Jump to content

Heresy 226 of wolves, dragons and other familiars


Black Crow

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I was thinking more along the lines of the wrong they are attempting to correct being the creation of the others but I think this probably fits better. I've long expected the Others won't be the big bad evil we are led to believe they are. What does that mean for man kind then? If the CotF are successful in preventing the Last Hero from defeating them this time will they overrun mankind? Turning everyone into an Ice Zombie? 

What do you suppose it means for the Iron Born that their words are so entertwined with the Others? Could it be that all of the great houses have words that mean something in regards to the Others/Long Night/Last Hero etc? Or maybe all of the Great Northern Houses? Winter is Coming is ominous in it's self & could potentially tie into several areas. Here you have tied the IB's words in. I can't imagine where "A Lannister always pays his debts" would tie in to this but there could be other houses that have passed down 'sayings' rather than stories that can be so changed over time in an effort to warn or give advice or prophesize what is to come. 

If my theory that the wildlings are the source of the white walkers, then they are the "Others". They are humans like anyone else, but they know how to work magic and create white walkers. They've only made six per the prologue, and I suspect its because it requires human sacrifice. They needed to create a "threat" so that the Watch would allow them through the Wall. The Watch has forgotten why the wildlings are being held prisoner. They keep them contained and only think of them as "raiders" - completely forgetting that the reason why the Wall was build was to keep white walkers and wights out. Mance used to be a man of the Watch, so he knows that they only think of them as raiders. It's why he's sent men over the Wall to raid - it reinforces that idea. Then creating a few white walkers and digging up some graves to raise a wight army is a manufactured threat intended to convince the Watch that the wildlings are separate from this supernatural enemy.

The Ironborn are First Men that sort of remember parts of the spells that create white walkers and wights. It's become a religious ritual based upon a worship of a "Drowned God". Why a "drowned" god? You might think its because of the Ironborn's raiding culture and their close association with ships and water, but I think it actually ties to a legendary monarch (who was actually a priest like Damphair) that reigned for a thousand years: the Grey King. I'll circle back to him in a minute.

The Ironborn acknowledge two gods: the Drowned God, whom they worship, and the Storm God, who they fear. Notice the two elements of water and air. The First Men (including the Ironborn) must have learned how to work magic through their alliances with the Children. The Ironborn had an affinity for water magic. I suspect the Children brought about an extended winter to try and freeze the Ironborn's water magic, but if they then incorporated air magic into their frozen water magic, this may have led to the creation of white walkers.

The only way to stop them was to entomb their "priest" (their Grey King) and freeze him (ward him) inside the Wall. What is the Wall if not a 700 foot wall of frozen water? Its said he eventually "cast aside" his driftwood crown and descended to the watery halls of the Drowned God, and that the Storm God snuffed out Nagga's fire. This fanciful tale seems to be another allegory, basically an oral history. Reinterpreted it could mean that the Grey King was entombed (descended) into the "sea". The north has been described as a great northern sea. Blaming an angry Storm God (the cold magical air) for snuffing out his fire (his magic) sounds like he was encased in the ice of the Wall.

If the Wall is disintegrating in the form of a blizzard, the Grey King priest will be released. If he's a god he could be the new god that Euron believes will be reborn. The "ice spiders" mentioned in Old Nan's tale might actually be krakens.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So essentially Ramsay may be the "brother" Jon over throws to take WF from him. 

You betcha, ya! This is how I see it. A rightful return, but since Jon will be an undead creature he may end up giving it to Alys and the Magnar of Thenn. I dunno, but I suspect that the Thenns are the rightful owners of Winterfell and this is one of the past wrongs that the Children aim to reverse. I'm not quite sure why they want the Drowned God released from its prison in the Wall though. Maybe they knew the wards would eventually become so ancient that they couldn't be repaired? Are tooling up to prepare for a great battle against an angry watery god? 700 feet of water could destroy Westeros should it all come crashing down, unless "winter" is being used to lessen the impact? Water is "nature", but you could view nature as a "god". This is the danger that is in store for the realm, but how do you protect yourself from a natural disaster?

Maybe what the Children regret the most was conjuring the hammer of waters in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some trivia, that I never noticed before:

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Jon VIII

Jon nodded. "Does it have a name, my lord?"

"It did, once. Longclaw, it was called."

"Claw," the raven cried. "Claw."

"Longclaw is an apt name." Jon tried a practice cut. He was clumsy and uncomfortable with his left hand, yet even so the steel seemed to flow through the air, as if it had a will of its own. "Wolves have claws, as much as bears."

The Old Bear seemed pleased by that. "I suppose they do. You'll want to wear that over the shoulder, I imagine. It's too long for the hip, at least until you've put on a few inches. And you'll need to work at your two-handed strikes as well. Ser Endrew can show you some moves, when your burns have healed."

Long claw is the way a warg describes a sword:

Quote

A Dance with Dragons - Prologue

Wargs have no fear of man, as wolves do. Hate and hunger coiled in his belly, and he gave a low growl, calling to his one-eyed brother, to his small sly sister. As he raced through the trees, his packmates followed hard on his heels. They had caught the scent as well. As he ran, he saw through their eyes too and glimpsed himself ahead. The breath of the pack puffed warm and white from long grey jaws. Ice had frozen between their paws, hard as stone, but the hunt was on now, the prey ahead. Flesh, the warg thought, meat.

A man alone was a feeble thing. Big and strong, with good sharp eyes, but dull of ear and deaf to smells. Deer and elk and even hares were faster, bears and boars fiercer in a fight. But men in packs were dangerous. As the wolves closed on the prey, the warg heard the wailing of a pup, the crust of last night's snow breaking under clumsy man-paws, the rattle of hardskins and the long grey claws men carried.

Swords, a voice inside him whispered, spears.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 1:11 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

there always needing to be a Stark in Winterfell - so I am always looking for reasons for it.

I agree that this is important, but with the Others returning before Ned and company left Winterfell, it doesn't appear to be the reason for their return. However, Benjen's whereabouts during the Rebellion are still murky. Was he at Winterfell or had he already taken his oath at the Wall?

 

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 1:11 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

How long has Arthur been dead at the beginning of Asoaif? 16-17 years? I wonder what, if anything happened to indicate their return prior to what we see in the prologue. It would seem if no one wielding Dawn has allowed them to return (an idea I like very much btw) that there would have been some minuscule signs even then. At any rate it fits nicely -The idea that Dawn & The Sword of the Morning v2 are needed to defeat the Long Night.

Thank you! I believe that Jon, Robb, and Dany are all around 14 years old at the beginning of Game, so I would say Arthur Dayne has been dead between 13-15 years.

21 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

Magic starting leaving the world around 200 years ago.   But the Wall was built around 10,000 years ago.

Something changed near the start of the series to bring magic back, and something changed 200 years prior to make it go away.

Agreed. What events transpired around this time?

21 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

They liken the three times they used magic to fight back as being three swords:

1) the sword tempered in water: the hammer of waters that broke the Arm of Dorne and washed away the Moat Cailin fortifications at the Neck.

2) the sword tempered in the heart of a lion - they fought back and created the white walkers. When it was over they sealed the door to magic shut by warding the hinge upon the Wall. The wheel of time was placed into a continual loop, and historic events began to repeat themselves.

3) the sword tempered in the heart of Nissa Nissa - they sacrificed their own blood to summon dragons and it "broke" their "moon". The name Nissa Nissa equates to moon moon, meaning they viewed Planetos as a sister to the Moon. The blade they forged caused the Doom, pushed the Targaryens to first move to Dragonstone, and then to invade Westeros. The timeline is long, but the Children live long lives, and their greenseers see events as the trees do: past, present, and future are but a flicker.

So it is your position that there was not an actual sword tempered with water, with lion's blood, and with Nissa Nissa's blood but these are metaphorical events? Are there three swords out there that have been "Lightbringer"? I don't agree but I can understand the rationale. However, I am still not understanding how this answers the question about why the magic bindings are fraying now. 

21 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

It's said he cut down forests of weirwoods to construct his monstrous castle. Once the seven kingdoms were united, the door to magic was reclosed. It took 150 years for the dragons to die out, but the damage to Westeros was already great, but the wheel of time kept repeating historic events.

 

21 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

2) the sword tempered in the heart of a lion - they fought back and created the white walkers. When it was over they sealed the door to magic shut by warding the hinge upon the Wall.

Here you say that the defeat of the Others closed the door to magic, but then you also say that the destruction of the weirwoods caused it to reclose.  So when did it reopen? During the Doom of Valyria?  I can buy that to a certain extent, but all descriptions of Valyria pre-Doom have many dragon riders and dragon families, indicating lots of magic used then - which doesn't quite make sense if the doors to magic were closed.  UNLESS you are supposing that Valyria is another hinge and certain magic is able to exist there? I would love to discuss that with you!

21 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Summoning the dragons loosened the aging wards, and they were further damaged shortly after Howland prayed for a way to win. Bloodraven reset the wheel of time during the tourney at Harrenhal. The shock to the wheel was like a lightning bolt and it nearly ripped the door to magic right off its hinges.

When you say summoning dragons, are you referring to the theory that Aegon (and subsequent Targaryen kings) were trying to reborn dragons, causing various catastrophes? It is more certain that Summerhall was such an incident, which various details about what happened unknown.  Why would Howland praying cause further damage? Because he did it at a fairly powerful place, the Isle of Faces? Regarding Bloodraven, are you saying he was trying to keep the magic door closed or pry it open further?  Why was he trying to reset it?

21 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

The Others have already breached the Wall. The wildlings are the source of the white walkers, and the majority of the free folk are stationed in various castles along the south side of the Wall. IMO the blizzard is evidence that the Wall is disintegrating and blowing away in the wind

I am in agreement RE: the blizzard being a sign that the Wall is disintegrating. But I do not believe the Others have breached the Wall and I am unsure the textual support for this.  Ygritte does mention about letting "all those shades loose", which I take to mean wights, thus compounding the issue, but I don't think it is correct to attach the Others to the wights. Wights are just a symptom of a larger problem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

If my theory that the wildlings are the source of the white walkers, then they are the "Others". They are humans like anyone else, but they know how to work magic and create white walkers. They've only made six per the prologue, and I suspect its because it requires human sacrifice. They needed to create a "threat" so that the Watch would allow them through the Wall. The Watch has forgotten why the wildlings are being held prisoner. They keep them contained and only think of them as "raiders" - completely forgetting that the reason why the Wall was build was to keep white walkers and wights out. Mance used to be a man of the Watch, so he knows that they only think of them as raiders. It's why he's sent men over the Wall to raid - it reinforces that idea. Then creating a few white walkers and digging up some graves to raise a wight army is a manufactured threat intended to convince the Watch that the wildlings are separate from this supernatural enemy.

I am dubious of this.  I don't think the wildlings (besides Craster) are purposefully creating them to have a reason to go south of the Wall. They don't want to kneel, they want to be free and they can be free North of the Wall....but they have the problem with the Others.

However, your thoughts RE: The Grey King and linking Euron to the Others are intriguing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

So it is your position that there was not an actual sword tempered with water, with lion's blood, and with Nissa Nissa's blood but these are metaphorical events? Are there three swords out there that have been "Lightbringer"? I don't agree but I can understand the rationale. However, I am still not understanding how this answers the question about why the magic bindings are fraying now. 

Correct. I don't believe there was an actual human that forged a sword called Lightbringer. Lightbringer is probably the name of the comet. I'm not confident that I have all the details absolutely correct, but I'm very confident that the Azor Ahai history is an allegory tale - the means to remember and retell history in an oral fashion. This is how people remembered historical events before mankind began to write the details down.

The Wall is 8000 years old. How long can magical spells/wards hold back magic - not to mention a 700 foot structure built of ice?

44 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

Here you say that the defeat of the Others closed the door to magic, but then you also say that the destruction of the weirwoods caused it to reclose.  So when did it reopen? During the Doom of Valyria?  I can buy that to a certain extent, but all descriptions of Valyria pre-Doom have many dragon riders and dragon families, indicating lots of magic used then - which doesn't quite make sense if the doors to magic were closed.  UNLESS you are supposing that Valyria is another hinge and certain magic is able to exist there? I would love to discuss that with you!

The Wall is a hinge that holds the door to magic which can be opened and closed, but reopening and reclosing obviously has risks, because the magic spells that hold the door closed are like invisible threads. Pull the wrong one and you risk unraveling.

The hammer of waters is mentioned as the first time the Children resorted to magic in order to fight back against the First Men. It washed away the Arm of Dorne and apparently severed the Iron Islands from the mainland as well as wiping out most of Moat Cailin and flooded the Neck. My assertion is that this hammer of waters wasn't a single event, but rather a series of tsunamis and floods that may have happened over thousands of years. Some of the First Men that survived surely learned how to harness the power of water for their own purposes, so even though the hammer slowed migration, it didn't eliminate it.

The First Men kept coming, and now there's a branch of them called the Ironborn that are utilizing water magic. The Children's next defense was to create an extended winter to freeze the water. The Ironborn, who had been worshipping this "Drowned God", turned to "the devil" so to speak and mixed air magic - or their Storm God - into water to create white walkers. The Children were able to hide out from the white walkers, but the First Men that weren't practicing magic were at a disadvantage. This is where the Last Hero story enters and the Wall is built to contain magic so that men don't have access to it any longer.

The Ironborn continued to be a nuisance even without the use of magic and were the major power in the Riverlands - the Kings of the Isles and Rivers. Water was still their main strength. Harren of House Hoare was the grandson of King Harwyn Hardhand who had extended the rule of the Ironborn over the Riverlands from the Neck down to the Blackwater river. Harren is the one that cut forests of weirwoods to build Harrenhal, but he certainly was not the first First Men to cut down the trees. This had been happening for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. 

The Children live hundreds of years longer than humans, so what might seem like a long time to humans is shorter to them. Causing the Doom that set in motion the migrations of Andals, Rhoynar, and Targaryens may stretch over 3000-4000 years, but could still be evidence that the Children turned to fire magic in order to stop the Ironborn from cutting down the weirwoods. And in order to work magic the door to magic would need to be reopened, but perhaps when it's opened one way it allows for ice magic, and when opened the other way it allows for fire magic?

Melisandre said the Wall is ONE of the great hinges of the world which suggests that there are more than one, so that could explain magical occurrences in Essos and the birth of dragons over there.

44 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

When you say summoning dragons, are you referring to the theory that Aegon (and subsequent Targaryen kings) were trying to reborn dragons, causing various catastrophes? It is more certain that Summerhall was such an incident, which various details about what happened unknown.  Why would Howland praying cause further damage? Because he did it at a fairly powerful place, the Isle of Faces? Regarding Bloodraven, are you saying he was trying to keep the magic door closed or pry it open further?  Why was he trying to reset it?

Once the Targaryens had secured the throne, the door to fire magic was reclosed. As a result, over the next 150 years the dragons began to die out. They got smaller and smaller until finally the eggs wouldn't even hatch. The Targaryens made several attempts, but I'm not sure they even knew what had caused all the old rituals to fail.

The story about the Knight of the Laughing Tree is another allegory and may not be a completely factual account of the tourney, but rather a way of explaining how the old gods figured out a way to "win". I have suggested that this was more than Howland simply winning at jousting, but rather some other great game that only gods play - if the forces of nature are viewed as gods from the Children's point of view. Their actions of "scooping up" all the water from the hammer of waters along with water from winter, creating a 700 foot tall DAM of frozen water, is a threat to mankind - and to themselves - that they have manufactured. It's aging magic spells are unravelling and the Children know it.

Everything that Bloodraven and the Children have been doing are attempts to head off this threat. The reset was to bring back winter - which is a delaying tactic. Winter will slow the disintegration. Can you imagine if it began running like melt water?

44 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

I am in agreement RE: the blizzard being a sign that the Wall is disintegrating. But I do not believe the Others have breached the Wall and I am unsure the textual support for this.  Ygritte does mention about letting "all those shades loose", which I take to mean wights, thus compounding the issue, but I don't think it is correct to attach the Others to the wights. Wights are just a symptom of a larger problem.

I offer my textual support in the form of the reread thread: The wildlings are the Others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Lightbringer is probably the name of the comet

Now, THIS is something I could get behind as a possibility. I will mull on that!

24 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

The Wall is a hinge that holds the door to magic which can be opened and closed, but reopening and reclosing obviously has risks, because the magic spells that hold the door closed are like invisible threads. Pull the wrong one and you risk unraveling.

That makes sense to me and I can agree with that. But I am not following your timeline regarding the openings and the closings. There is a great deal of time between the Andal invasion and the Targaryen invasion (which as you mention, coincides with Harren the Black destroying the weirwoods).

 

25 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

I offer my textual support in the form of the reread thread: The wildlings are the Others.

I will read! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

I am dubious of this.  I don't think the wildlings (besides Craster) are purposefully creating them to have a reason to go south of the Wall. They don't want to kneel, they want to be free and they can be free North of the Wall....but they have the problem with the Others.

However, your thoughts RE: The Grey King and linking Euron to the Others are intriguing.

I don't believe Craster was sacrificing in order to create white walkers, nor do I believe his infant sons were used for that purpose. Craster believed he was cursed, because his father was a man of the Watch who had broken his vows and impregnated a wildling. Then he made it worse by denying that Craster was his son - denied that he had broken his oath. He was an oathbreaker and the old gods hate oathbreakers. Craster's motivation for giving up his sons are sacrificial offerings to the old gods for protection. I have a fuller analysis here.

The wildlings and the Ironborn have common ancestors and share some traditions and beliefs. The Iron Islands may have been connected to the mainland at one time and separated during the thousands of years of the hammer of waters. Their designation as being "Ironborn" seems to imply that they were "reborn" from the iron. Iron is a common substance used in wards. So if the Ironborn considered the separation of their land from the mainland as a type of ward, then breaking free of that ward and growing strong despite living on rocky islands that make for poor crop-soil, then you might say they broke free of the iron and were reborn - ironborn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

But I am not following your timeline regarding the openings and the closings. There is a great deal of time between the Andal invasion and the Targaryen invasion (which as you mention, coincides with Harren the Black destroying the weirwoods).

The Children of the Forest live hundreds and maybe even thousands of years longer than humans. Their conception of time would feel very slow to a human that only lives 50+ years. I don't know if I can think of a good enough example for comparison - maybe we can think about humans and mayflies. The entire existence of a mayfly plays out in a single human day. The human lives in ASOIAF are like mayflies compared to the lives of Children, so while the hammer of waters may have lasted hundreds or thousands of humans years, it was like a few days in the life of a race that can live thousands of years. When they conjured the dragons it probably took 3000-4000 human years to happen, but to the Children it felt like 3-4 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about this...The Pact was signed 10,000 years ago. Was this after the hammer of waters? I'm assuming so. It's said the Pact signaled the end of the Dawn Age and the beginning of the Age of Heroes. It lasted 4000 years, including through the Long Night and until the birth of the Seven Kingdoms, but its hinted that it may have ended when the Andals came. All the power struggles and alliances that formed during the Andal years are what led to weirwoods being cut down again. There are many godswoods in the south, but not very many with weirwood heart trees. Harren just finished Harrenhal shortly before Aegon and his sisters arrived roughly 300 years ago. If the Pact was broken, then the Children were free to use magic again to deal with Harren and punish all the others that removed the weirwood heart trees. The Targaryens were summoned, but then the Children tried to wrest control over magic and shut the door to it once again. The Wall has lasted 8000 years, but it nearing its end-life. The condition of the Wall is the great danger - its the heart of winter. Kill the Wall and the Wall kills everyone. The Children don't seem to think there will be many survivors. Leaf said:

Quote

 

A Dance with Dragons - Bran III

And they did sing. They sang in True Tongue, so Bran could not understand the words, but their voices were as pure as winter air. "Where are the rest of you?" Bran asked Leaf, once.

"Gone down into the earth," she answered. "Into the stones, into the trees. Before the First Men came all this land that you call Westeros was home to us, yet even in those days we were few. The gods gave us long lives but not great numbers, lest we overrun the world as deer will overrun a wood where there are no wolves to hunt them. That was in the dawn of days, when our sun was rising. Now it sinks, and this is our long dwindling. The giants are almost gone as well, they who were our bane and our brothers. The great lions of the western hills have been slain, the unicorns are all but gone, the mammoths down to a few hundred. The direwolves will outlast us all, but their time will come as well. In the world that men have made, there is no room for them, or us."

She seemed sad when she said it, and that made Bran sad as well. It was only later that he thought, Men would not be sad. Men would be wroth. Men would hate and swear a bloody vengeance. The singers sing sad songs, where men would fight and kill.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

The story about the Knight of the Laughing Tree is another allegory and may not be a completely factual account of the tourney, but rather a way of explaining how the old gods figured out a way to "win".

Funny how Maester Yandel confirms and enlarges significant portions of it.

Not everything is allegorical or of mystical significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, corbon said:

Funny how Maester Yandel confirms and enlarges significant portions of it.

Not everything is allegorical or of mystical significance.

Are we taking Maester Yandel's words for proven factual history? I think you'll find a lot of resistance to that assertion. Perhaps I should rephrase my words and say, not JUST or ONLY an account of the tourney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Are we taking Maester Yandel's words for proven factual history? I think you'll find a lot of resistance to that assertion. 

Of course not, entirely. He's a flawed narrator twice over.
But I do think he is attempting to provide 'factual' (more, or in some cases much less) history, rather than allegorical stories. At least in the parts that cover within-living-memory events. I think he's trying in the other parts as well, but especially the very old 'history' he has little more idea than we do.

2 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Perhaps I should rephrase my words and say, not JUST or ONLY an account of the tourney.

Perhaps. 
Given Yandel describes almost exactly the same events as Meera's story does, just from a different perspective, I think it the general flow of events must be taken as factual history. Two utterly different sources with utterly different perspectives and utterly different motivations, one of which was likely an eye witness or had access to many eye witness accounts, as best we can tell utterly unconnected, describe basically identical events. I think we can take it these events as factual history.

No account is a complete factual account - each has its perspectives and misses or misunderstands some parts of a complete factual account.
But you defined it as an allegory and implied it could be non-factual, 'just' an explanation of the old gods winning.

This is not an attack on you (I refer to my own, opposite, bias), rather an explanation of what I think in this case.
I think your bias towards allegory and connections and history repeats etc (as mine is to literalism and minimalised mysticism - there is probably a more succinct and accurate way to describe yours, but it escapes me for now) jumped the shark there. We have an widely, publicly witnessed event, described from two sources disparate in every way but both directly connected to first hand participants, and you are defining it as allegory and "a way of explaining how the old gods figured out a way to "win"" .

It may have allegorical purposes, but I think first and foremost, its a true event that happened, told as best it can be from two different sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, corbon said:

Of course not, entirely. He's a flawed narrator twice over.
But I do think he is attempting to provide 'factual' (more, or in some cases much less) history, rather than allegorical stories. At least in the parts that cover within-living-memory events. I think he's trying in the other parts as well, but especially the very old 'history' he has little more idea than we do.

 <snip>

It may have allegorical purposes, but I think first and foremost, its a true event that happened, told as best it can be from two different sources.

Does Yandel’s account include Lyanna’s encounter with the squires, Howland’s desire to win, his prayer and sleeping in Ned’s tent, the Starks donations of mismatched armor, Lyanna sniffling at Rhaegar’s song, and Ashara’s dances with many men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Does Yandel’s account include Lyanna’s encounter with the squires, Howland’s desire to win, his prayer and sleeping in Ned’s tent, the Starks donations of mismatched armor, Lyanna sniffling at Rhaegar’s song, and Ashara’s dances with many men?

No.
Well, it does include that the armour was "ill-fitting". Meera says it was "ill-fitting and made up of bits and pieces".
Meera doesn't say it came from the Starks, she says Benjen offered HR a horse and armour and he thanked him but gave no answer.


Does Meera's version include Aerys' conviction that the Knight was Jaime mocking him and demanding that he be unmasked? That Robert Baratheon was one of those who swore to unmask him? (ETA: Oops, Meera's does, though not as explicitly as Yandels - more proof they are telling the same true story!) That Aerys tasked Rhaegar (who later awarded Lyanna, whom all the evidence points to actually being tKotLT, with the crown of LaB) with finding the missing mystery knight?
No.

As I said, its the same events told from two different perspectives, each seeing only some of the complete factual record and missing or misunderstanding some other parts.

But both tell of a mystery knight, slight/small, bearing a laughing weirwood on 'his' shield, who defeated three champions in succession, then disappeared.
ETA: And that the King was wroth and wanted the mystery knight unmasked, and Robert Baratheon was one of those who swore to do so.
Which was a widely witnessed public event.
I think this really happened. Its not just allegorical.

And I don't see any reason that either story teller made up the other details. Any of them. Both merely tell the story as they know it from the perspective they have.
And each story has several of its 'unique' parts also verified elsewhere. From Ned's relationship with Howland, to Lyanna's connection with Rhaegar, to Ashara Dayne's presence and connection to Starks, to Jaime's story 'at' the tourney and on and on and on. All of these, and many others, come up through Ned's thoughts, Jaimes' memories, Barristan's thoughts and other sources.
The story may have allegorical purposes, but its clearly a true (more or less) telling of factual events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, corbon said:

No.
Well, it does include that the armour was "ill-fitting". Meera says it was "ill-fitting and made up of bits and pieces".
Meera doesn't say it came from the Starks, she says Benjen offered HR a horse and armour and he thanked him but gave no answer.


Does Meera's version include Aerys' conviction that the Knight was Jaime mocking him and demanding that he be unmasked? That Robert Baratheon was one of those who swore to unmask him? (ETA: Oops, Meera's does, though not as explciptly and Yandels - more proof they are telling the same true story!) That Aerys tasked Rhaegar (who later awarded Lyanna, who all the evidence points to actually being tKotLT, with the crown of LaB) with finding the missing mystery knight?
No.

As I said, its the same events told from two different perspectives, each seeing only some of the complete factual record and missing or misunderstanding some other parts.

But both tell of a mystery knight, slight/small, bearing a laughing weirwood on 'his' shield, who defeated three champions in succession, then disappeared.
ETA: And that the King was wroth and wanted the mystery knight unmasked, and Robert Baratheon was one of those who swore to do so.
Which was a widely witnessed public event.
I think this really happened. Its not just allegorical.

And I don't see any reason that either story teller made up the other details. Any of them. Both merely tell the story as they know it from the perspective they have.
And each story has several of its 'unique' parts also verified elsewhere. From Ned's relationship with Howland, to Lyanna's connection with Rhaegar, to Robert Baratheon's presence and drinking, to Ashara Dayne's presence and connection to Starks, to Jaime's story 'at' the tourney and on and on and on. All of these, and many others, come up through Ned's thoughts, Jaimes' memories, Barristan's thoughts and other sources.
The story may have allegorical purposes, but its clearly a true (more or less) telling of factual events.

It’s the manner in which Meera told the tale. If she were simply relaying a factual story there’d be no need to use symbolic names. Why not just call everybody out by their given names?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn’t Meera and Jojen just say the ctannogman was their father, or how the mystery knight was able to defeat three foes?

Maester Yandel, for his part, makes no mention of the speech the knight gave in a booming voice either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Feather Crystal said:

It’s the manner in which Meera told the tale. If she were simply relaying a factual story there’d be no need to use symbolic names. Why not just call everybody out by their given names?

It has more impact as a story - which is what Bran asked for - with the symbolic names. They probably don't know who all the characters are either (though clearly they know many).

More importantly, GRRM didn't want to give us the names. He leaves that for us to work out - more interesting by far for us that way.

59 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Why didn’t Meera and Jojen just say the ctannogman was their father,

Why should they? Bran asked for a knight story, Meera told him one. That it happens to be true* is neither here nor there. Plus GRRM->us.

*Note that they don't know many (good) knight stories - such not being part of their culture knights being the stupid bad guys in their culture. 

Quote
"You could tell one," said Bran. "While we walked. Hodor likes stories about knights. I do, too."
"There are no knights in the Neck," said Jojen.
"Above the water," his sister corrected. "The bogs are full of dead ones, though."
"That's true," said Jojen. "Andals and ironmen, Freys and other fools, all those proud warriors who set out to conquer Greywater. Not one of them could find it. They ride into the Neck, but not back out. And sooner or later they blunder into the bogs and sink beneath the weight of all that steel and drown there in their armor."
The thought of drowned knights under the water gave Bran the shivers. He didn't object, though; he liked the shivers.
"There was one knight," said Meera, "in the year of the false spring. The Knight of the Laughing Tree, they called him. He might have been a crannogman, that one."

I think this is probably literally the only 'knight story' they know. And only because their father was a participant of a sort.

Quote

or how the mystery knight was able to defeat three foes?

With a lance. One at a time. In the usual manner. Publicly. Cheered by the crowd. Bran knows how it goes, no need to spell it out.

Quote

Maester Yandel, for his part, makes no mention of the speech the knight gave in a booming voice either.

Why should he? Its not relevant to the political side, which is what he tells.
Not that it was much of a speech - a one-liner.

 

ETA: Also worth noting - they (Jojen) were certain Bran must have heard this story from his father. Which clearly indicates that it is real Stark family (hi)story, not an allegorical tale about crannogmen.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, corbon said:

It has more impact as a story - which is what Bran asked for - with the symbolic names. They probably don't know who all the characters are either (though clearly they know many).

More importantly, GRRM didn't want to give us the names. He leaves that for us to work out - more interesting by far for us that way.

Why should they? Bran asked for a knight story, Meera told him one. That it happens to be true* is neither here nor there. Plus GRRM->us.

*Note that they don't know many (good) knight stories - such not being part of their culture knights being the stupid bad guys in their culture. 

I think this is probably literally the only 'knight story' they know. And only because their father was a participant of a sort.

With a lance. One at a time. In the usual manner. Publicly. Cheered by the crowd. Bran knows how it goes, no need to spell it out.

Why should he? Its not relevant to the political side, which is what he tells.
Not that it was much of a speech - a one-liner.

 

ETA: Also worth noting - they (Jojen) were certain Bran must have heard this story from his father. Which clearly indicates that it is real Stark family (hi)story, not an allegorical tale about crannogmen.
 

Ned never told the story, because Winterfell has “forgotten”. :D

Maester Yandel’s version said Aerys wanted the mystery knight unmasked simply because he thought the sigil on the shield was mocking him. Meera’s version has the knight schooling the knights about teaching their squires honor. 

The crannogmen aren’t taught knightly skills much less how to joust, so this part of the story begs an explanation. Children are usually proud of their parent’s accomplishments and would be excited to share any facts they knew about how they managed such a feat, but Meera and Jojen can’t even agree with each other over the identity of the knight.

i’m not saying that there wasn’t a mystery knight called the knight of the laughing tree. What I am saying that the tale repeated by Meera is more than what meets the eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Maester Yandel’s version said Aerys wanted the mystery knight unmasked simply because he thought the sigil on the shield was mocking him. Meera’s version has the knight schooling the knights about teaching their squires honor. 

And both versions are entirely compatible, just with different perspectives.

4 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

The crannogmen aren’t taught knightly skills much less how to joust, so this part of the story begs an explanation.

No, the story is being told to Bran. Plus, lances and horses are specified earlier and Bran is explicitly aware that its jousting. No explanation is begged. 

4 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

Children are usually proud of their parent’s accomplishments and would be excited to share any facts they knew about how they managed such a feat, but Meera and Jojen can’t even agree with each other over the identity of the knight.

There is no reason for them to be excited about the Mystery Knight's accomplishments because he's not Howland, and they know it. Jojen is clear, Meera never disagrees with Jojen, she merely prefers to keep the storyteller's mystery alive. We don't learn who the Mystery knight was from Meera, only that he might have been a crannogman.

Quote

There was one knight," said Meera, "in the year of the false spring. The Knight of the Laughing Tree, they called him. He might have been a crannogman, that one."

"Or not, " Jojen's face was dappled with green snadows. "prince Bran has heard that tale a hundred times, I'm sure."

...

"You never heard this tale from your father?" asked Jojen.

"It was Old Nan who told the stories. Meera, go on, you can't stop there."

...

"Oh." Bran thought about the tale awhile. "That was a good story. Bit it should have been the three bad knights who hurt him, not their squires. Then the little crannogman could have killed them all. The part about the ransoms was stupid. And the Mystery knight should win the tourney, defeating every challenger, and name the wolf maid the queen of love and beauty."

"She was," Said Meera, "but that's a sadder story."

"Are you certain you never heard this tale before Bran?" asked Jojen. "Your lord father never told it to you?"

The story is  Stark story. Thats why Jojen is so certain Bran has heard this story 100s of times before he checks three times, before during and after, certain Bran must have heard it before.

4 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

i’m not saying that there wasn’t a mystery knight called the knight of the laughing tree. What I am saying that the tale repeated by Meera is more than what meets the eye.

You said it was allegorical, possibly not entirely factual, and really just an old gods story.

I'm saying it may indeed have allegorical purposes (or may not), but it actually happened and there is no indication any part of either story is not factual, at least as best both story tellers are aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, I've been lurking for quite some time and thought I'd drop in with this completely off the wall thought about what happened to the Night's King...a completely crackpot thought...

What if the Black Gate didn't exist when the Night's King reigned?

What if the Black Gate IS the Night's King trapped for all eternity to guard the Nightfort's passageway through the Wall (forced to uphold his Night's Watch vows in a sense as his ultimate punishment).

What if the 'tear' the gate dropped on Bran Stark as he passed through was the Night's King shedding a tear...perhaps a tear of sadness for what the 'door' knows/imagines Bran's fate will be...to become wedded to a tree, eventually absorbed by that tree...a parallel to the Night's King becoming a semi-sentient weirwood door. (I don't know if the door is semi-sentient but it makes for a nice parallel with Bran's potential fate.)

Feather Crystal does this fit in at all with your Wheel of Time theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...