Jump to content

The Three I’d Question #1: Don’t Mistake the Crow for the Conspiracy


Mourning Star

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Seams said:

We know that GRRM uses a lot of parallel characters (link to a relevant comparison of Bloodraven, Bran and Sweetrobin) as well as characters in disguise (Varys as Rugen the jailer, for instance, Ser Barristan as Arstan Whitebeard, each skinchanger when occupying the body of a surrogate, etc.). Maybe the answer to the identity of the Three-Eyed-Crow lies in some of these parallels and disguises.

Whether this forum sees Bloodraven as a weirwood or the Three-Eyed-Crow or both, he seems to be a mentor to Bran, training him up to be a skilled Greenseer. In the excerpt you cited, Bran seems to be accepting that he will not be a knight but he will have these special qualities that he sees in the "grisly talking corpse" who tells us his name was Brynden. 

If Bloodraven has a hundred skins, the answer might be that he is the talking corpse in the cave BUT ALSO Old Nan. This could explain why Ned Stark says Old Nan has always been at Winterfell as long as he could remember - she has the same extended life as Bloodraven, who lingers in spite of living beyond his mortal span. 

Here's a thought about the apparent contradiction of the raven / crow difference: what if the raven is the original and the crows are the copies - the hundred skins that can be occupied by the raven? (See "the first raven," below.)

I have to wrap this up for the moment but I will try to come back and add some details later. It occurs to me that a key to understand the purpose of the three-eyed-crow is to make a very close reading and analysis of this explanation from Catelyn:

There are hints here for us about Sweetrobin, who aspires to be the Falcon Knight (Catelyn goes up to the roof after thinking "Robin" is near), the raven, the Crone (Nan is a crone) and about Lord Hoster and (by implication) Lord Brynden, his brother. In a Jaime POV, we see him traveling with a young man named Hoster Blackwood that could also give us some clues. Jon Arryn and Lysa sit on a weirwood throne at the Eyrie. 

I think GRRM has given us clues here that could be useful insights into the Three-Eyed-Crow and Bloodraven in the cave. 

All of it comes back to rivers - Brynden Rivers, the Riverlands, House Tully, Nan as a nickname for Nymeria who came from the Rhoyne and whose people became the Orphans of the Greenblood river in Dorne. Keeping those rivers flowing may be the job of a new generation of Westeros leadership.

A lot of good stuff here, although I think I interpret it slightly differently (which hopefully is what makes discussions fun!). I think there are repeated examples showing that the crow and the raven are opposed to each other, rather than different representations of the same thing. 

I am especially glad you brought up Cat's comment about the Crone and the first raven. 

You will notice that the crone isn't the raven, rather she let the fist raven into the world when she peered through the doors of death.

I think this is an allusion to the origin of the Others, and as I have said before, I think Bloodraven is the prime suspect for being responsible for the return of the Others.

"Death should hold no fear for a man as old as me, but it does. Isn't that silly? It is always dark where I am, so why should I fear the darkness? Yet I cannot help but wonder what will follow, when the last warmth leaves my body. Will I feast forever in the Father's golden hall as the septons say? Will I talk with Egg again, find Dareon whole and happy, hear my sisters singing to their children? What if the horselords have the truth of it? Will I ride through the night sky forever on a stallion made of flame? Or must I return again to this vale of sorrow? Who can say, truly? Who has been beyond the wall of death to see? Only the wights, and we know what they are like. We know."

The "vale of sorrow" would appear to be a reference to the Christian idea of the "vale of tears", much like how the Seven appear much like a fantastical version of the Christian trinity.

And the crone embodies the "guide".

The Crone is very wise and old,
and sees our fates as they unfold.
She lifts her lamp of shining gold,
to lead the little children.

Just as the Three-eyed Crow is Bran's "guide" and the Night's Watch, called "crows", swear to be, "the light in the darkness".

There is also the lighting the way through the darkness metaphor going on, which fits very well with what I was pointing out above about the "darkness" imagery in Bran's chapter in Bloodraven's cave, as well as the opposing comments about darkness from both Nan and Bloodraven. In relation to my comments about the "rushlight" parable, the crone's lantern is even a constellation in ASoIaF. This also aligns beautifully with the literary allusions to Dante and his guides, path through the dark wood, and the stars.

This light/dark metaphor is also directly tied to fear, both by Nan and by Bloodraven. The difference? Nan (like Ned) seems to say fear is appropriate for the dark (a man can only be brave when he is afraid), where as Bloodraven advocates against fear, even in the dark.

And this brings us to Nan's tale of the Night's King.

As the sun began to set the shadows of the towers lengthened and the wind blew harder, sending gusts of dry dead leaves rattling through the yards. The gathering gloom put Bran in mind of another of Old Nan's stories, the tale of Night's King. He had been the thirteenth man to lead the Night's Watch, she said; a warrior who knew no fear. "And that was the fault in him," she would add, "for all men must know fear." A woman was his downfall; a woman glimpsed from atop the Wall, with skin as white as the moon and eyes like blue stars. Fearing nothing, he chased her and caught her and loved her, though her skin was cold as ice, and when he gave his seed to her he gave his soul as well.

Bloodraven, who was Lord Commander for 13 years before abandoning his post, shares the prime fault with the Night's King.

Without getting to far down the rabbit hole, I would suggest that the Night's King was Azor Ahai, and his corpse queen was Nissa Nissa after she had "peered through the doors of death" and been returned to the realms of man, making the Night's King the "first raven".

At the highest level, I think crows seem to serve the natural order while ravens serve the will of men (embodied perhaps best by the Maesters and their ravens, including the white ones who herald the changing seasons). I find it very hard to believe that the primary conflict of this story is one of man against nature, and rather that man's problems will be man's creations, including both dragons and the Others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

But in an attempt to highlight my point, Meera even begs the reader to ask themselves how the kids ended up there.

"He's being stupid," Meera said. "I'd hoped that when we found your three-eyed crow … now I wonder why we ever came."
For me, Bran thought. "His greendreams," he said.
"His greendreams." Meera's voice was bitter.

The Three-Eyed Crow did NOT lead the kids to the cave, Jojen did, and it sure seems like he is coming to the realization that he has made a terrible mistake.

 

I think your over-interprating the point go this line. Jojen has had a green dream implied to be of his own death. Jojen believes it is unavoidable, while Meera held out hope that destiny could be subverted by the "wise old wizard", you know some Classical Greek Hubris type stuff. Now that she has arrived and learned that nothing will be changed, she is dejected and depressed, explaining her comment. some lines are more to serve to reveal character and mood ands that's okay. its normal to be sullen and solitary and angry in the face of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

I think your over-interprating the point go this line. Jojen has had a green dream implied to be of his own death. Jojen believes it is unavoidable, while Meera held out hope that destiny could be subverted by the "wise old wizard", you know some Classical Greek Hubris type stuff. Now that she has arrived and learned that nothing will be changed, she is dejected and depressed, explaining her comment. some lines are more to serve to reveal character and mood ands that's okay. its normal to be sullen and solitary and angry in the face of death.

It cannot be overstated how untrustworthy Jojen's interpretations of his dreams are, even by his own admission.

"The green dreams take strange shapes sometimes," Jojen admitted. "The truth of them is not always easy to understand."

We've already seen him be wrong about seeing death in his dreams.

"Not drowned." Jojen spoke as if every word pained him. "I dreamed of the man who came today, the one they call Reek. You and your brother lay dead at his feet, and he was skinning off your faces with a long red blade."

It's not that the visions are wrong, it's the interpretation that's the issue.

What Jojen dreamed came true. Except he dreamed me dead, and I'm not. Only he was, in a way.

And we as readers are repeatedly told not to trust his interpretations.

Maybe Jojen dreams green, but he can't tell a wolf from a direwolf. He wondered why they all listened to Jojen so much.

So no. I really don't think I'm overinterpreting it at all.

This isn't one line or something, it is a continuous theme highlighted over and over again for the reader specifically about Jojen's dreams, and reflected in the larger story as well (Melisandre, Marwyn, etc.) Nan even names Jojen the "little grandfather", because he takes himself too seriously.

We as readers are being begged to question Jojen's interpretation of the vision we were never given that led the children to Bloodraven's cave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

It cannot be overstated how untrustworthy Jojen's interpretations of his dreams are, even by his own admission.

"The green dreams take strange shapes sometimes," Jojen admitted. "The truth of them is not always easy to understand."

We've already seen him be wrong about seeing death in his dreams.

"Not drowned." Jojen spoke as if every word pained him. "I dreamed of the man who came today, the one they call Reek. You and your brother lay dead at his feet, and he was skinning off your faces with a long red blade."

It's not that the visions are wrong, it's the interpretation that's the issue.

What Jojen dreamed came true. Except he dreamed me dead, and I'm not. Only he was, in a way.

And we as readers are repeatedly told not to trust his interpretations.

Maybe Jojen dreams green, but he can't tell a wolf from a direwolf. He wondered why they all listened to Jojen so much.

So no. I really don't think I'm overinterpreting it at all.

This isn't one line or something, it is a continuous theme highlighted over and over again for the reader specifically about Jojen's dreams, and reflected in the larger story as well (Melisandre, Marwyn, etc.) Nan even names Jojen the "little grandfather", because he takes himself too seriously.

We as readers are being begged to question Jojen's interpretation of the vision we were never given that led the children to Bloodraven's cave.

sure he can't tell a dire wolf howling from a regular wolf howling in real life, but so far none of his green dreams have been wrong. from brans interactions with the three eyed crow in dreams, we known the communication can be lucid, so any "real" three eyed crow could have warned them away if they went the wrong place. cold hands knew were to find them and when, and this all points to this being the place they are supposed to be at. if jojen believed them at the wrong place he would be worried, anxious. from what we know of jojen, he has no reason to believe his own interpretation of his vision are wrong even at this point. his actions are far more in line with someone expecting his own death and resigned to that fact, an attitude he has displayed towards his own visions as long as we have known him, worsening as his time comes near.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

sure he can't tell a dire wolf howling from a regular wolf howling in real life, but so far none of his green dreams have been wrong.

Jojen has been wrong, even if in retrospect his dreams weren't inherently wrong. This is my point. Since we only have the interpretation, and we don't know what the dream was, we can almost be assured that he is wrong! Or at least can't possibly know if he is right.

Quote

from brans interactions with the three eyed crow in dreams, we known the communication can be lucid, so any "real" three eyed crow could have warned them away if they went the wrong place.

Just because the Three-eyed Crow appeared to communicate in a lucid way once does not mean it is always possible. Especially if the example you are siting (Bran's falling dream) is when Nan was probably literally there by Bran's bedside. When the crow appeared to Jojen it's not clear that it could speak at all.

I do not believe there is any example in the story of the three eyed crow communicating in a lucid way after Bran and company leave Winterfell, with one possible exception quoted below. I think it's entirely possible that until Bran ate the Weirwood paste and began to bond with the Weirwood, the three-eyed crow wasn't able to speak to him at all. 

Leaf touched his hand. "The trees will teach you. The trees remember." He raised a hand, and the other singers began to move about the cavern, extinguishing the torches one by one. The darkness thickened and crept toward them.
"Close your eyes," said the three-eyed crow. "Slip your skin, as you do when you join with Summer. But this time, go into the roots instead. Follow them up through the earth, to the trees upon the hill, and tell me what you see."
Bran closed his eyes and slipped free of his skin. Into the roots, he thought. Into the weirwood. Become the tree. For an instant he could see the cavern in its black mantle, could hear the river rushing by below.
Then all at once he was back home again.

First, you will notice the lights are put out and Bran is in Darkness when the crow seems to appear, as is always the case.

Second, this is when Bran has eaten the Weirwood paste, seemingly opening his mid to connect to the visions of the Weirwoods.

Third, Bran does not do as instructed.

Bran is told to look out of the trees above him on the hill, which as I pointed out in the OP are the icy spires Bran saw during his falling dream (on whose points are impaled the bones of a thousand other dreamers, the bones in the caves with the Weirwood roots growing through them). 

However, he instead sees through the eyes of the Weirwood in Winterfell. And, we are told why:

"You saw what you wished to see. Your heart yearns for your father and your home, so that is what you saw."

I think the real question is what was the Three-eyed Crow trying to show Bran, and I would suggest that it was intended as a warning.

Quote

cold hands knew were to find them and when, and this all points to this being the place they are supposed to be at.

No. It points to Coldhands, or whoever having sent him, knowing where Bran and company were, which obviously Bloodraven would if he was the tree watching Bran since his birth. Or, you know, just watched through a bird's eye view.

Quote

if jojen believed them at the wrong place he would be worried, anxious.

This is exactly how Jojen appears at the end of Dance. I do not think his sullen solitary behavior fits with someone who is seeing things go how they expect, but I suppose there is plenty of room for interpretation if you look at this in isolation. As with the rest however, we need to look at the larger context.

Quote

from what we know of jojen, he has no reason to believe his own interpretation of his vision are wrong even at this point. his actions are far more in line with someone expecting his own death and resigned to that fact, an attitude he has displayed towards his own visions as long as we have known him, worsening as his time comes near.

We have no idea if Jojen has reason to belive his interpretations are wrong. We as readers have lots of reason to doubt, but since we haven't gotten Jojen's vision directly, or even described, and Jojen has barely communicated on page, it is a wild leap to assume his thoughts.

Nobody debates that Jojen believes he has likely seen his own death. But again, we cannot expect that he has interpreted the vision correctly. Rather, it makes more sense to assume Meera is right, and it's foolish to resign yourself to defeat no matter what you see, because even if the vision is true it isn't always clear how it will come true.

You referenced the Greek Tragedies, and even there, even when there is a prophesy, the tragic character's fate is a result of their own actions. Oedipus is a perfect example. 

From a storytelling perspective this is also how an author can balance fate with free will.

A prophesy about death being misinterpreted, or occurring differently than expected, was even the example used by GRRM when interviewed about the topic.

In the Wars of the Roses, that you mentioned, there was one Lord who had been prophesied he would die beneath the walls of a certain castle and he was superstitious at that sort of walls, so he never came anyway near that castle. He stayed thousands of leagues away from that particular castle because of the prophecy. However, he was killed in the first battle of St. Paul de Vence and when they found him dead he was outside of an inn whose sign was the picture of that castle! -GRRM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Nobody debates that Jojen believes he has likely seen his own death. But again, we cannot expect that he has interpreted the vision correctly. Rather, it makes more sense to assume Meera is right, and it's foolish to resign yourself to defeat no matter what you see, because even if the vision is true it isn't always clear how it will come true.

Did you see Preston Jacobs videos touching on this?  Jojen is the fatalist while Meera is the determinist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

 

Did you see Preston Jacobs videos touching on this?  Jojen is the fatalist while Meera is the determinist.

I have not.

I might prefer to phrase it as Jojen being fatalist/determinist (as these aren't really opposites, more a matter of degree) and Meera defending free will, as I see those stances undoubtedly shining through in the text.

 "I dreamed of the man who came today, the one they call Reek. You and your brother lay dead at his feet, and he was skinning off your faces with a long red blade."
Meera rose to her feet. "If I went to the dungeon, I could drive a spear right through his heart. How could he murder Bran if he was dead?"
"The gaolers will stop you," Jojen said. "The guards. And if you tell them why you want him dead, they'll never believe."
"I have guards too," Bran reminded them. "Alebelly and Poxy Tym and Hayhead and the rest."
Jojen's mossy eyes were full of pity. "They won't be able to stop him, Bran. I couldn't see why, but I saw the end of it. I saw you and Rickon in your crypts, down in the dark with all the dead kings and their stone wolves."
No, Bran thought. No. "If I went away . . . to Greywater, or to the crow, someplace far where they couldn't find me . . ."
"It will not matter. The dream was green, Bran, and the green dreams do not lie."

The green dreams may not lie, but we see over and over that they can be, and often are, misinterpreted. This is why I side with Meera on this one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I misspoke, you’re correct regarding the philosophies of Meera and Jojen.  

This was the quote Preston focused on:

Quote

Meera thought so too, later that night when she and Jojen met Bran in his room to play a three-sided game of tiles, but her brother shook his head. “The things I see in green dreams can’t be changed.”
That made his sister angry. “Why would the gods send a warning if we can’t heed it and change what’s to come?”
“I don’t know,” Jojen said sadly.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Jojen has been wrong, even if in retrospect his dreams weren't inherently wrong. This is my point. Since we only have the interpretation, and we don't know what the dream was, we can almost be assured that he is wrong! Or at least can't possibly know if he is right.

It doesn't matter if jojen's interpretations are wrong as long as the visions were true, because what matters is the dream itself. we know the dreams involve jojen bringing bran to the three eyed crow, and that the dreams themselves are never wrong. therefore we should assume that no matter where they end up, it is were they were supposed to end up as a result of the dreams. 

20 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Just because the Three-eyed Crow appeared to communicate in a lucid way once does not mean it is always possible. Especially if the example you are siting (Bran's falling dream) is when Nan was probably literally there by Bran's bedside. When the crow appeared to Jojen it's not clear that it could speak at all.

I do not believe there is any example in the story of the three eyed crow communicating in a lucid way after Bran and company leave Winterfell, with one possible exception quoted below. I think it's entirely possible that until Bran ate the Weirwood paste and began to bond with the Weirwood, the three-eyed crow wasn't able to speak to him at all. 

Leaf touched his hand. "The trees will teach you. The trees remember." He raised a hand, and the other singers began to move about the cavern, extinguishing the torches one by one. The darkness thickened and crept toward them.
"Close your eyes," said the three-eyed crow. "Slip your skin, as you do when you join with Summer. But this time, go into the roots instead. Follow them up through the earth, to the trees upon the hill, and tell me what you see."
Bran closed his eyes and slipped free of his skin. Into the roots, he thought. Into the weirwood. Become the tree. For an instant he could see the cavern in its black mantle, could hear the river rushing by below.
Then all at once he was back home again.

First, you will notice the lights are put out and Bran is in Darkness. 

Second, this is when Bran has eaten the Weirwood paste, seemingly opening his mid to connect to the visions of the Weirwoods.

Third, Bran does not do as instructed.

Bran is told to look out of the trees above him on the hill, which as I pointed out in the OP are the icy spires Bran saw during his falling dream (on whose points are impaled the bones of a thousand other dreamers, the bones in the caves with the Weirwood roots growing through them). 

However, he instead sees through the eyes of the Weirwood in Winterfell. And, we are told why:

"You saw what you wished to see. Your heart yearns for your father and your home, so that is what you saw."

I think the real question is what was the Three-eyed Crow trying to show Bran, and I would suggest that it intended as a warning.

I think you just accidentally pointed out that Bloodraven would be able to reach the heart tree in winterfell and so should be able to communicate with bran there. as to why he was more susceptible, being near death would do it. all to say that this aspect of the argument does not support nan any more than bloodraven. 

We know bran still has dreams of the three eyed crow after he leaves winterfell from Bran I in sword of storms

"Then you teach me." Bran still feared the three-eyed crow who haunted his dreams sometimes, pecking endlessly at the skin between his eyes and telling him to fly. "You're a greenseer."
34 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

It points to Coldhands, or whoever having sent him, knowing where Bran and company were, which obviously Bloodraven would if he was the tree watching Bran since his birth.

again, this suggest he is the three eyed crow, the one sending visions. the one observing and guiding bran's life.

36 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

This is exactly how Jojen appears at the end of Dance. I do not think his sullen solitary behavior fits with someone who is seeing things go how they expect, but I suppose there is plenty of room for interpretation if you look at this in isolation. As with the rest however, we need to look at the larger context.

"The moon was a black hole in the sky. Outside the cave the world went on. Outside the cave the sun rose and set, the moon turned, the cold winds howled. Under the hill, Jojen Reed grew ever more sullen and solitary, to his sister's distress. She would often sit with Bran beside their little fire, talking of everything and nothing, petting Summer where he slept between them, whilst her brother wandered the caverns by himself. Jojen had even taken to climbing up to the cave's mouth when the day was bright. He would stand there for hours, looking out over the forest, wrapped in furs yet shivering all the same."

this is the last descriptor we get of jojen in Dance. if he thought they were in the wrong place, he would express that doubt or be asking questions.
42 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

We have no idea if Jojen has reason to belive his interpretations are wrong. We as readers have lots of reason to doubt, but since we haven't gotten Jojen's vision directly, or even described, and Jojen has barely communicated on page, it is a wild leap to assume his thoughts.

Nobody debates that Jojen believes he has likely seen his own death. But again, we cannot expect that he has interpreted the vision correctly. Rather, it makes more sense to assume Meera is right, and it's foolish to resign yourself to defeat no matter what you see, because even if the vision is true it isn't always clear how it will come true.

You referenced the Greek Tragedies, and even there, even when there is a prophesy, the tragic character's fate is a result of their own actions. Oedipus is a perfect example. 

From a storytelling perspective this is also how an author can balance fate with free will.

A prophesy about death being misinterpreted, or occurring differently than expected, was even the example used by GRRM when interviewed about the topic.

In the Wars of the Roses, that you mentioned, there was one Lord who had been prophesied he would die beneath the walls of a certain castle and he was superstitious at that sort of walls, so he never came anyway near that castle. He stayed thousands of leagues away from that particular castle because of the prophecy. However, he was killed in the first battle of St. Paul de Vence and when they found him dead he was outside of an inn whose sign was the picture of that castle! -GRRM

The tragedy of Oedipus is a result of prophecy being misinterpreted but still coming true. The point is to try to escape divine will is hubris and folly. Laius is foretold to have a prophecy of succession and so tries not to have a son. he breaks his vow and one is born, which he tries to have killed. the two later meet and laius is killed in a small dispute between the two. The prophecy and the reaction to the prophecy especially created the conditions for the prophecy to come true, everything happening as It was foretold. Using the same logic, we can assume that these dreams led Jojen and Bran to where they are supposed to be. Even if bloodraven is not the three eyed crow, this is were those visions wanted them to end up. classic matrix Oracle situation. And again, all of Jojen's green dreams have come true akin to this formula. no one has escaped what jojen has seen as of yet.

 

 

Ive made this argument before, but if the great other and R'hllor are both capable of seeing the future and creating true prophecy, they would be able to use their prophecies to create conditions to their liking, which is why the two are at war, because their powers interfere with the others absolute control of the world, which is why neither side must ever win entirely if free will is to be preserved over limited will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

It doesn't matter if jojen's interpretations are wrong as long as the visions were true, because what matters is the dream itself. we know the dreams involve jojen bringing bran to the three eyed crow, and that the dreams themselves are never wrong. therefore we should assume that no matter where they end up, it is were they were supposed to end up as a result of the dreams. 

Absolutely not. 

It's shocking that this could be your takeaway from the story if I'm being honest.

So you think that when Jojen told Bran that Reek was going to kill them that Bran should have just given up? Madness. Literally, that sort of thinking is madness.

That anyone could come away from a story like this thinking the message is that your actions don't matter because fate is written is wild to me, comical even. But you are entitled to your view.

Quote

I think you just accidentally pointed out that Bloodraven would be able to reach the heart tree in winterfell and so should be able to communicate with bran there. as to why he was more susceptible, being near death would do it. all to say that this aspect of the argument does not support nan any more than bloodraven. 

No, Bloodraven is not Bran, and there is no evidence that Bloodraven can speak coherently through dreams at all.

But of course Bloodraven could reach the heart tree, that's what I have been saying all along!

Bloodraven was the heart tree in Bran's falling dream. Neither Bran nor Bloodraven can speak coherently through the tree, which fits perfectly with what I've proposed.

Quote

We know bran still has dreams of the three eyed crow after he leaves winterfell from Bran I in sword of storms

"Then you teach me." Bran still feared the three-eyed crow who haunted his dreams sometimes, pecking endlessly at the skin between his eyes and telling him to fly. "You're a greenseer."

again, this suggest he is the three eyed crow, the one sending visions. the one observing and guiding bran's life.

"The moon was a black hole in the sky. Outside the cave the world went on. Outside the cave the sun rose and set, the moon turned, the cold winds howled. Under the hill, Jojen Reed grew ever more sullen and solitary, to his sister's distress. She would often sit with Bran beside their little fire, talking of everything and nothing, petting Summer where he slept between them, whilst her brother wandered the caverns by himself. Jojen had even taken to climbing up to the cave's mouth when the day was bright. He would stand there for hours, looking out over the forest, wrapped in furs yet shivering all the same."

this is the last descriptor we get of jojen in Dance. if he thought they were in the wrong place, he would express that doubt or be asking questions.

The tragedy of Oedipus is a result of prophecy being misinterpreted but still coming true. The point is to try to escape divine will is hubris and folly. Laius is foretold to have a prophecy of succession and so tries not to have a son. he breaks his vow and one is born, which he tries to have killed. the two later meet and laius is killed in a small dispute between the two. The prophecy and the reaction to the prophecy especially created the conditions for the prophecy to come true, everything happening as It was foretold. Using the same logic, we can assume that these dreams led Jojen and Bran to where they are supposed to be. Even if bloodraven is not the three eyed crow, this is were those visions wanted them to end up. classic matrix Oracle situation. And again, all of Jojen's green dreams have come true akin to this formula. no one has escaped what jojen has seen as of yet.

The crow still appearing to Bran and pecking at him telling him to fly is what I am comparing to the tree calling Bran's name at the start of the story. It's not having conversations like the crow in the falling dream, or even using full sentences like the moment in the cave after Bran is hopped up on Weirwood paste and about to see through the tree.

You will note that Bran doesn't respond to the crow, nor can he really seem to speak coherently through the heart tree, just as we would expect given the same was true of Bloodraven as the tree in his falling dream, and the subsequent tree dreams, and the dreams of the crow after he leaves Winterfell.

And, of course, we don't know where Old Nan even is right now in the story.

A core part of classic tragedy is that they are the results of the characters actions. And major difference between the prophesies there, and the visions given in ASoIaF, is the ambiguity, which is what I was trying to point out to you above. From a modern storytelling perspective, the unreliability of a vision, compared to a flat statement like, "you're doomed to perish at the hands of your own son" (which by the way has a long tradition as a prophesy itself), is hugely important, especially here where we're talking about how these visions can be misinterpreted!

Quote

Ive made this argument before, but if the great other and R'hllor are both capable of seeing the future and creating true prophecy, they would be able to use their prophecies to create conditions to their liking, which is why the two are at war, because their powers interfere with the others absolute control of the world, which is why neither side must ever win entirely if free will is to be preserved over limited will.

And I feel like this may explain a lot. Remember, the author is a atheist, and it shines through.

There is no reason to think there is some consciousness that is R'hllor or a Great Other behind the scenes pulling strings. We've already learned that the "Old Gods" are really the dead going down into the trees, not gods in the common sense at all. 

The world is not some cosmic struggle between two forces. That is a childish and dangerous world view.

"The way the world is made. The truth is all around you, plain to behold. The night is dark and full of terrors, the day bright and beautiful and full of hope. One is black, the other white. There is ice and there is fire. Hate and love. Bitter and sweet. Male and female. Pain and pleasure. Winter and summer. Evil and good." She took a step toward him. "Death and life. Everywhere, opposites. Everywhere, the war."
"The war?" asked Davos.
"The war," she affirmed. "There are two, Onion Knight. Not seven, not one, not a hundred or a thousand. Two! Do you think I crossed half the world to put yet another vain king on yet another empty throne? The war has been waged since time began, and before it is done, all men must choose where they will stand. On one side is R'hllor, the Lord of Light, the Heart of Fire, the God of Flame and Shadow. Against him stands the Great Other whose name may not be spoken, the Lord of Darkness, the Soul of Ice, the God of Night and Terror. Ours is not a choice between Baratheon and Lannister, between Greyjoy and Stark. It is death we choose, or life. Darkness, or light." She clasped the bars of his cell with her slender white hands. The great ruby at her throat seemed to pulse with its own radiance. "So tell me, Ser Davos Seaworth, and tell me truly—does your heart burn with the shining light of R'hllor? Or is it black and cold and full of worms?" She reached through the bars and laid three fingers upon his breast, as if to feel the truth of him through flesh and wool and leather.
"My heart," Davos said slowly, "is full of doubts."

Be like Davos, have doubt.

Don't be like Melisandre. She is a crazy religious zealot who is wrong about all sorts of things, not the least of which is her worldview. Her hypocrisy here, while working for a vain king against Baratheon, Lannister, Stark, and Greyjoy, is astounding. Such certainty begets atrocity.

And obviously, the fact that Melisandre is so bad, and she's apparently one of the best, at interpreting visions highlights my whole point.

Jojen is a child, and one way out of his depths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

I think you just accidentally pointed out that Bloodraven would be able to reach the heart tree in winterfell and so should be able to communicate with bran there. as to why he was more susceptible, being near death would do it. all to say that this aspect of the argument does not support nan any more than bloodraven

Yea, I think you missed that bit.  While I disagree with Mourning’s theory about Old Nan, I think his observation that Bloodraven was the watchful weirwood in Bran’s dreams was brilliant.  That bit would have never occurred to me.  

He’s just suggesting that Bloodraven is not the chatty crow.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Absolutely not. 

It's shocking that this could be your takeaway from the story if I'm being honest.

So you think that when Jojen told Bran that Reek was going to kill them that Bran should have just given up? Madness. Literally, that sort of thinking is madness.

That anyone could come away from a story like this thinking the message is that your actions don't matter because fate is written is wild to me, comical even. But you are entitled to your view.

I think you misunderstand my what i'm saying there. the dreams come from a source which in turn creates a sort of fate. every one of the green dreams have come true, and in fact help create the conditions for the green dream to come true because they are an oracle like event similar to our discussion of Oedipus Tyrannus. the interpretations can still be wrong but by the nature of the dream will lead the dreamer to the dreamed of scenario's fruition. How people react to the dream (positive or negative) is part of the magic that ultimately leads to how the dream comes true. This is because a prophetic super being would be able seem any paths, including how to manipulate people to do as it pleases. if we are to assume the old gods have some domain over prophecy we must accept that this issue is within the range of what they can enact. So if Jojen had a dream that led them north and past the wall and to bloodraven, what we must accept is that the dreams were trying to get him there. by nature of what we know of the dreams, were must assume the result is the correct one.

in a realm where there are two gods with this power, one cannot say their control is absolute and between them there can be free will, but when a person is under the exclusive domain of an omniscient deity, of course they don't have free will, only limited will.  neither is fully omniscient while the other remains.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

No, Bloodraven is not Bran, and there is no evidence that Bloodraven can speak coherently through dreams at all.

But of course Bloodraven could reach the heart tree, that's what I have been saying all along!

there is no evidence nan can speak coherently in dreams, but there is evidence of bran speaking to Jon through their dreams and the words that bloodraven in the last greenseer (seer - a person who can predict the future and speak with the gods.)

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

The crow still appearing to Bran and pecking at him telling him to fly is what I am comparing to the tree calling Bran's name at the start of the story. It's not having conversations like the crow in the falling dream, or even using full sentences like the moment in the cave after Bran is hopped up on Weirwood paste and about to see through the tree.

You will note that Bran doesn't respond to the crow, nor can he really seem to speak coherently through the heart tree, just as we would expect given the same was true of Bloodraven as the tree in his falling dream, and the subsequent tree dreams, and the dreams of the crow after he leaves Winterfell.

And, of course, we don't know where Old Nan even is right now in the story.

even if the message devolves into but one word, if there was a problem it could use one word to change their direction. "Wrong" "south!" "stop" instead it persists on his training because they are going the right way and that all bran needs to do in the meantime.

and us not knowing where nan is is not evidence for her being the crow.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

A core part of classic tragedy is that they are the results of the characters actions. And major difference between the prophesies there, and the visions given in ASoIaF, is the ambiguity, which is what I was trying to point out to you above. From a modern storytelling perspective, the unreliability of a vision, compared to a flat statement like, "you're doomed to perish at the hands of your own son" (which by the way has a long tradition as a prophesy itself), is hugely important, especially here where we're talking about how these visions can be misinterpreted!

A core part of greek tragedy is that Hubris, or an attempt to subvert prophecy, is impossible. once you hear the prophecy you make it true because divine gifts once given cannot be rescinded. Laius knew his prophecy, and it was his reaction to it in trying to avoid it that made it come true. You assume the dreams are of benefit to the dreamer. they are not. they are to the benefit or design of who or whatever sends the dreams. that an old god is using old world rules should not be surprising. that's why the overreaching conflict is more important, possible because neither is subject to the others will, and because it is deciding the domain and influence of these two gods and the degree of will people will be able to express underneath them.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

And I feel like this may explain a lot. Remember, the author is a atheist, and it shines through.

There is no reason to think there is some consciousness that is R'hllor or a Great Other behind the scenes pulling strings. We've already learned that the "Old Gods" are really the dead going down into the trees, not gods in the common sense at all. 

The world is not some cosmic struggle between two forces. That is a childish and dangerous world view.

"The way the world is made. The truth is all around you, plain to behold. The night is dark and full of terrors, the day bright and beautiful and full of hope. One is black, the other white. There is ice and there is fire. Hate and love. Bitter and sweet. Male and female. Pain and pleasure. Winter and summer. Evil and good." She took a step toward him. "Death and life. Everywhere, opposites. Everywhere, the war."
"The war?" asked Davos.
"The war," she affirmed. "There are two, Onion Knight. Not seven, not one, not a hundred or a thousand. Two! Do you think I crossed half the world to put yet another vain king on yet another empty throne? The war has been waged since time began, and before it is done, all men must choose where they will stand. On one side is R'hllor, the Lord of Light, the Heart of Fire, the God of Flame and Shadow. Against him stands the Great Other whose name may not be spoken, the Lord of Darkness, the Soul of Ice, the God of Night and Terror. Ours is not a choice between Baratheon and Lannister, between Greyjoy and Stark. It is death we choose, or life. Darkness, or light." She clasped the bars of his cell with her slender white hands. The great ruby at her throat seemed to pulse with its own radiance. "So tell me, Ser Davos Seaworth, and tell me truly—does your heart burn with the shining light of R'hllor? Or is it black and cold and full of worms?" She reached through the bars and laid three fingers upon his breast, as if to feel the truth of him through flesh and wool and leather.
"My heart," Davos said slowly, "is full of doubts."

Be like Davos, have doubt.

Don't be like Melisandre. She is a crazy religious zealot who is wrong about all sorts of things, not the least of which is her worldview. Her hypocrisy here, while working for a vain king against Baratheon, Lannister, Stark, and Greyjoy, is astounding. Such certainty begets atrocity.

And obviously, the fact that Melisandre is so bad, and she's apparently one of the best, at interpreting visions highlights my whole point.

Jojen is a child, and one way out of his depths.

I'm not saying the old god and rhllor are omni gods, but powerful beings. kings of the world with the ability of prophecy is a more apt descriptor. George also does not believe in magic but magic persists in his stories. warring gods is one of the oldest types of tales as well, from Uranos to Kronos to zeus, gods can be killed and their domain usurped. between dany and Jon, in the song of ice and fire, we are likely seeing the escalation between their two forces. gods have champions, Azor Ahai and the last hero being great examples. as long as both keep sending visions, we can assume they are pulling the strings. its just a game of thrones on a more cosmic scale. all of Mels visions have lead her where she needs to be, at Jon's side, the real prince of dragon stone. all of jojen's visions have come true despite warnings to those it doomed. interpretations are a calculated consequence of the visions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

I think you misunderstand my what i'm saying there. the dreams come from a source which in tern creates a sort of fate. every one of the green dreams have come true, and in fact help create the conditions for the green dream to come true because they are an oracle like event similar to our discussion of Oedipus Tyrannus. the interpretations can still be wrong but by the nature of the dream will lead the dreamer to the dreamed of scenario's fruition. How people react to the dream (positive or negative) is part of the magic that ultimately leads to how the dream comes true. This is because a prophetic super being would be able seem any paths, including how to manipulate people to do as it pleases. if we are to assume the old gods have some domain over prophecy we must accept that this issue is within the range of what they can enact. So if Jojen had a dream that led them north and past the wall and to bloodraven, what we must accept is that the dreams were trying to get him there. by nature of what we know of the dreams, were must assume the result is the correct one.

I don't think I misunderstand, I think I disagree.

I do not think there are super beings creating dreams.

I think this is the assumption leading you astray here.

Quote

in a realm where there are two gods with this power, one cannot say their control is absolute and between them there can be free will, but when a person is under the exclusive domain of an omniscient deity, of course they don't have free will, only limited will.  neither is fully omniscient while the other remains.

I don't see any evidence that these super being exist, and I think this faith is what is guiding you to these conclusions more than the text itself.

Quote

there is no evidence nan can speak coherently in dreams, but there is evidence of bran speaking to Jon through their dreams and the words that bloodraven in the last greenseer (seer - a person who can predict the future and speak with the gods.)

There is a clear distinction between the crow and the tree's ability to speak in dreams.

Bran is special, we know this, and I think there is reason to believe he can do more than others, which is why Nan and Blodraven have been waiting for the right Brandon Stark.

Quote

even if the message devolves into but one word, if there was a problem it could use one word to change their direction. "Wrong" "south!" "stop" instead it persists on his training because they are going the right way and that all bran needs to do in the meantime.

Kind of... We see this same issue with Mormont's Raven right? It can't really communicate effectively despite the single words. 

What we do not see is what you are describing.

These limitations are what keep the story manageable (like having unclear visions instead of clear prophesy). Because if there are super beings running around that can see the future and communicate it to people clearly in dreams they are either morons or wildly incompetent. Nothing about what we see in this series leads me to think there are super beings executing some plan, or even opposing plans.

Quote

and us not knowing where nan is is not evidence for her being the crow.

No, but if communication through dreams has physical requirements, like being near the sleeper, connected to Weirwoods, or using a glass candle, then location matters and not knowing where she is becomes relevant. Especially if the crow is speaking coherently sometimes and not at others. Similar to how I tried to show in the OP how Hodor carrying Nan away from Bran may be why he had the dream about what the crow had taken or protected Bran from.

Quote

A core part of greek tragedy is that Hubris, or an attempt to subvert prophecy, is impossible. once you hear the prophecy you make it true because divine gifts once given cannot be rescinded. Laius knew his prophecy, and it was his reaction to it in trying to avoid it that made it come true. You assume the dreams are of benefit to the dreamer. they are not. they are to the benefit or design of who or whatever sends the dreams. that an old god is using old world rules should not be surprising. that's why the overreaching conflict is more important, possible because neither is subject to the others will, and because it is deciding the domain and influence of these two gods and the degree of will people will be able to express underneath them.

I do not assume this.

You assume there are super beings sending the dreams.

Perhaps it is simply a sort of sight and not gifts from some divine source at all.

Quote

I'm not saying the old god and rhllor are omni gods, but powerful beings. kings of the world with the ability of prophecy is a more apt descriptor. George also does not believe in magic but magic persists in his stories. warring gods is one of the oldest types of tales as well, from Uranos to Kronos to zeus, gods can be killed and their domain usurped. between dany and Jon, in the song of ice and fire, we are likely seeing the escalation between their two forces. gods have champions, Azor Ahai and the last hero being great examples. as long as both keep sending visions, we can assume they are pulling the strings. its just a game of thrones on a more cosmic scale. all of Mels visions have lead her where she needs to be, at Jon's side, the real prince of dragon stone. all of jojen's visions have come true despite warnings to those it doomed. interpretations are a calculated consequence of the visions. 

And I'm suggesting they do not exist as any sort of coherent consciousness. That they don't have a plan, aren't actively sending visions, and there isn't some secret plan or strings being pulled. Life isn't a game.

I think we've come away with wildly different interpretations of the message in this story. 

I would be absolutely shocked if the final conflict here is resolved by some violent battle where the heroes defeat the bad guys. The message all along has been that this sort of worldview is incredibly destructive, divisive, and straight up wrong.

Some say the world will end in fire (desire), some say in ice (hate), but both are bad!

At the end of the day you don't resolve conflict with more conflict.- Something is broken in the world of Planetos, and it won't be healed by more destruction.

As the story began in a dark wood just like Dante, it will end like Dante, with love.

The love that moves the sun and the other stars

But I firmly believe this is a story about people, and that the conflict was created by people and will be resolved by people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I don't think I misunderstand, I think I disagree.

I do not think there are super beings creating dreams.

I think this is the assumption leading you astray here.

I don't see any evidence that these super being exist, and I think this faith is what is guiding you to these conclusions more than the text itself.

There is a clear distinction between the crow and the tree's ability to speak in dreams.

Bran is special, we know this, and I think there is reason to believe he can do more than others, which is why Nan and Blodraven have been waiting for the right Brandon Stark.

Kind of... We see this same issue with Mormont's Raven right? It can't really communicate effectively despite the single words. 

What we do not see is what you are describing.

These limitations are what keep the story manageable (like having unclear visions instead of clear prophesy). Because if there are super beings running around that can see the future and communicate it to people clearly in dreams they are either morons or wildly incompetent. Nothing about what we see in this series leads me to think there are super beings executing some plan, or even opposing plans.

No, but if communication through dreams has physical requirements, like being near the sleeper, connected to Weirwoods, or using a glass candle, then location matters and not knowing where she is becomes relevant. Especially if the crow is speaking coherently sometimes and not at others. Similar to how I tried to show in the OP how Hodor carrying Nan away from Bran may be why he had the dream about what the crow had taken or protected Bran from.

I do not assume this.

You assume there are super beings sending the dreams.

Perhaps it is simply a sort of sight and not gifts from some divine source at all.

And I'm suggesting they do not exist as any sort of coherent consciousness. That they don't have a plan, aren't actively sending visions, and there isn't some secret plan or strings being pulled. Life isn't a game.

I think we've come away with wildly different interpretations of the message in this story. 

I would be absolutely shocked if the final conflict here is resolved by some violent battle where the heroes defeat the bad guys. The message all along has been that this sort of worldview is incredibly destructive, divisive, and straight up wrong.

Some say the world will end in fire (desire), some say in ice (hate), but both are bad!

At the end of the day you don't resolve conflict with more conflict.- Something is broken in the world of Planetos, and it won't be healed by more destruction.

As the story began in a dark wood just like Dante, it will end like Dante, with love.

The love that moves the sun and the other stars

But I firmly believe this is a story about people, and that the conflict was created by people and will be resolved by people.

you think there are no gods in asoiaf and that is fine, albeit a conceit at best, but the greenseer (someone who sees the future and communicates with the old gods or uses the power of the old gods) Bloodraven as a conduit of the old god must have some prophetic abilities just as he has displayed omniscience. even if no "God" per se exists, bloodraven serves as a suitable enough second as quaith does for the fire side of things with dany. 

if there are gods all evidence points to bloodraven being the three eyed crow. if their isn't gods, there still isn't suitable reason to believe old nan is the there eyed crow over bloodraven. bloodraven is connected to a heart tree while we have no evidence that touching someone allows you to talk to them in their dreams.

of course I don't believe that things will end with some great battle. I think the balance of the world and free will relies on neither side winning. I have stated that fact at least three times in above posts. brans ice, dany is fire, Jon is the mediator.

lets use your conjured image of Dante though. Dante is operating in a world of a rational moral theology, as opposed to a more irrational morally relative theology explored in asoiaf. conflicting gods and conflicting morals are commonplace and what a god can be defined as is more flexible. we should not imagine any god in asoiaf as being a contemporary or equivalent to the abrahamic god.

and even if there are no gods, we can assume based on the fact that all jojen's predictions have come true, some fatalistic force is at work, and so should still assume they are in the correct place as dictated by fate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also realize,

if nan is the three eyed crow jojen become superfluous. Nan is already at brans side so if she wants to teach him she would have been able to during the months they spent together during the war of five kings. there would be no need for Jojen to have a dream to bring bran to the crow unless the crow is someone else.

And within the role of the three eyed crow, what more is there for nan to even do?

she only appears in the first two books (which is diminished in the second) and is for the most part only referenced in terms of revealing exposition. expecting her to return after a three book absence is unnecessary because she has already fulfilled her part. whatever role she could feasibly play is limited as well given her location and the location of every main stark. most likely she's dead.

I mean how many secret identity reveals are you expecting in the next couple books.

We already have potentially: Jon, Faegon, Dany, Lemore, Alleras, varys, ect.

I mean bloodraven himself was a reveal, to add a misdirect to that is exhausting and almost a little insulting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

I also realize,

if nan is the three eyed crow jojen become superfluous. Nan is already at brans side so if she wants to teach him she would have been able to during the months they spent together during the war of five kings. there would be no need for Jojen to have a dream to bring bran to the crow unless the crow is someone else.

And within the role of the three eyed crow, what more is there for nan to even do?

she only appears in the first two books (which is diminished in the second) and is for the most part only referenced in terms of revealing exposition. expecting her to return after a three book absence is unnecessary because she has already fulfilled her part. whatever role she could feasibly play is limited as well given her location and the location of every main stark. most likely she's dead.

I mean how many secret identity reveals are you expecting in the next couple books.

We already have potentially: Jon, Faegon, Dany, Lemore, Alleras, varys, ect.

I mean bloodraven himself was a reveal, to add a misdirect to that is exhausting and almost a little insulting.

 

To be honest, Old Nan=3EC is a logical nonsense. Are we supposed to believe Old Nan let Bran go from her side, spawned dreams to Jojen that had to bring him to her (altough he was with her), and at the same time stopped communicating with him once Bran begin his journey/arrived to Brynden? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

To be honest, Old Nan=3EC is a logical nonsense. Are we supposed to believe Old Nan let Bran go from her side, spawned dreams to Jojen that had to bring him to her (altough he was with her), and at the same time stopped communicating with him once Bran begin his journey/arrived to Brynden? 

my point exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2021 at 4:01 PM, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

you think there are no gods in asoiaf and that is fine, albeit a conceit at best, but the greenseer (someone who sees the future and communicates with the old gods or uses the power of the old gods) Bloodraven as a conduit of the old god must have some prophetic abilities just as he has displayed omniscience. even if no "God" per se exists, bloodraven serves as a suitable enough second as quaith does for the fire side of things with dany. 
 

I completely disagree.

Men who aspire or pretend to godhood should always be scary.

On 10/15/2021 at 4:01 PM, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

if there are gods all evidence points to bloodraven being the three eyed crow. if their isn't gods, there still isn't suitable reason to believe old nan is the there eyed crow over bloodraven. bloodraven is connected to a heart tree while we have no evidence that touching someone allows you to talk to them in their dreams.

The fact that Bloodraven isn’t the three eyed crow in this story is established. Doesn’t matter if there are gods or not.

On 10/15/2021 at 4:01 PM, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

of course I don't believe that things will end with some great battle. I think the balance of the world and free will relies on neither side winning. I have stated that fact at least three times in above posts. brans ice, dany is fire, Jon is the mediator.

Its like you almost get it! 

On 10/15/2021 at 4:01 PM, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

lets use your conjured image of Dante though. Dante is operating in a world of a rational moral theology, as opposed to a more irrational morally relative theology explored in asoiaf. conflicting gods and conflicting morals are commonplace and what a god can be defined as is more flexible. we should not imagine any god in asoiaf as being a contemporary or equivalent to the abrahamic god.

not my image. I didn’t conjure it.

This author is not Dante.

It sounds like you need to define what you think a god is.

I do not think ASoIaF puts forward an argument espousing moral relativism.

On 10/15/2021 at 4:01 PM, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

and even if there are no gods, we can assume based on the fact that all jojen's predictions have come true, some fatalistic force is at work, and so should still assume they are in the correct place as dictated by fate. 

No!

The very idea that you use the term “correct place” is problematic. If you can’t differentiate between the in story character interpretations of visions and the storytelling way they can come out to be true, we’ve reached the end of the discussion. 

side note: obviously Nan didn’t let Bran and Jojen leave Winterfell, Theon sacked it if you’ll remember. The Crow isn’t an omniscient god, there aren’t any omniscient gods!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I completely disagree.

Men who aspire or pretend to godhood should always be scary.

im not sure what point you're trying to make with this comment here. youre not really contesting the power but making a blanket statement about intention for any super being. do you feel that Jesus and Buddha should be scary as well then?

3 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

The fact that Bloodraven isn’t the three eyed crow in this story is established. Doesn’t matter if there are gods or not.

its nice your able to decide that after being unable to prove it. look I can do that too. bloodraven is the three eyed crow is established. they even call him that and he does the job the crow promised it would do. from the discussion we've had I don't think you have provided suitable evidence to support your claim and the general consensus is that you haven't. you've yet to suitably dismiss my claims and based on the preponderance of evidence, bloodraven is still the better candidate on all accounts. its seems more your trying to invalidate something without making the arguments.

3 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Its like you almost get it!

based on your posts i'm not sure you get it yet.

3 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Not my image. did not  conjure it.

This author is not Dante.

It sounds like you need to define what you think a god is.

I do not think ASoIaF puts forward an argument espousing moral relativism.

 you brought up Dante as part of your argument and my wording was just in reference to that fact. I then illuminated on what the divine comedy is in relation to theistics where their is a confirmed deity and a set of divine moral laws, explored through Dante exposing hell and eventually heaven. A god can be many things and be imagined in many ways. just as George does not believe in magic and has such in asoiaf so can he with gods. the type of god is less consequential than you think though. I did not say Asoiaf espouses moral relativism. George could have a moral point or not. I'm saying that for the characters in the world of asoiaf, morals are relative to the cultures and religions they grew up with. those are the things at conflict, the relative morals of different peoples and or gods if gods exist. the old god has a different moral position than the red god, or at the very least their followers do.

4 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

No!

The very idea that you use the term “correct place” is problematic. If you can’t differentiate between the in story character interpretations of visions and the storytelling way they can come out to be true, we’ve reached the end of the discussion. 

side note: obviously Nan didn’t let Bran and Jojen leave Winterfell, Theon sacked it if you’ll remember. The Crow isn’t an omniscient god, there aren’t any omniscient gods!

always have an exit strategy.... 

seriously though I don't know what you think that argument is saying, but its actually supportive of my claims. "they come out to be true" even if the vision is "misinterpreted." classic greek hubris.

of course bran must learn from the three eyed crow who has done nothing to teach him his abilities in the months they had together in winterfell prior to the sack and has displayed no real useful abilities otherwise. super logical their M.

Omniscience can be described as the ability to see any point in time within a domain. you may be confusing it with omnipotence, or divine interaction. we know bloodraven can see any point in the past (tower of joy vision). we know he was able to observe bran thought his entire life (in one sitting or concurrently). it has been widely speculated that one can look to the future with the power, ie prophecy. so yes, this is functionally omniscience.

Mourning star you can make good argument when you try, but your post above is a lot of bad faith arguments trying to invalidate without really presenting a case as to why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...