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

[Seams]

19 hours ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

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?

A look at the history and the sigils, names of the seats, House words, etc. provides us with clues. From the wiki:

Quote

According to the Brackens, they were kings who ruled the Red Fork but were usurped by their vassals, the Blackwoods.^[2] According to the Blackwoods, however, the Brackens were petty lords and horse breeders who hired sellswords to usurp the Blackwood kings.^[2]

Andal Riverlands

The Brackens and Blackwoods allied together against the coming of the Andals, but the First Men families were defeated in the Battle of the Bitter River.^[7] The feud has continued throughout the years, aided by House Bracken's conversion to the Faith of the Seven after the Andal victory.^[8] The Blackwoods believe the Brackens poisoned the weirwood at Raventree Hall.^[2]Battle Valley and the village of Blackbuckle are part of the disputed land. There have been numerous peaces between the Brackens and Blackwoods, many sealed by marriage, but the feud always restarts.^[2] Benedict Rivers was a bastard born from both houses who eventually became King Benedict I Justman.^[7]

That the Brackens were associated with the Red Fork might signal that this is a red vs. black conflict (Red Fork / Blackwood). That would make sense with the Bloodraven vs. Bittersteel rivalry connecting the Houses to the Blackfyre rebellion, and the reversed colors of the Targaryen and Blackfyre banners. 

What are the things we know now about the Red Fork? It is one of two major rivers (along with the Tumblestone) flanking Riverrun. Its color supposedly comes from red mud, and Brynden Tully says that the color is Tully red. The mud coloring seems like a clear clue about a connection to Tristifer Mudd. When a Tully lord dies, his body is burned in a longboat on the river.

Is the Ruby Ford on the Red Fork or is that after the three branches have come together to make The Trident? Rhaegar and Robert fought at the Ruby Ford and Arya threw Joffrey's sword, "Lion's Tooth" into the river. The Inn at the crossroads is located nearby. This is worth examining because the river has changed course over the years, so the inn is no longer on the river bank. A river that can shift location might be of interest. Also, I think GRRM uses inns as entrances or points of intersection for the Underworld and mainstream Westeros. 

To me, the feud seems to resemble the multi-generational feud in The Sworn Sword. In that situation, trees were killed to dam the Chequy Water, leading to the death of crops. In this Bracken / Blackwood feud, the accusation centers on the poisoning of a tree and a loss of power to upstart vassals. I bet we could also compare this to the Florent / Tyrell dispute over which House is the rightful successor to House Gardner. That feud attached itself to Renly and Stannis because of their respective spouses / lovers. 

The red horse on the Bracken sigil seems to allude to the Rhyswell horse sigil, as has been pointed out. But Rohanne Webber tries to give a red (chestnut) horse to Dunk, which he declines. She says he can call the horse "Amends," which seems like an interesting potential allusion to resolving a feud. I think Rohanne is a parallel for Barbrey Dustin, who gives matching red colts to the two Frey wards of Catelyn Stark. Freys, of course, would be associated with the Green Fork.

Aside from the river association, the names Raven Tree Hall and Stone Hedge might be clues. You might be right about the dead tree being a metaphor for Lady Stoneheart, but what if it is the combination of Stone Hedge and the dead heart tree that results in the name of the undead leader of the BwB? Because Hedge Knights appear regularly in Westeros, maybe we need to look for "Stone Hedge Knights" to explain the Bracken's hidden power base and/or symbolic role. 

Even the word "bracken" might offer clues. Apparently this is a type of fern. There might also be wordplay on "banker." I think there is a motif around bankers, river banks, coins, etc. 

All this is to say that I think you're on the right track to ask whether there is an equivalent in the Bracken symbolism or back story for the black tree in the Blackwood symbolism. 

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

1 hour ago, Seams said:

Aside from the river association, the names Raven Tree Hall and Stone Hedge might be clues. You might be right about the dead tree being a metaphor for Lady Stoneheart, but what if it is the combination of Stone Hedge and the dead heart tree that results in the name of the undead leader of the BwB? Because Hedge Knights appear regularly in Westeros, maybe we need to look for "Stone Hedge Knights" to explain the Bracken's hidden power base and/or symbolic role. 

Hm that's interesting. The reason I think it's just a reference to the tree is because of the manner of Cat's death and the wounds that she receives and inflicts on herself and the murder of Aegon the fool. Cat's paws were already cut up by the cats paw assassin, (wierwood leaves have been likened to bloody hands) she's already a pale redhead somewhat like a wierwood tree and the slit throat and ripped up cheeks are kind of like a carved face in the tree.  Then we get Aegon's death at her hands followed by her hysterical laughing as though Aegon's crazyness had been passed into her at his death. Does this in anyway link up with Bran's vision of a throat being slit at the Winterfell heart tree?  Lady Stoneheart appears to be bent on revenge and the Brotherhood seems to have bent to her will despite the voiced but un acted upon dissention of Thoros. I just can't help but thinking that these people are compelled at a deeper level than just 'well she's the boss now so we'll do it her way' and if she's doing that as a figurative dead wierwood tree maybe it's not too much of a stretch to suspect it in a real dead wierwood tree. (no proof but even Beric's description of the Brotherhood's swelling numbers seem to suggest other factors at work than just a belief in their cause). But there's always more to this story than I manage to see, maybe she is representing some sort of amalgam too., maybe an anti Justman? These ancient rivals have had plenty of peaces.

Does Stone Hedge link hedge knights with stone men? Any stone man can make a stone man like any knight can make a knight. Stone Hedge kind of implies a petrified hedge? Bracken is a fern, but it would never be mistaken for a hedge. Superficially it's very green, so we see black vs green in the blackwoods vs brackens (which has popped up from place to place)

[Seams]

14 minutes ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

But there's always more to this story than I manage to see, maybe she is representing some sort of amalgam too., maybe an anti Justman? These ancient rivals have had plenty of peaces.

I think Justman is going to be one of the keys to this. 

A lot of the breakdown in society, the weather, the food supply, etc. involves things or people that have been divided or broken apart. The Blackfyres splitting from the Targaryens; the step stones separated from Westeros; water withheld from crops. Catelyn is separated from Ned when he becomes Hand of the King. The Wall divides the Seven Kingdoms from the lands beyond the Wall. Tyrion is a "half man," there seem to be no Starks in Winterfell, Bran went in one direction and Rickon went another. Arya is separated from Nymeria, Sansa is separated from Lady, Ned is separated from his head. There are many swords that are described as "broken" and sometimes GRRM doesn't even tell us whether the piece we are being told about is the hilt or the blade. 

Although the wording is a bit vague, Catelyn is the one who tells us that there used to be a different sword called Ice:

Quote

It had been forged in Valyria, before the Doom had come to the old Freehold, when the ironsmiths had worked their metal with spells as well as hammers. Four hundred years old it was, and as sharp as the day it was forged. The name it bore was older still, a legacy from the age of heroes, when the Starks were Kings in the North.

(AGoT, Catelyn I)

This is one of the clues that led me to guess that there was a sword called "Justice," and the "just" had been lost along the way. If the sword had been any bigger and was divided into two smaller weapons, it would have had to have belonged to a giant. That's a possibility or it may be that only the name was split at some point in history. 

Catelyn also provides the POV when we visit the tomb of King Tristifer Mudd, who ruled over The Rivers and The Hills - when did the area become the riverlands, separate from the hills? Is the area known as the hills now the Vale of Arryn? Tristifer Mudd was known as The Hammer of Justice. So there's that sense again that we have somehow lost justice somewhere in history. 

The fact that the combined Bracken and Blackwood create a Justman seems like a clue for us about how to reunite "Ice" with its missing counterpart. 

Since Catelyn is a Tully and, she tells us, raised to be the ruler of the Riverlands before Edmure was born, I have this suspicion that she will be a key in uniting the broken pieces (peaces, as you put it) of the rival houses. 

I'm working this out as I write, but maybe you are correct that Catelyn as Lady Stoneheart seems like a broken piece. One idea in my head is that she was a Sansa parallel before she died, with her lovely auburn hair, and she became an Arya parallel after she died, thinking about revenge as a form of "prayer" every night. What the world needs is a balance of her Sansa qualities and her Arya qualities perhaps embodied by, say, Brienne (who tells everyone that she is looking for her sister). The three "sisters" might symbolize the three islands that the Starks and Arryns fought over for 1000 years before the Starks woke up one day and conceded. 

In her current frame of mind, Lady Stoneheart does not embody Justice. Your idea is that the dead heart tree is her symbol. 

That might be right. Here's some thinking: Lysa sits on the weirwood throne at the Eyrie. We are told that you can't grow a live tree at the Eyrie, but they hauled up some wood to create a throne out of a dead tree. There are also way castles leading to the Eyrie called stone, snow and sky. Bastards in the Vale are called Stone. So maybe these are elements of the division - weirwood (heart tree) and stone (earth? Oh I like that heart / earth wordplay) - in Lysa's environment. Maybe Sansa starts to heal the rift when she uses snow to build a model castle with a gods wood - sort of like Dany planting olive trees after the old trees were destroyed. I imagine the Alyssa's Tears waterfall is also part of the symbolism - a river that never touches the ground. 

In the Riverlands, the Blackwood / Bracken split represents the dead tree and its separation from the earth. Oh another clue may be Lord Bracken trying to get it on with Hildy, the camp follower who jokes with Jaime about her turnips. Root vegetables. Bracken wants roots (which I understand is slang for having sex in Australia). Stone Hedge and the Raven Tree (black wood) need to be united.

Once those internal rifts are healed, I wonder whether the separation of the kingdom of The Rivers and The Hills will also be relevant in restoring Justice. If Catelyn is associated with rivers and Lysa is associated with hills, how can they be brought back together? Maybe something to do with Harrenhal and the Lord Protector of the Vale? 

[butterweedstrover]

He does favoritism a lot. Starks over Lannisters, Blacks over Greens, etc. 

Unless someone can show me where his favoritism is subverted I don’t have any reason to believe he’s do it again. 
 

And Jaime was intended to be evil at first until Martin changed his mind.

[Evolett]

On 6/30/2022 at 8:58 PM, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

The reason I think it's just a reference to the tree is because of the manner of Cat's death and the wounds that she receives and inflicts on herself and the murder of Aegon the fool. Cat's paws were already cut up by the cats paw assassin, (wierwood leaves have been likened to bloody hands) she's already a pale redhead somewhat like a wierwood tree and the slit throat and ripped up cheeks are kind of like a carved face in the tree.  Then we get Aegon's death at her hands followed by her hysterical laughing as though Aegon's crazyness had been passed into her at his death. Does this in anyway link up with Bran's vision of a throat being slit at the Winterfell heart tree?  Lady Stoneheart appears to be bent on revenge and the Brotherhood seems to have bent to her will despite the voiced but un acted upon dissention of Thoros. I just can't help but thinking that these people are compelled at a deeper level than just 'well she's the boss now so we'll do it her way' and if she's doing that as a figurative dead wierwood tree maybe it's not too much of a stretch to suspect it in a real dead wierwood tree.

Yes, I agree with your assessment of Catelyn as a reference to both a live and dead weirwood tree, though I suspect it's more than just figurative. I spotted the parallels between Cat and a live weirwood while trying to determine where Bran's greenseeing powers might have originated and it's quite clear to me that they stem from the Tully side rather than the Stark side. Your connecting her to the dead weirwood, leads to new ideas that converge with the conversation we were having in @Seams Poisons, potions and their fellow travellers thread. My latest thoughts are based on this comment where I propose that the tears and grief of women fuel magic employed to raise the dead (ice magic). 

 

23 hours ago, Seams said:

This is one of the clues that led me to guess that there was a sword called "Justice," and the "just" had been lost along the way. If the sword had been any bigger and was divided into two smaller weapons, it would have had to have belonged to a giant. That's a possibility or it may be that only the name was split at some point in history. 

Reading both your comments has given me an insight into the lost half of Ice. Since it relates to poisons and potions, I shall reply in that thread rather than move away from the main topic here. 

Regarding the OP, I think the author wants us to pay close attention to the Blackwoods and Brackens because their ongoing disputes are probably important to several as yet unexplained mysteries in the narrative.  Their history probably sheds some light on the ice and fire conflict, with the historic Benedict Justman representing a temporary solution. 

 

[C.T. Phipps]

On 6/27/2022 at 4:36 PM, Daeron the Daring said:

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.

Yes, she didn't crucify nearly enough.

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

On 6/24/2022 at 5:35 AM, Vaegon the dragonless said:

Sure but when it seem all the individuals in the family are in some way or in another portrayed as bad it is hard to not see the family as bad or not. Same thing can happen with the Bolton, the only historical Bolton that seemed somewhat normal is Barba

George misdirects and asks us to read between the lines.  Take the Starks as our example.  Ned and Cat are introduced and seem like good people.  The beginning povs are largely coming from them.  But we are not to conclude that all the Starks are good.  As a matter of fact, many have proven to be rather despicable and reprehensible.  Here, I refer to Jon, Arya, and Robb who are awful people.  Bran is a rather okay kid for now.  Sansa is disgusting in her selfishnes.  Rickon is an unknown.  Families have good people as well as bad. 

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

2 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Here, I refer to Jon, Arya, and Robb who are awful people. 

"Awful" is a pretty strong word, one that I wouldn't use to describe either of them.

[butterweedstrover]

On 6/23/2022 at 9:49 AM, Seams said:

I think GRRM purposely appeals to the human instinct to find "good guys" and "bad guys" in a story and then subverts our expectations by showing us that good and bad are relative terms or may differ depending on one's vantage point or prejudices.  

He does favoritism a lot and typically the faults of both sides are rather different in terms of moral fidelity. Whereas the Starks might be flawed in terms of their overt goodness (like not being willing to let Cersei's children die or being too noble and not allowing Jeyne Westerling lose her honor) while the Lannisters are flawed in that they rape, steal, and kill. One side is clearly favored to the other. 

Whilst Ned might be a less effective leader, he is not as morally culpable as Tywin. One side is obsessed with power, whereas the other side is about family. Cersei tells Ned he could have had the throne which shows the differences between their psychology, and it is much easier for readers to support the underdog who is loyal than the power hungry bitch (a common trope especially with Cersei). 

Tyrion is an outlier but he is the black sheep of the family. 

Other rivalries include the Manderlys and Freys. The former might have faults, but their faults are about effective power management, not moral resilience. 

The books play hard on favoritism, having the Freys be disloyal, power hungry, and worse... plain old mean. This brings readers to despise them whilst the family that was loyal to the home team (the Manderlys) is cheered despite their weight problems.  

Many and more of the rivalries are based on one side being loyal, prudent, friendly, and cool. While the other is crude, power hungry, sexually promiscuous (like with Lord Bracken plowing a prostitute in the middle of a siege or Cersei trying to seduce Ned), and just plain unlikable. 

Yes the latter side might win, but that does not bring them much support from the readers. He subverts the good vs bad only in showing how the good side might lose, not how the good side is actually culpable. Catelyn being cold to Jon is nothing like Tywin sacking a city or Cersei throwing her friend down a well. More so when Catelyn (the same age and beauty as Cersei) attempts to convince men to her side she uses motherly instincts where as Cersei degrades herself like a whore. 

These parallels aren't deep. There is greyness in how he tries to justify (some) of the villains and plant (some) ignoble thoughts on the part of the heroes, but the lines are always clearly defined.

On 6/23/2022 at 9:49 AM, Seams said:

Readers are led to reach a conclusion about Jaime, for instance - what kind of guy would push  a child out of a window and/or murder a king? - but later find out that Jaime is a more complex, nuanced person who has just motives in stopping the violence of King Aerys and who may evolve as a compassionate being. 

In the first book Jaime was intended to be evil. He was going to shoot for the throne, which is why it played him up as a potential hand of the king and made him sit on the throne after killing Aerys (as well as the plot of him becoming warden of the west and east). 

This was retconned to make him have no ambition but to fuck his sister. The man that pushed the boy out the window wasn't the same one in the tub with Brienne. GRRM had decided to make him evil, and then changed his mind. 

On 6/23/2022 at 9:49 AM, Seams said:

You have hit on another example of this, I think. GRRM seems to be encouraging us to admire Bloodraven (even though he is ruthless in some of his actions) and Melissa Blackwood. He seems to be steering us toward disapproval of Barbra Bracken and her son, Bittersteel. If you sit back and think about it, though, Bittersteel may be perceived as "bad" simply because his faction lost during the Blackfyre rebellions. We are told that the Bracken mistresses of Aegon IV fell out of favor but, honestly, who would want to be a favorite of Aegon IV? He was disgusting. 

A Jaime POV tells us that he secretly admires the Blackwoods over the Brackens for their loyalty to Robb Stark, even though the Lannisters wanted to defeat House Stark and Tywin (we believe) was active in turning Stark supporters into secret allies of Houses Lannister / Bolton / Frey. 

Why would the author steer us this way? I think he may be setting us up for a surprise and we will see a Bracken do something noble or admirable in the upcoming books.  

Given his track record there is no reason to believe any of this. Blackwoods are not just loyal but also well behaved. Brackens aren't just opportunists, there also crude and commit adulatory. This is all made to grate on the reader.  

On 6/23/2022 at 9:49 AM, Seams said:

Some clues about potential upcoming Blackwood / Bracken revelations are the two hostages Jaime has taken after his "justice" tour of the Riverlands. A young man from the Blackwoods and a young woman from the Brackens. Will there be a betrothal and wedding/bedding?

I suspect plot resolutions in ASOIAF may involve reconciliation or rebalancing of a lot of "opposites" that GRRM has woven into the plot: winter / summer, bitter / sweet, fire / ice, death / birth, smiler / slayer, shaggy / sharp, water / wine, etc. We can look to history for other examples of balance and imbalance: the two wives of Aegon the Conqueror may represent a necessary balance that was lost when one wife disappeared. 

Everything you are saying relies on Martin altering his approach for the next book and change course on everything he has already established. 

The wait between books has been too long and I think has allowed people to project on to him too many qualities for which they will be let down when (if) the finished product comes. 

On 6/23/2022 at 3:46 PM, Ran said:

Well said.

I'm always surprised by how people treat the various houses like baseball teams and pick sides. Even minor houses! Now, I admit, I am a Dayne-phile, but not to the point where if we found out they were eating children  or kicking puppies that I would try to justify it. 

Martin is the one picking sides, not the reader. 

[Black Crow]

The real point, I think, about the Blackwood-Bracken feud, is not a question of right or wrong, but rather that it exists in the first place

Bloodraven was once [is?]seen as a Targaryen loyalist. He certainly fought for the Targaryens in the Blackfyre Rebellions, but arguably his real battle was with his half brother  Aegor [Bracken] Rivers, and now as he sits in the cave of skulls is he still a Targaryen bastard or is he Brynden [Bran] Blackwood = after all it was his mother who named him

[Seams]

44 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Everything you are saying relies on Martin altering his approach for the next book and change course on everything he has already established. 

The wait between books has been too long and I think has allowed people to project on to him too many qualities for which they will be let down when (if) the finished product comes. 

On 6/23/2022 at 3:46 PM, Ran said:

Well said.

I'm always surprised by how people treat the various houses like baseball teams and pick sides. Even minor houses! Now, I admit, I am a Dayne-phile, but not to the point where if we found out they were eating children  or kicking puppies that I would try to justify it. 

Martin is the one picking sides, not the reader. 

Everything I am saying relies on an accurate interpretation of the evidence in the books. I concede, it would be at odds with the simplistic and flawed interpretation you prefer, but it would not be an alteration of the author's approach. It might be a refutation of your approach which, as I say, I find simplistic and flawed.

I don't mind that there is a wait between books. I love a deep dive into the complex layers the author has built for us. I understand that many people enjoy only the plot and that is perfectly legitimate. I do not expect to be let down by the upcoming books because I know GRRM is adhering to the high standard he has set for himself in crafting and layering his narrative. 

So you don't need to condescend to me, little newbie pants.

P.S. Do you know who Ran is? I'm sure we're all having a good LOL about you correcting his interpretation of the books.

[butterweedstrover]

18 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Brynden [Bran] Blackwood = after all it was his mother who named him

Bloodraven is a blackwood?

[butterweedstrover]

21 minutes ago, Seams said:

Everything I am saying relies on an accurate interpretation of the evidence in the books. I concede, it would be at odds with the simplistic and flawed interpretation you prefer, but it would not be an alteration of the author's approach. It might be a refutation of your approach which, as I say, I find simplistic and flawed.

I don't mind that there is a wait between books. I love a deep dive into the complex layers the author has built for us. I understand that many people enjoy only the plot and that is perfectly legitimate. I do not expect to be let down by the upcoming books because I know GRRM is adhering to the high standard he has set for himself in crafting and layering his narrative. 

So you don't need to condescend to me, little newbie pants.

P.S. Do you know who Ran is? I'm sure we're all having a good LOL about you correcting his interpretation of the books.

Art is subjective in that interpretations differ from person to person. But more importantly authorial intent does not confine these sort of examinations as books can have more meaning than that which the author intended. 

Which you are free to do, to draw upon odd word choices and build sweeping symbolism, and I suppose a series like this with so many extraneous details can open the door to a wide breadth of theories, etc. 

But I also don't think these vague word choices make it evident of the author forming a message that is reliant on something or the other he has yet to write (after 12 years). Wait can be fun, but it also can drive people to theorize beyond the scope of the text and speculate on things that led to false expectations.   

And what I said is simply that nothing he has yet written seems to suggest he will subvert the good into the bad. There are clear moral lines in which characters act, and factions specifically where one side is played up as cool, mystical, loyal, friendly, noble, and prudent whereas the other is depicted as culturally common, power hungry, promiscuous, and mean.  

The last especially signifies how the series plays on tropes to get readers to root for the home team.  

Also, I think the amount of time people invest into thinking about something parallels with their desire for it to have some deeper meaning, even if they have to invent it. 

[TheLastWolf]

2 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

"Awful" is a pretty strong word, one that I wouldn't use to describe either of them.

You do realize who you are speaking to, right? 

[Seams]

50 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Bloodraven is a blackwood?

Well maybe this is all we need to know about your grasp of the books.

34 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

But I also don't think these vague word choices make it evident of the author forming a message that is reliant on something or the other he has yet to write (after 12 years).

I don't know what this means, but I'm too frightened to try to find out.

34 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Wait can be fun, but it also can drive people to theorize beyond the scope of the text and speculate on things that led to false expectations. 

If you find anyone doing this, please let us know and we will send him to the Wall.

34 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

There are clear moral lines in which characters act

This is exactly what I do not concede. We will have to agree to disagree.

34 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

the amount of time people invest into thinking about something parallels with their desire for it to have some deeper meaning, even if they have to invent it. 

I am so very chastened by your homily. This tired and unoriginal opinion has been expressed dozens or hundreds of times in the forum, but your stunningly banal articulation of this anti-intellectual and lazy point has finally broken through my thick skull and entirely persuaded me to abandon all literary analysis. From now on, I will just make baseless assertions like all the cool kids in your circle of pals. Or perhaps I'll join the silent sisters. 

Or I'll just keep rolling my eyes and wait for your insights to mature. I'm sure it will happen, if you invest time into thinking.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

7 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

You do realize who you are speaking to, right? 

I actually don't. Have I missed something?

[Black Crow]

50 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Bloodraven is a blackwood?

He is the son of Melissa Blackwood. She named him* and appears to have brought him up at Blackwood Hall after she was replaced as the King's mistress by Barbara Bracken 

*when telling this to Bran, he also makes it clear that Brynden/Brandon are the same

[TheLastWolf]

Just now, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

I actually don't. Have I missed something?

Oops, I'll leave it to you to find out from experience. Some of the Stark hate posts are just wow... This one's nothing 

[butterweedstrover]

42 minutes ago, Seams said:

Well maybe this is all we need to know about your grasp of the books.  
 

it’s an interesting tidbit but bloodraven’s lineage is not part of the narrative (yet). More so it is interesting lore that might or might not come into play.

42 minutes ago, Seams said:

I don't know what this means, but I'm too frightened to try to find out. 
 

it is to say much of your speculation as to the author’s motive is reliant not on the text but on the future text (that which has not yet been published).

42 minutes ago, Seams said:

If you find anyone doing this, please let us know and we will send him to the Wall. 
 

I was thinking of you.

42 minutes ago, Seams said:

This is exactly what I do not concede. We will have to agree to disagree. 
 

characters might make morally ambiguous choices but the lines that delineate good from bad are clear. 
 

Nobility, honor, loyalty, and kindness are not criticized as to their virtue but political effectiveness. 
 

Robb or Ned might be punished for their acts of virtue while the Brackens and Lannisters might be rewarded for their vices but that does not change the dynamic of who readers feel the need to root for. 
 

And anyways, fans like an underdog. There is nothing about the Brackens behavior at the siege or the Freys at the red wedding that do anything but to vilify their conduct and make it easier to root for the main team.

 

42 minutes ago, Seams said:

I am so very chastened by your homily. This tired and unoriginal opinion has been expressed dozens or hundreds of times in the forum, but your stunningly banal articulation of this anti-intellectual and lazy point has finally broken through my thick skull and entirely persuaded me to abandon all literary analysis. From now on, I will just make baseless assertions like all the cool kids in your circle of pals. Or perhaps I'll join the silent sisters. 

Or I'll just keep rolling my eyes and wait for your insights to mature. I'm sure it will happen, if you invest time into thinking.

I have nothing against someone calling another post anti-intellectual. But I should also forewarn those people not to engage in pseudo-intellectualism whereas they use vague symbolism in the text to ignore what is happening in the actual narrative. 
 

As is nothing Martin has produced suggests some deeper philosophy unless as you claim all his tropes will unravel in the next book. 
 

Which, given his track record, might be wishful thinking.

[Vaegon the dragonless]

5 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

George misdirects and asks us to read between the lines.  Take the Starks as our example.  Ned and Cat are introduced and seem like good people.  The beginning povs are largely coming from them.  But we are not to conclude that all the Starks are good.  As a matter of fact, many have proven to be rather despicable and reprehensible.  Here, I refer to Jon, Arya, and Robb who are awful people.  Bran is a rather okay kid for now.  Sansa is disgusting in her selfishnes.  Rickon is an unknown.  Families have good people as well as bad. 

I strongly disagree with you, calling Cat good but saying that Robb, Arya and Jon are "awful" just seem to me that we dint read the same books.

Robb is far from great but he try's to do the good thing and fail that is not somebody that is awful, is two worst acts are is mariage to Jeyne and betrayal of the Frey's, wich he did because he was a depressed and horny 16 year old but even then he chose to take the consequence straigth on and protecting Jeyne's honor (wich is something that he would have from Ned). The second one would be pardonning Cat but executing Karstark, sure he cant just execute is mother but she needed to be punished in someway at least wich migth have not pushed Karstark over the edge.

Jon is a naive 15 years old who goes to a order that is suppose to figth against a actual existential threat to humanity but as been for 100 years a penal colony made to make sure a group of human with different culture does not come over the wall. He than sees the actual threat and try's to save the wildlings to face that threat, but in the same time he try's to uphold is oath, and he does when is father is imprisonned, he continues to serve is duty if that means he betray's is first love and only finally go fuck it, when is favorite sister is in the hands of a literal psychopathe.

Arya is a literal 9 years old that went thrue so much trauma that it is a miracle she only has a ease for murder, she is arguably bad but she has been thrue quite somethings.

In general the current generation of Starks are all quite decent people, they have many flaws but are not awful. In contrast it does seem that the Starks of old where not like that, and that the Winter Kings in particular where atleast has brutal as the North, and that is how GRRM shows that the Starks are not just a perfect family from a perfect line.

But to go back to the original subject it is the lack bad characters on the Blackwood side, only Bloodraven could really be said to be a villain on there side, when compared to the Brackens wich seem to always be on the wrong side and never really good.