Heresy 225 and the Snowflakes of Doom

[Black Crow]

18 minutes ago, JNR said:

It's conceivable someone like the Wandering Wolf did; we're told he went to Essos and served in the Second Sons.

But I don't find it at all surprising the Starks would have such a blade; it could have come to them in many ways.  Could have bought it from Essos, could have won it in combat, could have received it as tribute, from another house trying to curry favor. 

There are dozens of such weapons all over Westeros.  Minor houses like Harlaw and Drumm are known to have pretty impressive examples:

What's actually more surprising to me is that the Lannisters were never able to buy a replacement for Brightroar. 

 

Yes I'd agree with all of that. The swords are clearly a highly prized status symbol and will have been acquired as gifts, through trade or a combination of them. 

A possible scenario of course is that when Aegon the Conqueror tooled up, those houses submitting to him gave up their old swords to help create the Iron Throne and in return received Valyrian blades as a mark of their new allegiance. That is very much in line with Nordic and Anglo-Saxon practice so GRRM would have all the precedent he needed. The problem with the scenario is that there is absolutely no suggestion in the text that Aegon ever did such a thing.

And yes, the Lannister business is very odd

[JNR]

2 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

Nonetheless, at the narrative level, GRRM is not necessarily writing that character speculation in a vacuum--it is occurring in the broader context of Jon and Sam's conversation about the quality of the oral histories (and the Watch's information), with similar conversations being repeated between Hoster Blackwood and Jaime, as well as Asha and Rodrik the Reader.

However we slice it, Jon simply hasn't got any idea what he's talking about on that point.  That's what matters in analyzing his response. 

If he were to speculate that wildfire is made of mustard, I would not suddenly think to myself "Aha, this is a clue that wildfire is made of mustard."

Similarly, when he thinks Gilly has seen the Popsicles, one has to chuckle... because the very test he used to decide that, he himself would pass, even though he has never seen a Popsicle.

6 minutes ago, Matthew. said:

one might wonder whether or not he plans to cultivate those seeds into something more

Sure. One can wonder anything.

[JNR]

4 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

A possible scenario of course is that when Aegon the Conqueror tooled up, those houses submitting to him gave up their old swords to help create the Iron Throne and in return received Valyrian blades as a mark of their new allegiance. That is very much in line with Nordic and Anglo-Saxon practice so GRRM would have all the precedent he needed.

Yep, I find this quite a plausible possibility.

[Matthew.]

4 minutes ago, JNR said:

However we slice it, Jon simply hasn't got any idea what he's talking about on that point.  That's what matters in analyzing his response. 

I disagree--it's one aspect to analyze, but not the only aspect. There is always the broader awareness that the character's words were chosen by the author, and those words may fit within a larger narrative framework.

BC summarized this quite well previously, with the example of the NK's identity; realistically, Old Nan can't possibly know whether the NK was a Stark, or whether he existed at all, but in a narrative sense, we might view this as the author laying the foundation for future revelations, and nothing particularly interesting proceeds from the NK being, say, a Flint, or a Norrey, whereas him being a Stark presents more tantalizing options.

So too with the conversation GRRM has crafted between Sam and Jon--maybe it leads to no particular narrative follow through, but the seeds have been laid.

21 minutes ago, JNR said:

Sure. One can wonder anything.

It is not wondering about "anything," as though the conversation has sprung up apropos of nothing. Timeline Talk has specifically been prompted by the contents of AFFC/ADWD, as well as the author's own comments on the subject. I might prefer the longer timeline, but I see no reason to be hostile or close-minded to other points of view.

[asongofheresy]

I wonder why the Wandering Wolf served with Second Sons but not with the Company of the Rose - the company albeit less Northern now still exists and fight against the Daenerys in the books. 

[Brad Stark]

21 hours ago, Matthew. said:

Perhaps other posters have some better ideas on this front, but the most noteworthy consequence I can see for moving the LN closer to 5,000/6,000 years ago, rather than 8,000 years ago, is that it's moving closer and closer to the point at which we might hypothesize that Valyria was founded.

Granted, the founding of Valyria is yet another area where exact dates are hard to come by, though Dany references the notion of a "young Valyria" conquering Old Ghis 5,000 years ago, so that might give us some rough guidance. Martin's most recent comments on the subject would preclude the notion that Valyria proper - the expansionist city state with its hordes of dragons - exists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that some Proto-Valyrian culture did not exist, or even the magic that would lay the foundation for Valyrian's eventual rise did not exist, magic that may have originated somewhere other than the Fourteen Flames.

In short, this is an era in which the Valyrian Freehold doesn't exist, but what about dragonbinding? Glass Candles? Fire sorcery? Valyrian steel?
 

I don't take GRRM'S comment about HBO's series to mean dragons and Valyria didn't exist in that time period, just that they aren't part of the story being told. 

[Matthew.]

23 minutes ago, Brad Stark said:

I don't take GRRM'S comment about HBO's series to mean dragons and Valyria didn't exist in that time period, just that they aren't part of the story being told. 

Sure, and he does say "Valyria has hardly begun to rise," rather than "Valyria doesn't exist," though he wasn't necessarily choosing his words carefully.

I don't think dragons will be a part of the show, but "fire lot business," for lack of a better phrase, might play a role. One of the things teased in the early press release about the show is that it would cover "the mysteries of the East."

[Melifeather]

I think the story has been and will be more about people than white walkers and dragons. I think we'll find out that the Others of old were just people that were vilified with exaggerated claims. I suspect the white walkers are recent creations brought to life based upon the monster's in the folk tales.

The red silk patches and thread that the woods witch used to sew up Mance's cape may be our clue. The recent white walkers might be closer to the black shadow that Melisandre drew from Stannis, but created by the woods witch who must have magic from Asshai. The white shadows are able to maintain their form, because ice preserves. Of course this contradicts my own assertions that the white walkers are the opposite magical creature of dragons!

[LynnS]

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/24/game-thrones-prequel-bloodmoon-pilot-finished-filming-can-get-hyped-now-10456516/

Quote

 

According to George RR Martin, Bloodmoon will centre on Westeros hundreds of years before the time we know in Game Of Thrones.

In fact, the Seven Kingdoms was actually more like 100, according to writer George RR Martin in an interview with EW, and will focus on the ‘Age Of Heroes’ through to the world’s ‘Darkest Hour’.

 

https://ew.com/tv/2019/07/09/george-r-r-martin-game-of-thrones-prequel-facts/

[JNR]

3 hours ago, Matthew. said:

There is always the broader awareness that the character's words were chosen by the author, and those words may fit within a larger narrative framework.

Well, notice I didn't make this argument about True History.  That's because while the maesters may often be ignorant and wrong, they are still Westeros' nearest approximations of academic authorities.

With virtually any theory one chooses, one can find character dialogue, somewhere in the canon, to support it... if one is willing to overlook the fundamental illogic involved in such an interpretation.

One is basically just saying "Granted, that makes no sense, but I choose to ignore that problem because it could still be a secret message from the author -- part of a larger pattern of secret messages."

This happens all the time in ASOIAF analysis.  For instance, would you say that Robert Baratheon knew that Rhaegar and Lyanna were lovers (meaning Lyanna went somewhere with Rhaegar voluntarily)? 

I certainly wouldn't.  Yet I just read an argument to this effect based on Robert's dialogue with Ned.

There are, to be fair, very likely some secret messages of this sort in the dialogue, from GRRM to the astute reader.  But (and I admit it's only my opinion) such cases are rare, and make more sense in context.

Re your larger point that GRRM is trying to introduce doubt about the timeline starting in AFFC, and therefore inviting the reader to ponder that doubt -- certainly, I agree.  That seems so clear and true as to be beyond any real debate.

[St Daga]

On 7/22/2019 at 2:33 PM, alienarea said:

On 7/22/2019 at 12:50 PM, St Daga said:

Over on the Last Hearth I have discussed Ned's Osiris imagery, and also the idea of how falcon's and jackel's are tied to the idea of Osiris's wives and children, and how I think that could hint that wolf/jackel is a tie to being keepers of the underworld. It's scattered over several pages of posts, but if you are interested, I could try to link you to some of them.

Yes, please.

Sorry for the delay.

Here is a link to two posts that have mentions of Anubis in relation to Ned/Osiris. It's pretty darn tinfoil, so be prepared for that.

There is more about my thoughts on the possible connections between Eddard and Osiris in here, although this involves several different threads over the years.

[St Daga]

On 7/22/2019 at 1:41 PM, Feather Crystal said:

I had toyed with that idea once upon a time, but I think the reason why Ned was sent to foster with Jon Arryn was to become his squire and learn to be a knight. I believe Lady Barbary's condemnation of Maester Walys for being the one to foster Rickard Stark's "southron ambitions" meant that he wanted to adopt the Andal practice of knighthood and adopt the training for his sons and closest men. I think Brandon was sent to foster with Lord Dustin at Barrowton to learn how to be a knight too, and that Rickard himself became a knight. Of course we don't have confirmation that Ned was ever knighted, but it might be because the Rebellion interfered and it got pushed aside. Squires often stay with their knights until they are knighted themselves and this would explain why Robert and Ned were still living with Jon Arryn when he called his banners.

Are there hint's of knighthood around Barrowtown or House Dustin? I am not sure about this connection to knighthood for the Stark's as you are, although I believe we did discuss (multiple heresy's ago) that Rickard Stark was wearing gold spurs when he died, which in our world is a sign of knighthood. This has never  been established as a part of knighthood in ASOIAF, though. Also, we know that Ned follows the old gods at the start of our story, and both Benjen Stark and Jon Snow took their Night's Watch vows in front of a weirwood tree. It seems to me that if Rickard wanted his son trained to be a knight in the north, he would have sent him to White Harbor. That is the house in the north that is linked to the Faith of the Seven. 

 

[St Daga]

On 7/22/2019 at 6:59 PM, JNR said:

In a sense, but that transformation clearly wasn't voluntary or under the Popsicle's control at all.  As GRRM said, the spell was broken.

Sure, a spell was broken, but he doesn't say the Other' died. If the Other's can take several forms, we might have just witnessed two of those forms taking place. This also reminds me a bit of Stannis' shadow that murder's Renly. It was only a shadow, an image, a darkness in the light, and then after it's goal was reached, it disappeared. I don't know what would have happened if Brienne had tried to attack the shadow that killed Renly, but the shadow itself was real enough to kill Renly, to take a shadow sword and stick it in Renly's neck, so it might have been real enough for Brienne to fight. Stannis doesn't die, although he is certainly less than he was before. Sometimes I think the white and dark shadows are very similar.

On 7/22/2019 at 6:59 PM, JNR said:

On 7/22/2019 at 12:50 PM, St Daga said:

The first men would try to avoid this if at all possible.

It's only kinslaying if kin is being slain. 

But we really have no way to know if the Stark in Winterfell was related to Night King... other than simply assuming Old Nan is correct.   And Heresy is constantly questioning the reality of folktales, such as the folktales that suggest the Wall is eight thousand years old.

I didn't absolutely say he was a Stark, although I think it's possible. And the man has to have a mother as well as a father, and he could be related to more than one noble house south of the wall.  He would not need to be a Stark to be imprisoned under Winterfell, although I did explore the possibility, too. If the Night King is held under Winterfell, the Stark's connection might have begun at this time, as a warden to the Night's King.

I did say I though he was of First Men origin. The wall is old and the Night's King was the thirteen's Lord Commander, so it's been a long time, probably before the Andal's came. I think it's fair to think that the Night's King was of the First Men, and that kinslaying, no matter who "brought him down" would be frowned on.  His family might have Joramun of the wildlings.  I think a family/blood connection would be a good reason not to kill the Night's King, otherwise just kill him and be done. The wording in regards to the Night's King never talks about death, just fell, fall, or brought down. 

However, if I had to bet money right now, I would say the Night's King did have Stark blood, and that his name was probably Jon Snow. An evil name to the wildlings, but doesn't bother Jon because the "real" name of the Night's King has been stricken from all records, so Jon and everyone else south of the wall, doesn't know the name. 

Now, if you are questioning that the Night's King's era didn't start until the Andal's had invaded Westeros, then I guess that could be a reason that kinslaying might not matter as much, but it's seems to be pretty much frowned upon all over Westeros, even in our present time line.

[JNR]

20 hours ago, St Daga said:

Sure, a spell was broken, but he doesn't say the Other' died.

That's another topic.  My position is it wasn't able to shift between phases of matter at will, because if it could, it surely would have done so instead of allowing Small Paul to rip away its sword.

That happened after it impaled Small Paul and he worked his way, dying, up the blade... so the Other had time to transform if it could.

What we see is that it melts because Sam punched the dragonglass into its neck... that it shrieks horribly as this happens... tries to yank out the dagger and fails... and finally, it melts and evaporates.  There's just nothing voluntary about this on its part at all.

20 hours ago, St Daga said:

However, if I had to bet money right now, I would say the Night's King did have Stark blood, and that his name was probably Jon Snow. An evil name to the wildlings, but doesn't bother Jon because the "real" name of the Night's King has been stricken from all records, so Jon and everyone else south of the wall, doesn't know the name. 

Good bet.  I proposed the same idea, with this very reasoning, some years ago. 

It's one of many reasons I keep saying it would be a good idea for Jon (if he survives) to ask the Free Folk about their mythology.

20 hours ago, St Daga said:

Now, if you are questioning that the Night's King's era didn't start until the Andal's had invaded Westeros

Since I'm in the Long Timeline camp, I certainly couldn't do that. 

IMO, thousands of years went by between the 13th LC of the Watch and the coming of the Andals, just as Sam says, which means if there was a historical Night King, he was almost certainly part of the ethnic group we call the First Men. 

The only alternative would be that he descended from a group that had been in Westeros even earlier (because the First Men do not appear to me really to have been first).

[Black Crow]

3 hours ago, JNR said:

... if there was a historical Night King, he was almost certainly part of the ethnic group we call the First Men. 

The only alternative would be that he descended from a group that had been in Westeros even earlier (because the First Men do not appear to me really to have been first).

I'd agree with that. I have the impression that while the First Men families may have been an ethnic group their title may be misleading in that they may not necessarily have been the first to arrive but when they did became aristos and the term First Men is used in the sense of the First Family or First Families, which would in turn imply that most of the Free Folk beyond the Wall originated in some of those earlier peoples who refused to kneel to the First Men.

[Black Crow]

On 7/26/2019 at 8:41 PM, St Daga said:

Now, if you are questioning that the Night's King's era didn't start until the Andal's had invaded Westeros, then I guess that could be a reason that kingslaying might not matter as much, but it's seems to be pretty much frowned upon all over Westeros, even in our present time line.

I assume that you mean kinslaying and wonder if we might find a reason for it being so frowned on. Kingslaying on the other hand appears to be a popular spectator sport. 

[Brad Stark]

18 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I'd agree with that. I have the impression that while the First Men families may have been an ethnic group their title may be misleading in that they may not necessarily have been the first to arrive but when they did became aristos and the term First Men is used in the sense of the First Family or First Families, which would in turn imply that most of the Free Folk beyond the Wall originated in some of those earlier peoples who refused to kneel to the First Men.

I find it very much GRRM's style to have the First Men not be the first men in Westeros.   First Men may be an Andal term, unless BC is correct saying it meant something other than 'earliest to arrive'.  No culture would call themselves 'First Men', especially not before other men arrived. 

I've brought up before, Winterfell has architecture that doesn't match First Men culture (round vs square, gargoyles).  We also have discussed the very Targaryen looking Daynes, and Moat Caotlin and the Seastone chair. 

As to the wildlings, I don't view them as genetically isolated.   Lots of Watch men father bastards who end up wildlings, and wildlings raid South of the Wall and steal wives.   We don't have any wildlings who defect and become kneelers in the story, but that probably happens too.  Conditions North of the Wall may also be too harsh to sustain an isolated population, people live North of the Wall and have children North of the Wall, but not necessarily enough to make up for the number of people who die.

[Matthew.]

55 minutes ago, Brad Stark said:

I find it very much GRRM's style to have the First Men not be the first men in Westeros.   First Men may be an Andal term, unless BC is correct saying it meant something other than 'earliest to arrive'.  No culture would call themselves 'First Men', especially not before other men arrived. 

I've brought up before, Winterfell has architecture that doesn't match First Men culture (round vs square, gargoyles).  We also have discussed the very Targaryen looking Daynes, and Moat Caotlin and the Seastone chair. 

We've discussed in the past the prospect that "First Men" might have been a scholarly term developed later to lump the various early humans together under one umbrella.

An alternative prospect could also be that it was a term coined by the First Men themselves to imply preeminent social status, or a certain amount of cultural arrogance relative to the other pre-Andal humans.

In addition to some of the oddities you cite, such as Moat Cailin, it may be that there are also competing founder myths--Garth Greenhand and the First King, both viewed as High King figures that are responsible for leading humanity across the Arm of Dorne. The former is associated with fertility and verdancy, while the latter is more vaguely defined, and possibly has little cultural relevance outside of Barrowton. Even so, a myth about a king that could have lead the FM across the Arm of the Dorne, and made his way north of the Neck by the time he died might be noteworthy.

I'm personally inclined toward the notion that the First Men were distinct from, say, the crannogmen (who may have been living in harmony with the CotF even before the Pact), and distinct also from whoever built Moat Cailin; IMO, the First Men did not arrive as a slow trickle of pioneers, but as organized aggressors, and it is against the First Men specifically that the Hammer of the Waters was utilized.

[Brad Stark]

Even if "First Men" is a later applied term lumping various groups of people together, convention says they crossed the Arm of Dorne around the same time and came from the same place.

It is odd that GRRM, who wants to stretch all his timelines further than our world, puts the settlement of Westerous about 10,000 years back, yet models it after the England which was settled at least 13,000 years ago, with much older human remains found.

Leaf says the CotF "we have lived here for a thousand thousand of your man-years".  Even assuming Leaf is honest, we don't know if we can take this as literally a million years, or if "here" means the cave or Westerous.  So if there were people in Westerous before the First Men arrived, they either lived in harmony with the CotF, fought the CotF, or the CotF weren't around - they likely existed, but may not have covered Westerous in wierwoods yet.

Moat Cailin may have been one such settlement - either wiped out by the CotF or lived in harmony with them and wiped out by the First Men.

The Starks could be dragonlord descendants, hench the only gargoyles in Westerous are in Winterfell and Dragonstone, which parallels England conquered by the Romans who disappeared long before the middle ages. 

The Starks could be something different entirely, with origins in Ashai and going North and East from Ashai to the Lands of Always Winter before moving South towards Winterfell.

[St Daga]

23 hours ago, Black Crow said:

On 7/26/2019 at 1:41 PM, St Daga said:

Now, if you are questioning that the Night's King's era didn't start until the Andal's had invaded Westeros, then I guess that could be a reason that kingslaying might not matter as much, but it's seems to be pretty much frowned upon all over Westeros, even in our present time line.

I assume that you mean kinslaying and wonder if we might find a reason for it being so frowned on. Kingslaying on the other hand appears to be a popular spectator sport. 

Ha! Yes, that was a mistake, which I will soon edit. But it does make one wonder how much GRRM is playing with the similarity between the two words? Kingslaying is something that is mostly attributed to Jaime, and I have always thought it was r/t the vow's Jaime took as part of Aerys' kingsguard, but Jaime also thinks of kingslaying in relation to the idea that Tyrion killed Joffrey. Jaime thinks, "Kinslaying was worse than kingslaying, in the eyes of gods and men". Lancel thinks of himself as a kingslayer. I guess if anyone who kills a king is considered a kingslayer, this makes sense, but Jaime is reviled for his actions. Jaime even throws this title in Brienne's face, although we know she didn't kill Renly, and as a kingsguard, her role would be like Jaime's. But it does make me wonder if "kingslaying" has a far older tale than Jaime and Aerys, and that might be part of why Jaime is so reviled for his actions?

Interestingly, in the World Book, Visenya is considered a kinslayer and kingslayer over the rumors that she had something to do with her nephew Aenys's death. So, this does hint at something that exists that is much older than Jaime's deeds.