Are we suppose to like the Blackwoods and dislike the Brackens ?

[Lord Varys]

On 6/24/2022 at 3:54 PM, The hairy bear said:

There's a pattern that is being repeated with every armed conflict involving the Riverlands: the Blackwoods take the side the reader is expected to favor, and they have the more likeable leader. Meanwhile the Brackens go for the morally questionable choice, and they are punished for their choice.

One can put some of those into perspective. For one, I like the Brackens siding with the last Teague king and trying to resist the Blackwood-Durrandon invading alliance.

On 6/24/2022 at 3:54 PM, The hairy bear said:

• In the Ironborn conquest of the Riverlands, the Brackens betrayed their neighbors and sided with the invaders. Ages Blackwood is brave and defiant even after defeat, and Lord Bracken ended his days on a crow cage.

I think that's more a problem that siding with a fucking Ironborn is always a bad call, not so much a punishment for Bracken being a bad guy. I mean, he did try to help his people to free themselves of the foreign yoke of the Stormlanders.

On 6/24/2022 at 3:54 PM, The hairy bear said:

• In the Dance of Dragons, Black Aly and Bloody Ben show unwavering loyalty to the black cause, and make countless prowess in spite of their youth. The Brakens join the greens, they are defeated in battle, and Stone Hedge is taken.

While that is true, their dad/brother immediately jumps on the opportunity to attack the Brackens when Daemon takes Harrenhal, butchering smallfolk and despoiling septs (!) on the Bracken lands. He wasn't a nice guy nor a stalwart or noble Black loyalist.

And in the end the Brackens declared for Rhaenyra as well.

On 6/24/2022 at 3:54 PM, The hairy bear said:

• In the Blackfyre Rebellion, the Brackens are join rebels against a likeable king. Their side, again, loses. Bittersteel is humorless, irritable, resentful. Bloodraven is smart and charming.

Sorry, no, Bloodraven is not smart and charming. He may be smart, but he is weird albino, feared for his eerie looks, his interest in sorcery, and his vast network of spies. He isn't charming and he doesn't seem to have any charisma.

Bittersteel also seems to have no charisma, of course, but aside from him failing in the dynastic struggle he also seems to be pretty smart and determined - he never gave up his cause, etc. - there is no indication that he was stupid.

And while Bittersteel was a bigger failure than Bloodraven in the end - Bloodraven was also disgraced and had to go to the Wall.

On 6/24/2022 at 3:54 PM, The hairy bear said:

• In the War of the Five Kings, the Brackens abandon the Northern cause and side with the treasonous Lannisters. In the Jaime chapter, Tytos is clearly shown to be a much better lord and parent than Jonos Bracken. And then  not only the Brackens recieve a much meager reward than they had expected, but they are forced to surrender a daughter as a hostage to the Iron Throne.

Actually, I like Jonos Bracken much better. Tytos Blackwood is a sober guy, while Jonos at least knows how to have fun with a prostitute.

Jaime treats the Blackwoods relatively better than the Brackens because he himself no longer wants to fight against the Tullys/Starks. That's why he punishes Jonos. But that doesn't mean Jonos is a bad guy - or worse than all the other Riverlords who declared for Joffrey/Tommen in the wake of the Red Wedding.

In context, we can expect Tytos and Jonos to join forces soon and turn agains the Lannisters ... after all, they definitely loathe the fucking Kingslayer and his ilk much more than each other.

On 6/24/2022 at 3:54 PM, The hairy bear said:

It seems clear to me that the author has a clear favoritism in the Blackwood-Bracken feud.

I'd say that George does like the Blackwoods ... but I don't think he favors any side in their pointless feud. The biggest flaw/weakness in the Blackwoods obviously is that they failed to make their peace with the Brackens.

[Nevets]

The Blackwoods are worshippers of the Old Gods, very rare in the South, and they were the last castle in the Riverlands to fly the Stark banner.  This aligns them closely to the Starks.  Martin is clearly biased toward the Starks, and I think most readers are as well.  Hence the sympathy toward the Blackwoods.  

[Mourning Star]

I believe the short answer is yes, but the clever answer is no.

I think it's very had to deny that at a casual glance the Blackwoods appear much more likable than the Brackens.

However, I think the long answer gets to the very core of ASoIaF.

One should judge individuals by their action and not their families, but the families in ASoIaF clearly follow patterns, as perhaps does human nature, and so these are worth investigating.

It should go without saying that a crow is not a raven, and Bloodraven is not the three eyed crow. I think it is very hard to analyze much of the story if one cannot accept this.

Personally, I am a big believer that the two biggest looming "villains" behind the events of ASoIaF are Bloodraven and Illyrio (who I think is a descendent of Bittersteel), the source of the Others and the Dragons. I believe they may also embody two major human flaws, an unwavering belief in being right (mine by right, the ends justify the means, for the greater good, etc.), and the righteous indignation of the wronged (vengeance rather than justice, violent retribution, etc.). One could even make the case that these two flaws share a common lesson (ancestry?) about judging based on merit and not presupposition. 

So long as men remember the wrongs done to their forebears, no peace will ever last.

I think we see these themes play out repeatedly.

However, I want to take a look at the ancient history first, because I think it still begs some questions.

The feud of the Blackwoods and Brackens is infamous, and rightly so, for it stretches back thousands of years to before the coming of the Andals. The origins of it are contested and shrouded in legend. The Blackwoods say they were kings and the Brackens little more than petty lords set on betraying and deposing them, while the Brackens say much the same about the Blackwoods. That they were both royal houses on the Trident seems true enough, and none can doubt that their enmity sprang from some cause, so entrenched that it has become legendary.

It has to be noted that the Blackwoods seem to have come from the North:

Amongst the houses reduced from royals to vassals we can count the Flints of Breakstone Hill, the Slates of Blackpool, the Umbers of Last Hearth, the Lockes of Oldcastle, the Glovers of Deepwood Motte, the Fishers of the Stony Shore, the Ryders of the Rills... and mayhaps even the Blackwoods of Raventree, whose own family traditions insist they once ruled most of the wolfswood before being driven from their lands by the Kings of Winter (certain runic records support this claim, if Maester Barneby's translations can be trusted).

You may note that the last house mentioned before this curious (mayhaps!) Blackwoods reference is the Ryders of the Rills. Side note, the Fishers, also on the list above, were said to be a line of kings in the Riverlands, as well as apparently a house in the North. The importance of the Fisher King to the story of Arthur and the Grail makes me do a doubletake here.

No house Ryder appears in ASoIaF. But, there is a house Ryswell, who controls the Rylls.

If one were to look at the arms of house Bracken and Ryswell, there is a startling likeness. 

Bracken - Red stallion on a gold shield on brown

Ryswell - Black Horse head, with red eyes and mane, on a bronze shield on black

I would suggest it's even possible that the Bracken sigil originated as an inversion of the colors of the Ryswell (bastard colors) and/or perhaps both share a common root in the Ryders of the Rills. The quarrelsome sons of house Ryswell even change the color of the horse in their sigils. Also, it's probably worth noting that Rodrik Ryswell's two eldest daughters were Bethany and Barbrey. I mention this as Bethany and Barba Bracken were the mistresses of Aegon the Unworthy, and names are always worth looking at in ASoiaF.

Now we also have to ask ourselves about the issue of timing.

If the Blackwoods were chased out of the North by the Starks, whose founder built Winterfell around the Weirwood in its godswood, how is the dead weirwood at Raventree so much larger? And does this mean that the Blackwoods were not this castle's first residents.

I would suggest that we are led to believe that living Weirwoods hold the memories/souls of the dead, and the fact that the Raventree is dead is no mistake. I also think it is no mistake that the Trees of the Undying are black weirwoods.

If the giant weirwood of Raventree appears older than Winterfell (and Raventree has square towers!) but the Blackwoods were supposedly pushed out of the North by the Starks who built Winterfell... Who lived in Raventree before the Blackwoods?

I'm going to suggest the Fisher Kings, and would add this nice little detail from the world book, siting the possible origin of the First Men: 

The Fisher Queens were wise and benevolent and favored of the gods, we are told, and kings and lords and wise men sought the floating palace for their counsel. Beyond their domains, however, other peoples rose and fell and fought, struggling for a place in the sun. Some maesters believe that the First Men originated here before beginning the long westward migration that took them across the Arm of Dorne to Westeros... 

Warriors, sorcerers, and scholars, they traced their descent to the hero king they called Huzhor Amai (the Amazing), born of the last of the Fisher Queens).

I find it incredibly hard not to see this as related to the First Men, the Pact, and the Long Night... as well as to Dragons... and a common ancestry for both Bracken and Blackwood.

Regardless of who built Raventree, it is now the Blackwoods' seat, as the ancient dead white tree is made black by the Ravens seated in its branches. House Bracken, a horse of a different color, and House Blackwood, a tree of a different color, both may be transplants to the Riverlands, as in fact all men are transplants to Westeros if we go back far enough. And perhaps all men are brothers too.

But enough rambling, to return to the original question, my conclusion is that yes the Blackwoods appear more likeable than the Brackens, but one should not be judging families and taking sides, one should look to the merits and the individual.

[James Arryn]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

One can put some of those into perspective. For one, I like the Brackens siding with the last Teague king and trying to resist the Blackwood-Durrandon invading alliance.

I think that's more a problem that siding with a fucking Ironborn is always a bad call, not so much a punishment for Bracken being a bad guy. I mean, he did try to help his people to free themselves of the foreign yoke of the Stormlanders.

While that is true, their dad/brother immediately jumps on the opportunity to attack the Brackens when Daemon takes Harrenhal, butchering smallfolk and despoiling septs (!) on the Bracken lands. He wasn't a nice guy nor a stalward or noble Black loyalist.

And in the end the Brackens declared for Rhaenyra as well.

Sorry, no, Bloodraven is not smart and charming. He may be smart, but he is weird albino, feared for his eerie looks, his interest in sorcery, and his vast network of spies. He isn't charming and he doesn't seem to have any charisma.

Bittersteel also seems to have no charisma, of course, but aside from him failing in the dynastic struggle he also seems to be pretty smart and determined - he never gave up his cause, etc. - there is no indication that he was stupid.

And while Bittersteel was a bigger failure than Bloodraven in the end - Bloodraven was also disgraced and had to go to the Wall.

Actually, I like Jonos Bracken much better. Tytos Blackwood is a sober guy, while Jonos at least knows how to have fun with a prostitute.

Jaime treats the Blackwoods relatively better than the Brackens because he himself no longer wants to fight against the Tullys/Starks. That's why he punishes Jonos. But that doesn't mean Jonos is a bad guy - or worse than all the other Riverlords who declared for Joffrey/Tommen in the wake of the Red Wedding.

In context, we can expect Tytos and Jonos to join forces soon and turn agains the Lannisters ... after all, they definitely loathe the fucking Kingslayer and his ilk much more than each other.

I'd say that George does like the Blackwoods ... but I don't think he favors any side in their pointless feud. The biggest flaw/weakness in the Blackwoods obviously is that they failed to make their peace with the Brackens.

Agreed, good post. Additionally, re: the BF Reb, if anything DBF is the braver, more honourable man…he literally dies protecting a wounded enemy, whereas BR is seen as very Kissingeresque, ie end justifies means. 

[LindsayLohan]

I’ve made this point in the past, but Jaime's interactions with both Lords Blackwood and Bracken left me thinking little of Tytos Blackwood.

The war took a heavy toll on the Riverlands, and at one point Jonos Bracken laments the loss of his natural son. Cateyln Stark had mused about how differently many lords treated their bastards, but here was one who claimed and raised his, and mourned the young man’s death.

When Jaime discussed this with Tytos Blackwood, Tytos mocked Bracken and made the “it probably wasn’t even his kid” insult. Who the fuck does that? It was a low, cheap shot.

[Daeron the Daring]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

However, I think the long answer gets to the very core of ASoIaF.

Sadly, most of the time, not even George looks for the long answer. Look at Daenerys. I don't think he meant the crucifixion of 163 slave masters as her most questionable act. I think he simply meant to show Daenerys cares about slaves. If you look at the core of the issue, she made a deeply flawed decision there. 

The Blackwoods are indeed portrayed as generally better over and over again, if we look at it the way George tought we will and should look at it.

 

[Ran]

George absolutely intended Daenerys's actions to be understood as questionable. She herself questions it, implicitly, and needs to convince herself that it was right:

Quote

 But later, when she passed the men dying on the posts, when she heard their moans and smelled their bowels and blood ...

Dany put the glass aside, frowning. It was just. It was. I did it for the children.

 

[Daeron the Daring]

45 minutes ago, LindsayLohan said:

When Jaime discussed this with Tytos Blackwood, Tytos mocked Bracken and made the “it probably wasn’t even his kid” insult. Who the fuck does that? It was a low, cheap shot.

It is probably a weightless act in a conflict that's several thousand years old.

On the other hand, Lord Bracken was opportunistic, and had no problem getting into business just after his son's death, for the loss of his neighbour he fought alongside with just recently. 

And then again, one could argue Lord Blackwood was more honorable, just as Jaime thinks, but at the same time, he just waited long enough to get out of the sticky situation he got into a little more honorably. Is that really honorable, then?

....

But it's strange and funny how his comment could refer to Jon Snow just as well, and it would be right.  Kind of a parallel right there: Both Lord Bracken and Ned have their bastard sons growing up at their father's home, and the comment Lord Blackwood makes is revealing and true in Jon's case.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

George absolutely intended Daenerys's actions to be understood as questionable. She herself questions it, implicitly, and needs to convince herself that it was right:

 

Yes, sure, but Daenerys questions wether they deserved it or not, not wether they were actually guilty or not, because she wasn't dealing with the situation properly. She doesn't think she may have crucified innocent people, she wonders wether she was too harsh or not.

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Yes, sure, but Daenerys questions wether they deserved it or not, not wether they were actually guilty or not, because she wasn't dealing with the situation properly. She doesn't think she may have crucified innocent people, she wonders wether she was too harsh or not.

She surely knows that the people who were offered up were not necessarily all involved in the process. She didn't specify that she wanted only those who were involved. She wanted those who were "leaders" of Meereen, which is a different thing.

[Daeron the Daring]

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

She surely knows that the people who were offered up were not necessarily all involved in the process. She didn't specify that she wanted only those who were involved. She wanted those who were "leaders" of Meereen, which is a different thing.

Then she surely must know that in some cases, some people/families may have chosen people they wanted gone anyway. The crucified slave masters  probably weren't coming from any leading position. 

Altough I sometimes wonder if people could've actually picked someone who was opposed to slavery and didn't enjoy it's benefits, or even in these cases the eliminated ones were political opponents.

Not that I think she dealth with this a good way. Her punishment should've been more/most extensive and much less harsh. 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Then she surely must know that in some cases, some people/families may have chosen people they wanted gone anyway. The crucified slave masters  probably weren't coming from any leading position. 

That is quite clearly not the case - we hear from the Shavepate that multiple Pahls (the most prominent Ghiscari family in Meereen prior to Dany's arrival) were among the crucified.

We can assume that some of the most competent guilty culprits got off the hook, those with the best connections, and with the ability to persuade others.

But it was 163 men from the ruling class, and it was they themselves who had to decide who had to die. In what scenario in an oligarchical government are those who deem themselves better than others (even if it is only a mild presumption) spared when they just lost a war and have to submit to brute force?

The richer, more powerful masters would have lost most, if not all leeway they once had about their lesser peers. They were no longer ruling the city, no longer controlling law enforcement or military, possibly even lacking the ability to demand back loans they granted in the past (because the new regime would rule on the validity of debts.), etc.

Chances are pretty good that the lesser Great Masters banded together and ensured that the most presumptuous of their peers were crucified ... and, of course, also those who came up with the idea to crucify the slave children and supported that stratagem. After all, it would have been their fault, specifically, that 163 Great Masters now had to die.

Glib-tongued Littlefingers might have been able to get off the hook, but the Tywins, the Rooses, the Neds, etc. of Meereen would have all mounted the cross (meaning folks who presented themselves or were perceived as arrogant pricks by their peers). And, of course, we would have gotten old men from various noble houses who volunteered to die if that increased the chances that the family would survive and their fortunes remain (largely) intact.

In general, this wasn't necessarily the wisest punishment, but one that's perfectly in line - expected, even - for a monarch in Daenerys' position. She herself was insulted by the crucified children, and her honor demanded redress and satisfaction. In this world you can punish actually guilty people (and technically all slavers in Meereen are guilty people, by virtue of being slavers) but you can just as well just take a bunch of people from the enemy camp and kill them to settle the score.

That's what various Martell family members consider to avenge Elia and the children, it is how Daemon and Mysaria deal with Lucerys' murder, it is how Aegon I deals with Dorne in the wake of Rhaenys' death (and the Dornish with him), it is how Rickard Karstark avenges his sons, it is, in part, how the Northmen avenge themselves on the Red Wedding, it is how Jon Connington intends to deal with 'the bloodline of the Usurper', etc.

Another great example for this kind of thing is the folks Aegon II burns alive as *punishment* for the riots and the Storming of the Dragonpit. Gyldayn claims the poor people chosen for this travesty were the most fervent followers of the Shepherd - but even if this were the case, that doesn't mean they played a key or crucial role in the riots or the slaying of the dragons. In the end, one imagines there were just the unfortunate people the gang in charge picked to stage a show to send the message that 'order had been restored' and 'justice was being done again'. Most likely they were the most foolish followers of the Shepherd, being among the morons who stayed with him until the Stormlanders took the city.

You can also compare that to some of the ugly sentences Randyll Tarly gives at Maidenpool. Basically, doing justice in this world is showing everybody that you have a big club and are using it, so that people think hard before they do something foolish (against you). It is never about folks accepting your rule because you actually try to figure out who did a crime and only punish the guilty. They don't have the institutions or the infrastructure for modernist stuff like that. And no need to actually buy the allegiance for the common people. They are, for the most part, only sheep.

The idea that any slave master in Slaver's Bay was actually opposed to slavery is, so far, ludicrous. There is no indication that abolition as a concept even existed in Slaver's Bay.

[Lord Varys]

Addendum to the above:

One of the most ugly things in ASoIaF we can read is how Jaehaerys I acts after the murder of Rego Draz. Not only does the great Conciliator issue one of the cruelest sentences in the books so far (one imagines that Maegor did something like that as well, but if that's the case then we were not told) but he basically acts out of anger and passion and not with a clear head.

And while it is possible that the young girl told the truth there ... she could have also lied (for instance, if he was an abusive father she hated). We don't know. The other culprits were found by way of torturing the guy the girl pointed out, and we do know that torture is most definitely not the way to truth.

But the really important thing there is if the great Jaehaerys can do this and still be(come) the great Jaehaerys then there certainly is also hope of Daenerys Targaryen. Because Jaehaerys basically is Daenerys after the conquest of Meereen there, and I don't think that's an accident or a coincidence. It is a commentary on Daenerys' actions, an intentionally created parallel.

[BlackLightning]

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Addendum to the above:

One of the most ugly things in ASoIaF we can read is how Jaehaerys I acts after the murder of Rego Draz. Not only does the great Conciliator issue one of the cruelest sentences in the books so far (one imagines that Maegor did something like that as well, but if that's the case then we were not told) but he basically acts out of anger and passion and not with a clear head.

And while it is possible that the young girl told the truth there ... she could have also lied (for instance, if he was an abusive father she hated). We don't know. The other culprits were found by way of torturing the guy the girl pointed out, and we do know that torture is most definitely not the way to truth.

But the really important thing there is if the great Jaehaerys can do this and still be(come) the great Jaehaerys then there certainly is also hope of Daenerys Targaryen. Because Jaehaerys basically is Daenerys after the conquest of Meereen there, and I don't think that's an accident or a coincidence. It is a commentary on Daenerys' actions, an intentionally created parallel.

Sorry but what did Jaehaerys #1 do again?

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Sorry but what did Jaehaerys #1 do again?

He hanged the folks accused of murdering Rego Draz with their entrails hanging out.

[Loose Bolt]

10 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

If the Blackwoods were chased out of the North by the Starks, whose founder built Winterfell around the Weirwood in its godswood, how is the dead weirwood at Raventree so much larger? And does this mean that the Blackwoods were not this castle's first residents.

Torrhen's Square and Raventree Hall are so similar that in my head canon TS was original home of Blackwoods and they build their new home as copy of their lost one. Besides if souls of my ancestors still live in certain tree there is no way that I would leave those at mercy of rapid wolves. Or I would take that tree with me when I go exile. 

[Vaegon the dragonless]

3 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

Torrhen's Square and Raventree Hall are so similar that in my head canon TS was original home of Blackwoods and they build their new home as copy of their lost one. Besides if souls of my ancestors still live in certain tree there is no way that I would leave those at mercy of rapid wolves. Or I would take that tree with me when I go exile. 

Can weirwood be displace tho ? Especially once it is grown ? They're roots are suppose to be very deep and sprawling on large distance, not exactly a easy tree to put in a pot for a thousand league journey fleeing.

[Mourning Star]

10 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

Torrhen's Square and Raventree Hall are so similar that in my head canon TS was original home of Blackwoods and they build their new home as copy of their lost one. Besides if souls of my ancestors still live in certain tree there is no way that I would leave those at mercy of rapid wolves. Or I would take that tree with me when I go exile. 

An interesting idea...

I'm not sure it really matters exactly where they were from nor do I think they could pack up their Weirwood and take it with them (although the idea that the Ironborn, "black of blood", made a longship out of a Weirwood to arrive in the iron islands is intriguing). People move and intermarry and no-one is an island.

The fact that the Fist of the First Men seemed to have no Weirwood or Godswood, nor did the Nightfort have a Godswood, both make me question if the First Men had them at all before the Long Night.

I brought up the square towers because this is brought up in the story as a way to tell how modern a castle was. Older castles used square towers, and we see this reflected in multiple locations. However, Winterfell's oldest tower is round (and has gargoyles, which does not fit the expectation. Personally, I think this indicates that they may not have been First Men at all, but rather a more advanced people who already had ironworking as well.

As for Raventree Hall, it seems the dead Weirwood is the largest Weirwood we've seen in the series, seemingly by far.

I am interested in knowing what can kill a Weirwood like this one, that wasn't cut down or burned. Are there thrones of roots underneath it? 

I find it highly doubtful that the Brackens poisoned it.

I can't help shake the idea that it has something to do with the hammer of the waters, and possibly the braking of Westeros causing the water of Ironman's Bay to make whatever underground water supply it feeds on "brackish", or contaminated with salt water. But, I have no real evidence for this.

[Mourning Star]

19 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Sadly, most of the time, not even George looks for the long answer.

I think you are very wrong.

19 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Look at Daenerys. I don't think he meant the crucifixion of 163 slave masters as her most questionable act. I think he simply meant to show Daenerys cares about slaves. If you look at the core of the issue, she made a deeply flawed decision there. 

I think it was pretty clearly deeply flawed from the outset and it's kind of willfully oblivious to keep denying that even now.

"I mean to sail to Westeros, and drink the wine of vengeance from the skull of the Usurper." 

The theme of vengeance (as opposed to justice) is established early and seems pretty clearly at play throughout the series. It is no mistake that the very first chapter is Ned administering and teaching justice.

"Vengeance?" Ned said. "I thought we were speaking of justice.

As is the idea of casting the sentence without swinging the sword. Which Dany's crucifixions exemplify, a flaw she shares with Bloodraven (to tie it back to the Blackwoods).

Lord Rivers flicked them away with his fingers, unrolled a parchment, and began to tick off names with a quill.
He is marking down the men to die, Dunk realized.

Part of what makes the series so well written is how we see these themes from the series start constantly being reexamined and played with, so it would behoove the reader to remember the original lessons:

"King Robert has a headsman," he said, uncertainly.
"He does," his father admitted. "As did the Targaryen kings before him. Yet our way is the older way. The blood of the First Men still flows in the veins of the Starks, and we hold to the belief that the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.
"One day, Bran, you will be Robb's bannerman, holding a keep of your own for your brother and your king, and justice will fall to you. When that day comes, you must take no pleasure in the task, but neither must you look away. A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is."

Rather than pretend the story is somehow just a mistake or short sighted jaunt through fantasy land.

19 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

The Blackwoods are indeed portrayed as generally better over and over again, if we look at it the way George tought we will and should look at it.

Surface level, sure, that's kind of my point.

But, if you try digging just a little deeper everything both becomes far more interesting and, I think, begins to make far more sense.

If you don't you are never going to see any sort of bigger picture.

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

Do you think that that dead tree... that ancient, petrified heart tree or stoneheart if you will is in any way like Cat has become?  Might that tree or some petrified bones in its roots on some level be driving the Blackwoods to continue this conflict even despite treaties and intermarriages and rulings from overlords that have interrupted it over the years? And if so might there be a Bracken equivalent that is keeping their side in the fight or are they just eternally antagonized as revenge for their poisoning of the tree thousands of years ago?