a huge dose of interbred Valyrian ancestry as well, so all memory of warmth drained from him is unlikely unless a transitional state before fire magic floods him.

Jon will be something new, or old as I have been arguing, with two evolved branches of the same bloodline meeting again in him.  It's inaccurate but easier if you think of one bloodline, the Kings of the First Men, represented by the colour purple, the colour of kings, as having both ice (blue or grey) and fire (red) magic essences (not to mention earth, etc.), but one branch became stronger with ice in the north, the other with fire in the south.  I think of it as a Stark, Dayne divide but note these families aren't ice and fire magical in and of themselves, they just have or had (it might have died out in the Daynes) the potential to be if they are transformed with blood magic into Others and Valyrians.

'The polypous thing' made me laugh.  This Lovecraft fixation!  George did us all a disservice when he used so many references in the World Book to Lovecraft, in his attempt to convey the uncanny to his mythos of possibly malign old gods, Others and Valyrians.  I read fantasy like candy, read Arthuriana and myth, so can think of another half dozen literary foundations for the God's Eye. But on the whole your comparison works too, so why not?  If you want to go with it, you're forgetting mad Donell Lothston at nearby Harrenhal and her association to bats and demons. Maybe she was a  bat-winged devil flying over from inner earth to worship the polypous thing-corrupted weirwood? That is pretty close to the rumours about her. Lol.  But if the vehicle for a metaphor is there, I always say, why not drive it?  It might be this very quote that inspired George to give that rumour to Donell in the first place.

[Lady Barbrey]

3 hours ago, hiemal said:

Not in the sense of magic, I was just thinking about the possibilities of blood as a carrier of information(?) or power(?) in non-traditional ways. I think GRRM mentioned in one of his missives that genetics worked differently in this world. I assumed at the time it was a bit of creative ass-covering to paper over some dodgy genetics in his over-complicated family trees combining in arbitrary, plot-driven ways, but perhaps it is really all different in that is completely non-Mendelian? Just kind of spitballing on your ideas of native magic here...

Indeed- I was thinking more in terms of mythic symbolism? For example could kings' blood be virgin's blood- as in your namesake and Brandon's bloody blade, first night, etc- and queen's blood be moon blood/childbirth-related?

Exactly- I have a tinfoil that "Melisandre" is a combination of Cassandra of Troy (true visions but never believed) and the children's story character Amelia Bedelia (who takes all instructions literally with amusing consequences). Amelia+Cassandra=Melisandre

Genetics work differently in that they are not exact or detailed, but we've been pulled into a discussion of genetics from the beginning, with Robert's genes so dominant his kids can't be his.  I didn't come to the books looking at them through Mendalian genetics, the idea of genetics operating in this world loosely modelled on our own science has been thrust upon me by George!  

The idea of kingsblood as having spritual power is old and mythic and symbolic. George just made it a real concept in these novels rooted in genetics not title.  The same for blood sacrifice to feed the gods.  Societies believed in it but most of us would say they were deluding themselves.  In ASIOF, life-potency inherent in blood actually does feed the Gods or magic.  So myths such as kingsblood or blood sacrifice are actually working in this world, but at root they have a loose scientific basis, such as one magical king's line passing down magical potency genetically, thus kingsblood, or the elements of life being exchanged for elemental magic, thus blood sacrifice.

We'll have to see if virgin's blood is a thing, because It's possible!  But until we see something in the texts that imply it has power - like a maiden taming a unicorn on Skagos, for instance! - we can assume it isn't.  The other things you speak of are normal symbols for now, not magical in and of themselves.  But those symbols are enough to interpret on their own!  Swords are penises or people or even dragons!

The First Night, heavily debated in real life if it was ever systematically exercised, is another concept George has borrowed from history.  It is one explaination to me how that strain of kingly magical potency, skinchanging, etc., got spread in commoners to begin with.  A lot of bastards that could suddenly warg!

So I absolutely love the Amelia Bedelia + Cassandra thing! Lol.  Mel takes herself and mission so seriously, our Amelia Bedelia of Westeros!  Thanks for the laugh!

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, Lady Barbrey said:

Possibly.  I suppose we base our theories on matters of preference too, and I Iean more to genetics than spirituality, and I would argue there is a strong emphasis on power in bloodline not title in the series.  And yes, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, would share in kingsblood as I've described it but only a much smaller number, where it is interbred, would still retain it as a power in the blood to the present day.  These people would most likely be amongst royalty and nobility, who marry within a small population, or conversely, amongst the commonest of common, people whose communities have been isolated so inbreeding is also common.  We see that with Craster and other Wildlings, whose communities are completely or somewhat isolated, and the incestuous Valyrians the most, but there are also families like the Starks and possibly Blackwoods within the nobility that produce skinchangers because of intermarriage within a smaller pool so it has never been bred out.  And there will always be a genetic throwback once in a while.

But It's always possible to read this spirituality as the magical quality of the initial family as well, so we might not be too far off.

Your comparison to Druss reminds me of Tyrion being described as a giant among men or snarling amongst dragons or casting a big shadow.  If you don't subscribe to the A+J=T theory, then it might seem more likely a spiritual quality to Tyrion that people with sight are picking up on.  I, on the other hand, think the Lannisters likely have their share of the initial kingsblood, and Tywin did marry his cousin.  But I also subscribe to the A+J=T theory, in which case Tyrion is of a line of known incestuous recent interbreeders on one side, and still of a nobility that intermarried within a small pool on the other.  If this spiritual essence you advocate is tied as magical power essence to kingsblood as I advocate, Tyrion's kingsblood should be amongst the most powerful in the World, and thus so should his 'spritual' signature.

I just can't subscribe to the idea that just naming someone a king would give that person more spiritual power in essence than someone not so titled.  

So to expand on this. I am on record as being a proponent of magical genetic engineering in the distant past. The hybridization of species to create new magically enhanced creatures. Dragons being a prime example. And I believe ancient blood sacrifices were used to merge Valyrian human bloodlines with individual dragon lineages.

That link is indeed genetic. However to me that is different to the concept of there being power in the sacrifice of individual King’s blood.  I don’t think sacrificing Bloodraven for example, or some other  Targ bastard who happens to have a distant genetic link to Aegon the Conqueror is going to generate the lifeforce comparable to sacrificing Drogo, who is a Dothraki barbarian, but a King amongst his people.

Random Targaryen blood is required to control Targaryen dragons. But it is not King’s blood for purposes of generating life force  through blood sacrifice. 

Jon, who is the rightful king, however, does have King’s blood. Aegon who has some Targ blood through potential Blackfyre ancestors, does not.

It is not a science based on midichlorian counts. It is something spiritual. Some unseen force - maybe not even sentient - KNOWS who is a rightful king - and derives more power from those sacrifics than from others. In that respect it is indeed mysterious and unknowable.

[Lady Barbrey]

3 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

Magic is fuelled by souls. Souls can be divided. Valyrian steel for example are blades in which part of a soul has entered and exists within the steel. Varamyr's death is a first hand account of the process of a soul leaving the body and ending up in something else.

The magical attributes persist but wane over time. Every magical ability a bloodline possesses began with death, most probably a sacrifice.

Yeah, totally buy this.

[hiemal]

4 minutes ago, Lady Barbrey said:

Genetics work differently in that they are not exact or detailed, but we've been pulled into a discussion of genetics from the beginning, with Robert's genes so dominant his kids can't be his.  I didn't come to the books looking at them through Mendalian genetics, the idea of genetics operating in this world loosely modelled on our own science has been thrust upon me by George!  

The idea of kingsblood as having spritual power is old and mythic and symbolic. George just made it a real concept in these novels rooted in genetics not title.  The same for blood sacrifice to feed the gods.  Societies believed in it but most of us would say they were deluding themselves.  In ASIOF, life-potency inherent in blood actually does feed the Gods or magic.  So myths such as kingsblood or blood sacrifice are actually working in this world, but at root they have a loose scientific basis, such as one magical king's line passing down magical potency genetically, thus kingsblood, or the elements of life being exchanged for elemental magic, thus blood sacrifice.

We'll have to see if virgin's blood is a thing, because It's possible!  But until we see something in the texts that imply it has power - like a maiden taming a unicorn on Skagos, for instance! - we can assume it isn't.  The other things you speak of are normal symbols for now, not magical in and of themselves.  But those symbols are enough to interpret on their own!  Swords are penises or people or even dragons!

If anything vigin's blood goes back to the idea of usurpation, so it would be less about power and more about taking it. Just some ideas I'm playing around with.

Swords absolutely are penises, people, and dragons! Lightbringer is, imho, a kind of anti-excalibur and, I suspect more about the people and the dragons as you seem to hinting at(?) than a shiny sword. Blood on the sword, blood in the grail, everybody's junk and all of the mythos and symbolism tied up in it. That's a whole 'nother thread, though.

16 minutes ago, Lady Barbrey said:

So I absolutely love the Amelia Bedelia + Cassandra thing! Lol.  Mel takes herself and mission so seriously, our Amelia Bedelia of Westeros!  Thanks for the laugh!

 

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, hiemal said:

I'm open to all ideas on the subject and I think it is worth discussing. I bring up specific examples or ideas partially to have run through the gauntlet of fact-checkers and partly because they may interesting implications on some other area. I do think there is meat on these bones and that with group effort it may be possible to glean something that sheds light on the story as a whole. Obviously we disagree on that.

Oh, I don't think the enterprise as such is pointless, just the idea to simplify magic, or subsume/reduce it to just one element, concept, power, etc.

1 hour ago, hiemal said:

I don't think anything currently being called a god is a actually a god. To some extant we have seen the Old Gods, at best R'hlorr is a usurper/pretender if not just a garbled legend/etc, the Seven are impotent if anything but symbols, etc etc.

Well, the old gods seem to be just the greenseers. There is no other supernatural element to them - basically they are powerful, long-lived, nearly omniscient sorcerers. The whole animism behind the greenseers doesn't have any deities or gods we are aware of.

But R'hllor - if exist - could actually be a real god. He obviously would have the power over life and death which would make him a very powerful being, closer to being actually divine than any other supernatural entity that has shown up to this point. Especially since he can work his miracles/spells without actually showing up.

And the Mother apparently spoke to Davos, and the Seven in general may have helped the Elder Brother to heal Sandor (the Elder Brother has healing hands which could also be a gift from the Seven). I don't buy any of that, but if you want to see the Seven as real gods working miracles one can see them in the books.

1 hour ago, hiemal said:

There is something going on, however. It could be, for example, that when Thoros gave Beric the Kiss of Life and it actually worked, it was simply like he was flipping a switch he had flipped a hundred times before only now someone turned on the electricity again without telling him. It could also be that there is something like volition going on here and that someone/thing is choosing which miracles to grant.

Oh, I've a convoluted theory about the Dondarrion thing. I think the kiss brought Beric back because he is Targaryen descendant. I think you need the blood of the dragon to some degree for the spell (which has become part of the funeral rites of the red priests) to work. The basis for this idea is the fact that Baelor Breakspear was married to Jena Dondarrion, and I think that only happened because Jena was a Targaryen cousin through the female line (like Aelinor Penrose, the wife Baelor's brother, King Aerys I), descended either from a daughter of Alyn Velaryon and Baela Targaryen (possibly that new Laena Velaryon we got in the new FaB family tree) or from one of the six daughter of Garmund Hightower and Rhaena Targaryen.

The origin of that whole thing would then be some sort of immortality/resurrection spell the Valyrian sorcerer worked on before the Doom.

It would also do a lot to explain why Beric came back and none of the others Thoros would have used the kiss on. And Cat was either brought back because Beric transferred the working 'magical matrix' from his body to hers, or because she, too, has the blood of the dragon - in her case through a Lothston not descended from Lord Lucas but rather Aegon IV. Chances are pretty good that a Lord Tully took a Lothston to wife while they were the Lords of Harrenhal.

1 hour ago, hiemal said:

We don't know what is needed to cast a glamor, but it does seemed to cost Melisandre some effort to maintain it. More interesting is the illusion maintained on Mance, who bears his own pendant. That one seems much less... exhausting.

Not sure it is that much of deal, actually. Bloodraven/Plumm also doesn't indicate it is that much of an effort. The creation of the stone/device holding the glamor might be taxing, but wearing the thing is just somewhat strange, not all that difficult or hard to do.

1 hour ago, hiemal said:

I didn't realize we had learned that, but it doesn't surprise me. If a dragon can be incinerated I imagine it could be frozen, and perhaps far more easily. Maybe we'll find out. Eventually.

Haven't you read the excerpt from FaB from George's NAB?

1 hour ago, hiemal said:

We don't know what part the spells play in making wildfire, however, since the pyromancers were making the substance uninterrupted, as far as I know, since gods know when I don't think it could be anything central to the process.

Hallyne tells us the ancient spells work suddenly better - which is why he asks about a dragon. They were always part of the process and them working not as well as they supposedly worked back in the dragon days reduced the output of wildfire. After the sudden change Hallyne has to amend the original calculations given to Cersei.

1 hour ago, hiemal said:

I don't think that all spells are prepared or made possible by blood sacrifice. But sacrifice, yes.

We can say that it cost something. Effort, talent, endurance, stamina, will, time, etc. But I'd not say we can call all of that sacrifice. It would be like saying you have to sacrifice to get a good education. It is true, in a sense, but a poor choice of words.

But the cost thing is certainly true for a lot of magical things. Even skinchangers pay with their humanity for their marriage(s) with the animals. Their spirits bleed into the soul of the skinchanger, irrevocably staining them. There is a reason why skinchangers are abhorred and ostracized by normal people.

1 hour ago, hiemal said:

And wearing a skinned face does suggest a certain amount of bloodshed. Even if they just slip on they didn't just slip off and we don't know how they are prepared. I do think it is interesting that Arya experiences flashes of the Ugly Girl's memories when she dons her face.

Oh, I meant that Arya didn't pay anything for the spell to work on her. She wears another face and she didn't have to give anything of herself up. And for all we know such faces are taken from corpses, making it very unlikely they pay anything.

1 hour ago, hiemal said:

Ah- that's good to know. I wonder what it means? What was the pyromancer's magic? How were the Valyrian pyromancers different from their westerosi counterparts? Valyrian Steel, fused black stone, proabably Glass Candles?

I'd say the pyromancers in Westeros originate with the Valyrian pyromancers, and are now much weaker than their counterparts. Presumably because neither dragonfire nor the Fourteen Flames fuel their magics anymore, but also because they know less about their trade than the great Valyrian sorcerers did.

1 hour ago, hiemal said:

The mess the world in is in seems a powerful argument to me, time seems confused and full of unnatural twists and repetitions and anachronisms, the seasons are unpredictable and mankind has powerful enemies who use it to break the laws of nature and use the dead as a weapon. I admit it is an assumption and I'm perfectly willing to explore other lines of reasoning, like Lady B's idea of the natural order being thrown into chaos by magic's misuse and for many theories it isn't an essential difference, anyways.

Not sure whether zombies are unnatural in this world. I mean, Qyburn creates Ser Robert Strong with little effort, it seems, so this doesn't seem to be the most difficult or taxing of spells. And Qyburn's words also do indicate the man used the people he got as sacrifices. The impression I have is rather that parts and substance of the women actually went into Gregor Clegane.

I'd agree that the grand spell creating the Others, the Long Night, and the freak seasons certainly interrupted some balance - or rather, changed things in the world on a fundamental level. And it seems pretty clear that this has to be corrected. But that's just one spell or a limited number of spells. It is not all magic.

There is no indication that this is a world where magic is dying or that the author is ripping off Tolkien writing a story where the last embers of magic slowly go out. The Others are not Sauron, and the dragons are not necessarily going into the west when the story is over...

Instead, magic is coming back. At least fire magic. The Others were always there.

[Lady Barbrey]

18 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So to expand on this. I am on record as being a proponent of magical genetic engineering in the distant past. The hybridization of species to create new magically enhanced creatures. Dragons being a prime example. And I believe ancient blood sacrifices were used to merge Valyrian human bloodlines with individual dragon lineages.

That link is indeed genetic. However to me that is different to the concept of there being power in the sacrifice of individual King’s blood.  I don’t think sacrificing Bloodraven for example, or some other  Targ bastard who happens to have a distant genetic link to Aegon the Conqueror is going to generate the lifeforce comparable to sacrificing Drogo, who is a Dothraki barbarian, but a King amongst his people.

Random Targaryen blood is required to control Targaryen dragons. But it is not King’s blood for purposes of generating life force  through blood sacrifice. 

Jon, who is the rightful king, however, does have King’s blood. Aegon who has some Targ blood through potential Blackfyre ancestors, does not.

It 

I think sacrificing Bloodraven would have enormous potential with both his Targ and Blackwood (but not Dustin/Stark) lines.  I actually see his link with the weir as symbiotic and so is Bran's.  They gain power, are conduits for power but also give power.  Isn't that the whole point? This is the Green Man, wicker man, knight of Diana's grove mythology brought into reality on Westeros.  They are sacrifices, though they might survive, already.  So that point is not really persuasive to me.

As for Drogo, I was just speculating since he comes from the same area he might share some of the same blood, but does he really matter that much?  Dany has it in spades, her son shares her blood and it was her son that seemed the exchange for the dragons.  Such a tangled ritual it's hard to know exactly what sacrifice paid for what, but that's closest to my understanding of it.

Aegon, if a Blackfyre, might have very little kingsblood left in him if any.  His genes could very well have been swamped since the Blackfyres left for Essos.  If they name him king instead of Dany, do you think he or she would be a more powerful sacrifice?

We don't know if Jon is the rightful king.  Were his parents married?  Even if they were, does his claim outbid Dany's?  I do think he's a form of a rightful king, not to the Iron Throne and not because of some arbitrary distinction between bastardy and legitimate, but because his bloodline comes closest to the original King of the First Men thousands of years ago.  The sword, the king, that's reforged from two branches that separated eons ago.  Which sounds a bit ridiculous, but if you follow my argument makes perfect sense in the context of a fantasy world.

Anyway, I respect your opinion very much even if I disagree with it, so we might have to rest on this kingsblood question, which only just occurred to me yesterday so I want to think it through some more.

[Lady Barbrey]

1 hour ago, hiemal said:

If anything vigin's blood goes back to the idea of usurpation, so it would be less about power and more about taking it. Just some ideas I'm playing around with.

Swords absolutely are penises, people, and dragons! Lightbringer is, imho, a kind of anti-excalibur and, I suspect more about the people and the dragons as you seem to hinting at(?) than a shiny sword. Blood on the sword, blood in the grail, everybody's junk and all of the mythos and symbolism tied up in it. That's a whole 'nother thread, though.

 

 

Virgin's blood and usurpation?  Are we back to the Amethyst Empress again?  If so, what makes you think she was a virgin?!

[Lady Barbrey]

6 hours ago, Lady Rhodes said:

Very interesting, and this connects to a heresay 210 (maybe? It was babe in the woods/eight cairns) with the theory that the tower of Joy was a sacrificial pyre meant for Jon and lyannaand Lyanna

Somehow missed this one.  Lady Rhodes!  What a disturbing idea!  And yet...can it be completely dismissed in light of what Dany had to do to rebirth dragons into the world?

I am not anywhere near convinced, but there's a grisly logic here I find delightful.

[Free Northman Reborn]

58 minutes ago, Lady Barbrey said:

I think sacrificing Bloodraven would have enormous potential with both his Targ and Blackwood (but not Dustin/Stark) lines.  I actually see his link with the weir as symbiotic and so is Bran's.  They gain power, are conduits for power but also give power.  Isn't that the whole point? This is the Green Man, wicker man, knight of Diana's grove mythology brought into reality on Westeros.  They are sacrifices, though they might survive, already.  So that point is not really persuasive to me.

As for Drogo, I was just speculating since he comes from the same area he might share some of the same blood, but does he really matter that much?  Dany has it in spades, her son shares her blood and it was her son that seemed the exchange for the dragons.  Such a tangled ritual it's hard to know exactly what sacrifice paid for what, but that's closest to my understanding of it.

Aegon, if a Blackfyre, might have very little kingsblood left in him if any.  His genes could very well have been swamped since the Blackfyres left for Essos.  If they name him king instead of Dany, do you think he or she would be a more powerful sacrifice?

We don't know if Jon is the rightful king.  Were his parents married?  Even if they were, does his claim outbid Dany's?  I do think he's a form of a rightful king, not to the Iron Throne and not because of some arbitrary distinction between bastardy and legitimate, but because his bloodline comes closest to the original King of the First Men thousands of years ago.  The sword, the king, that's reforged from two branches that separated eons ago.  Which sounds a bit ridiculous, but if you follow my argument makes perfect sense in the context of a fantasy world.

Anyway, I respect your opinion very much even if I disagree with it, so we might have to rest on this kingsblood question, which only just occurred to me yesterday so I want to think it through some more.

Bloodraven was a bad example, I guess, given his unique magical qualities. I meant to refer to a random Targ bastard, sorry.

My point is that a blood link to some distant ancestor is not special. Someone calculated that every person on earth has a common ancestor only a few thousand years ago. Genghis Khan has something like a 20 million descendants and he lived only a few centuries ago.

If genetic descent is the only aspect to King’s Blood, then almost everyone will have it.

There must be a spiritual component to it.

[Lady Barbrey]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Bloodraven was a bad example, I guess, given his unique magical qualities. I meant to refer to a random Targ bastard, sorry.

My point is that a blood link to some distant ancestor is not special. Someone calculated that every person on earth has a common ancestor only a few thousand years ago. Genghis Khan as something like a few hundred million descendants and he lived only a few centuries ago.

If genetic descent is the only aspect to King’s Blood, then almost everyone will have it.

There must be a spiritual component to it.

But actually I think we agree on your premise that a bloodline to a distant ancestor would not be special in and of itself to carry forward something special from it.  My premise rests on that without that link you can't carry magical power forward cause you never had it in the first place, and without a great deal of inbreeding or inter-family ties you can't bring it forward or it would have died out.  That's why we see something magical being carried forward in families that consciously practice incest or inter-married within a small pool.

I don't want to dismiss something spiritual really - there is a great deal of suggestive evidence that soul is part of the trade off too.  The Varamyr example, for instance, often raises more questions for me than it answers.

[hiemal]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I don't think the enterprise as such is pointless, just the idea to simplify magic, or subsume/reduce it to just one element, concept, power, etc.

Roger.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, the old gods seem to be just the greenseers. There is no other supernatural element to them - basically they are powerful, long-lived, nearly omniscient sorcerers. The whole animism behind the greenseers doesn't have any deities or gods we are aware of.

I agree. I think if there is a natural state of magic this is probably it, or close to it.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But R'hllor - if exist - could actually be a real god. He obviously would have the power over life and death which would make him a very powerful being, closer to being actually divine than any other supernatural entity that has shown up to this point. Especially since he can work his miracles/spells without actually showing up.

It depends on how much of his power is like Melisandre's, trickery and illusion. I think I'd be more inclined to believe that R'hlorr is nothing but a name on an impersonal force than an actual god. That's a pretty complicated issue, though, and I suppose I stand corrected as to the possibilities at play. Perhaps I spend too much time thinking of magic as an infection.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And the Mother apparently spoke to Davos, and the Seven in general may have helped the Elder Brother to heal Sandor (the Elder Brother has healing hands which could also be a gift from the Seven). I don't buy any of that, but if you want to see the Seven as real gods working miracles one can see them in the books.

And I've considered them and the Maiden doing her Ladny-in-the-Lake bit with Just Maid and various other scenarios. None of it seemed relevant to the thread and some of it involves the "A" word so I've left them mostly out of it.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Haven't you read the excerpt from FaB from George's NAB?

Not well enough, apparently. I'll fix that later.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Hallyne tells us the ancient spells work suddenly better - which is why he asks about a dragon. They were always part of the process and them working not as well as they supposedly worked back in the dragon days reduced the output of wildfire. After the sudden change Hallyne has to amend the original calculations given to Cersei.

Exactly.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I've a convoluted theory about the Dondarrion thing. I think the kiss brought Beric back because he is Targaryen descendant. I think you need the blood of the dragon to some degree for the spell (which has become part of the funeral rites of the red priests) to work. The basis for this idea is the fact that Baelor Breakspear was married to Jena Dondarrion, and I think that only happened because Jena was a Targaryen

That is interesting, and I hadn't considered it that way before. I will.

Apropos this and FaB- I wonder of Megor died during the Trial of Seven and was brought back by Alys or Tyanna?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We can say that it cost something. Effort, talent, endurance, stamina, will, time, etc. But I'd not say we can call all of that sacrifice. It would be like saying you have to sacrifice to get a good education. It is true, in a sense, but a poor choice of words.

But the cost thing is certainly true for a lot of magical things. Even skinchangers pay with their humanity for their marriage(s) with the animals. Their spirits bleed into the soul of the skinchanger, irrevocably staining them. There is a reason why skinchangers are abhorred and ostracized by normal people.

Oh, I meant that Arya didn't pay anything for the spell to work on her. She wears another face and she didn't have to give anything of herself up. And for all we know such faces are taken from corpses, making it very unlikely they pay anything.

I think that she has given up pieces of herself like the skinchanger, exchanging them with "no one." But a girl is deep and it is hard to tell with her.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd say the pyromancers in Westeros originate with the Valyrian pyromancers, and are now much weaker than their counterparts. Presumably because neither dragonfire nor the Fourteen Flames fuel their magics anymore, but also because they know less about their trade than the great Valyrian sorcerers did.

I also think there was some influence from more traditional alchemy somewhere along the line? If they are a transplant, I think found shelter among "fellows".

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 Not sure whether zombies are unnatural in this world. I mean, Qyburn creates Ser Robert Strong with little effort, it seems, so this doesn't seem to be the most difficult or taxing of spells. And Qyburn's words also do indicate the man used the people he got as sacrifices. The impression I have is rather that parts and substance of the women actually went into Gregor Clegane.

That's a good point. It feels unnatural to me, but we've been through that.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd agree that the grand spell creating the Others, the Long Night, and the freak seasons certainly interrupted some balance - or rather, changed things in the world on a fundamental level. And it seems pretty clear that this has to be corrected. But that's just one spell or a limited number of spells. It is not all magic.

There is no indication that this is a world where magic is dying or that the author is ripping off Tolkien writing a story where the last embers of magic slowly go out. The Others are not Sauron, and the dragons are not necessarily going into the west when the story is over...

Instead, magic is coming back. At least fire magic. The Others were always there.

I don't see this as a world where magic is dying, but as world where it should die? That this was a world that once made sense, and had normal seasons and natural laws that were the same everywhere and all the time and couldn't be changed with spilled blood and mumbled words and that some foreign agent is responsible for corrupting those laws and warping reality.

 

[hiemal]

59 minutes ago, Lady Barbrey said:

Virgin's blood and usurpation?  Are we back to the Amethyst Empress again?  If so, what makes you think she was a virgin?!

No, not her- she is something else entirely and I feel I've beaten that drum enough for now.

I do find it interesting that being born of a woman who died in childbirth (a broken grail?) seems to be the defining characteristic of heroes rather than say, virgin birth.

[Lady Barbrey]

6 minutes ago, hiemal said:

.

I

Quote

I agree. I think if there is a natural state of magic this is probably it, or close to it.

I'm not sure I completely agree because I think the natural state of magic is that it just feeds off natural death.  I think this instead is balanced magic use, whereas playing with fire and ice magic, or not paying back what you take, has the potential to unbalance magic.

Quote

I think that she has given up pieces of herself like the skinchanger, exchanging them with "no one." But a girl is deep and it is hard to tell with her.

Okay, so this is way out there but I have wondered sometimes if the FM might have hit on something the Boltons might have hit on with their flayed men proclivities.  Even the name - this is actual skinchanging.  That it is related to the animal skinchanging I have no doubt but I've never really attempted to think it through.  Also, are the faces from just anyone who died, or are they from people the FM 'released' through assisted death or assassination in sacrifice to their Many-Faced God? (I'd have to go back to see if there was any differentiation).  I suspect it's the latter and if so, that's the sacrifice right there. It doesn't have to be blood sacrifice.  That's a life sacrifice.

But as you say, LV and H, skinchanging does change you, you do somehow lose soul - or gain it - and that the Ugly Girls soul, a remnant, becomes part of the mask after she uses it - sounds very much like Varamyr's description of skinchanging and remnants.

Why do the FM insist you become no one before you wear these masks?  Could it be they don't want your personal identity tied up with the skins?  Aside from the obvious of wanting impersonal kills, I mean.

I think between us we could come up with a decent theory on this.

 

6 minutes ago, hiemal said:

 

I don't see this as a world where magic is dying, but as world where it should die? That this was a world that once made sense, and had normal seasons and natural laws that were the same everywhere and all the time and couldn't be changed with spilled blood and mumbled words and that some foreign agent is responsible for corrupting those laws and warping reality.

 

Ah well, we've been around this one before.  You should be right but I think It's intrinsic to the world.  You can't kill it or you kill everything, you just shouldn't use it if you can't do it responsibly, but when has humankind ever taken that into account?

[Darth Sidious]

On 10/20/2018 at 3:05 AM, Lady Barbrey said:

I think we have good indications that this or a variation of it is true.  What about the Targs?

Oh I'm positive the Targaryens have their own magic.  Though I think it is more rooted in fire.  That seems to be their element.  The Starks have ice as theirs.  I have been saying this for  years now.  This story is about the conflict between fire and ice.  Ice is trying to destroy the living and fire is needed to fight them.  The Starks will do as Craster did.  Give offerings to the Others in order to buy their safety and take control of the north.  I believe fire will stop them to save the living.  Jon is coming back as an ice wight.

[hiemal]

34 minutes ago, Lady Barbrey said:

I'm not sure I completely agree because I think the natural state of magic is that it just feeds off natural death.  I think this instead is balanced magic use, whereas playing with fire and ice magic, or not paying back what you take, has the potential to unbalance magic.

That makes sense.

34 minutes ago, Lady Barbrey said:

Okay, so this is way out there but I have wondered sometimes if the FM might have hit on something the Boltons might have hit on with their flayed men proclivities.  Even the name - this is actual skinchanging.  That it is related to the animal skinchanging I have no doubt but I've never really attempted to think it through.  Also, are the faces from just anyone who died, or are they from people the FM 'released' through assisted death or assassination in sacrifice to their Many-Faced God? (I'd have to go back to see if there was any differentiation).  I suspect it's the latter and if so, that's the sacrifice right there. It doesn't have to be blood sacrifice.  That's a life sacrifice.

But as you say, LV and H, skinchanging does change you, you do somehow lose soul - or gain it - and that the Ugly Girls soul, a remnant, becomes part of the mask after she uses it - sounds very much like Varamyr's description of skinchanging and remnants.

Why do the FM insist you become no one before you wear these masks?  Could it be they don't want your personal identity tied up with the skins?  Aside from the obvious of wanting impersonal kills, I mean.

I think between us we could come up with a decent theory on this.

I am also reminded of the woman of the singers that Bran encounters when he rides a raven AND of the seeming duality of  Bloodraven and the three-eyed crow. A while back I had a thread "Greendreams,redreams" (I think?) in which I examined the possibility that all of the divination type magics are in a sense variation on the same theme but centered around a different "soul cycle" as described previously and so on and so on. The bond between a dragon and rider may be somehow related to the skinchanging ability seen in the OG's system and the wearing of faces for the FM.

Variations on the same theme.

34 minutes ago, Lady Barbrey said:

Ah well, we've been around this one before.  You should be right but I think It's intrinsic to the world.  You can't kill it or you kill everything, you just shouldn't use it if you can't do it responsibly, but when has humankind ever taken that into account?

Indeed. I'll be giving this line of reasoning more thought in the future.