Why the Fables of the Seven Don't Tell About Others?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

3 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Shade trees are their own "thing", own species or whatever you want to call it. They are corrupted in the sense that they are put in the path of the fire elements such as Dany and Euron, but of those two, only Dany can beet them (which is another reason of many we know Euron will fail masterfully and hilariously).

I have my own theory about the Shade trees, but it's tinfoily and sharing it here would be kind of a tangent. But the gist of it is that they used to be like the weirwoods (either identical, or a "cousin") and they were corrupted by the same cataclysm that caused the Long Night. But that's not worth getting into. We can have our own theories.

 

5 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

A major difference between the trees is one acts a "library", the Acedemy of Human Knowledge if you know what I mean, so any consuming is to benefit all in the end (history lessons to grow from). The Shade trees consume, as fire does, to benefit the self. Look at all the times in-story where readers are told and shown that fire is a "greedy god". .it "consumes" and feeds the self.

Agree, except that in my theory, the Shade tree only now acts this way. Just as the seat of the GEotD now sits in the Shadowlands, so a healthy eldritch tree is now a Shade tree.

7 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

So many readers "fall" for the seeming trope GRRM is using here and assume that all of *this* is the same in ASOIAF when it is not.

But I didn't say they were the same. In my last comment, I said: "I'm not saying they're the same; I'm saying there are clear similarities." The differences are important, for sure. But the similarities are there. Plus, there's a whole lot to the story that we don't yet know. So we have to look for patterns and infer an extension to the pattern based on what we're given. But we're not given a whole lot, and our imaginations work differently, and so we come to different inferences. That's fine.

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I can see what you mean (I think). Again, self choice. There are no "gods" in ASOIAF that re going to walk on page, just what a character thinks of themself at the time. Humans created the religion. There is, however, a "fifth element" universal (whatever you want to call it) that a person of an extreme tendency can use for there own means... if they have a propensity for it. For instance, Dany learns the secrets to fire birthing dragons by watching MMD this whole time, then she says to herself that her knowledge is "buried in her blood". GRRM has said Dany and Bran are the two most magical in the series and we can see them growing and learning side by side, but it's what they do with their knowledge and wisdom that will endure in the end. So yeah, there is a moral element to it, but it is within the user not the object.

I think all of this jives with what I have been saying. It makes sense to me. GRRM is about choices and responsibility. His conception of magic is great power that is often wildly unpredictable, which comes at great cost, often the cost of others. One can't help being born with blood-based magical traits, but one can choose what they do with the powers (and who they sleep with to preserve the blood magic, etc). Blood sacrifice is a territory that is sometimes willing, but GRRM will not simply make this cost a willing sacrifice--or if he does, I'll be disappointed in him as a writer. That would be sugarcoating this issue of costs for power, at least in my opinion.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

11 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I do want to clarify why I am saying that Bloodraven is the opposite of the Undying Ones: Bloodraven is eventually self-sacrificing his body to the tree by his own very choice. Nobody else was forcibly sacrifice for Bloodraven to live that long. What Bloodraven does is self-sacrifice, and I'm getting the impression he would have preferred to have lived a shorter life in different circumstances if the guilt would not have eaten him up.

The Undying Ones dupe and force someone else to sacrifice their lives so they could live forever, even if it is as blind, non breathing, unmoving dried up plums stuffed away in some dank maze.

I agree with all of that. 

At the same time, I think that Bloodraven's decisions won't escape GRRM's moral scrutiny. There are many shades of gray to explore in the story.

[sweetsunray]

17 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

We also see that Old Nan's bedtime stories don't really tell the truth in many cases but are twisted perversions of it. Giants for example seem to be mostly docile and don't eat meat, let alone human flesh, they are herbivorers, but one must say Wun Wun is eating those veggies almost as ferociously as Tormund eats his chickens.

Exactly!

Old Nan's hearth tales have some truths in them in that they at least admit to the existence of corpse queens, sorcery, giants, cotf, wights, Others, etc...But when you take a closer look it's mostly all messed up. Old Nan tends to be correct in the details when she's actually unaware of it.

For example - when Bran asks Old Nan to tell him about the Others, she mentions all sorts of stuff - what they hate, what they dod - but never truly describes them. So, when Old Nan describes the corpse queen in the Night's King legend, Old Nan is not trying to claim the corpse queen was an Other, since Old Nan has already proven she's not aware that Others look like that. Old Nan is thus unaware she's describing a woman with the features of an Other. And so we can conclude she's right on the money.

Other example - Jon tells Mormont a tale he heard from Old Nan (not actually referencing her in name, but in job description) about wildling women copulating with Others, which is also what she insinuates when she talks of the Night's King giving his seed to the corpse queen. Not only does that sound impossible (as cold as they are), we are certain that Craster never copulated with any Other, only his 19 wives, and he offers his sons up, and somehow these offerings are important to make more Others. (IMO they're food for the corpse queen, not Otherized). The phrase of "giving his seed" is only correct in the sense that it means the man sacrifices his children to her: the word "seed" is also used to mean children in Westeros: cfr. dragonseeds.

Another example - at some point, very early on, Old Nan claims Others carried children off to feed wights. But wights don't need to eat (they're undead). Wights disembowel living targets or choke them, like an animal, but they don't actually eat them. So, whomever saw the Others carry off children, they weren't taken to the wights.

Old Nan's tales are usually "close, but no cigar".

 

[The Fattest Leech]

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And many times she’s just making things scarier to please Bran. 

Oh totally. GRRM is having all sorts of fun between Old Nan and we readers. I love it!

[Gilbert Green]

32 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

All right, then how about the definition of zeal and zealot? Hope this helps.

I have my own dictionaries.  And they say that zealots are defined by their zeal.  I agree, and my dictionaries agree, that the term "zealot" usually (not always) carries an implication of excessive zeal.  But that only begs the question of how much zeal is too much.

All I am saying is that I do not think GRRM considers all religion to be bad, and does not even consider all zealous or fervent religion to be bad.

[The Fattest Leech]

15 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

We can have our own theories.

Understandable.

I have to get back to work (coffee break over ), but if you decide to start a thread about Shade trees, tag me. Better there than off topic here

[Phylum of Alexandria]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I can’t reply to everything atm, will get back to this later tonight. But really wanted to ask… how can there be any ‘drainage’ at all when Bloodraven has lived far beyond the span of a human life, and even more so when we take into account the average life span in Westeros? I mean, had there been any draining of his life at all, and he would’ve been dead a long, long time ago. 

I could ask the same of the Undying. The corrupted state of the Shade trees does distinguish them from the "healthy" weirwoods, but you still have mummified corpses, seemingly dead but living long lives. One just seems a lot hungrier and more desperate than the other.

As I pointed out earlier, Leaf told Bran that most of him went into the tree. How should I interpret that?

[kissdbyfire]

2 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I could ask the same of the Undying. The corrupted state of the Shade trees does distinguish them from the "healthy" weirwoods, but you still have mummified corpses, seemingly dead but living long lives. One just seems a lot hungrier and more desperate than the other.

As I pointed out earlier, Leaf told Bran that most of him went into the tree. How should I interpret that?

I can tell you how I interpret it… 

I think what she means is that Bloodraven’s life was extended by his body merging with the tree; that’s what has prolonged his life beyond a human’s normal life span. So imo his life essence hasn’t been drained by the tree, it’s the opposite: the tree has sustained him to the point where he’s lived longer than he would have otherwise. And when Leaf says that Bloodraven has mostly gone into the tree, she’s saying that despite his connection to it his time is almost up. The tree prolonged his life, but it can’t prevent it indefinitely. And this merging happened out of necessity, but now he has very little time left. The weirwoods, the trees, the CotF are not ice or fire, but balance, nature in all its beauty and fierceness and implacability. The cycle of life must go on, all living things must die. 
 

“Most of him has gone into the tree,” explained the singer Meera called Leaf. “He has lived beyond his mortal span, and yet he lingers. For us, for you, for the realms of men. Only a little strength remains in his flesh. He has a thousand eyes and one, but there is much to watch. One day you will know.”

 

ETA: typo

[Phylum of Alexandria]

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I think what she means is that Bloodraven’s life was extended by his body merging with the tree; that’s what has prolonged his life beyond a human’s normal life span. So imo his life essence hasn’t been drained by the tree, it’s the opposite: the tree has sustained him to the point where he’s lived longer than he would have otherwise. And when Leaf says that Bloodraven has mostly gone into the tree, she’s saying that despite his connection to it he’s time is almost up. The tree prolonged his life, but it can’t prevent it indefinitely. And this merging happened out of necessity, but now he has very little time left. The weirwoods, the trees, the CotF are not ice or fire, but balance, nature in all its beauty and fierceness and implacability. The cycle of life must go on, all living things must die. 
 

“Most of him has gone into the tree,” explained the singer Meera called Leaf. “He has lived beyond his mortal span, and yet he lingers. For us, for you, for the realms of men. Only a little strength remains in his flesh. He has a thousand eyes and one, but there is much to watch. One day you will know.”

Well, I can agree with a lot of this. Except, while I do think that Team Weirwood does represent a more balanced approach to magic that is more conducive to life than ice or fire, I don't think that GRRM is writing them to be "natural" at all, or without the potential for dire consequences. Not for nothing does he make the trees themselves look like ghastly zombies; they are Eldritch beings who catalyze great powers that can be used for good, or abused. Choice is everything, and yet magic in this world is never natural, predictable, or without cost.

Also, not for nothing did GRRM place Brynden Rivers in this tree as the story's Obi-Wan, rather than someone with the temperament of Baelor Breakspear. Bloodraven has noble intentions, but he can be a ruthless utilitarian in service of those intentions. His quest to defeat the Others is admirable, but what he has done or will do to meet that goal could have some dire consequences. 

I was re-reading GRRM first novel Dying of the Light recently, and was struck by the ending:

Spoiler

in which the pacifist Arkin Ruark turns out to be the villain of the story. He is a ruthless, utilitarian god ecologist, making shrewd decisions to fulfill his own interests and goals, regardless of how harsh or calculating.

Curiously, the person who most seems like he could serve a similar role is Bloodraven. Or maybe a changed Bran, late in the story.

For this reason, I think, GRRM writes Bran's third ADWD chapter as a horror, from the first line onward. Not to paint Bloodraven or the weirwoods as evil, but to make visceral the feeling of peril, of uncertainty, of heading down a path to unknown consequences.

I don't think that Jojen Reed has been eaten as a paste, but the text does seem to imply that he is a likely sacrifice to come. If it is true, he knows it, as the greendreams have told him how he dies. But while resigned, he does seem troubled by it. And Meera seems really troubled by it. Is the cost worth it? GRRM will at least want us to feel squeamish as we make such calculations.

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I don't think that Jojen Reed has been eaten as a paste, but the text does seem to imply that he is a likely sacrifice to come. If it is true, he knows it, as the greendreams have told him how he dies. But while resigned, he does seem troubled by it. And Meera seems really troubled by it. Is the cost worth it? GRRM will at least want us to feel squeamish as we make such calculations.

The text does not imply he's a likely sacrifice. The text implies that Jojen will end up having an accident while wandering around in cave tunnels where he was warned to stay away from. It was Jojen's own voluntary choice to go on that trip, knowing from the get go from the Neck when his time would be. It is his self-sacrifice. It's Jojen's personal freedom to choose for himself what risks he will take to help his loved ones and people and beyond.

It's like asking: is the cost of maester Luwin jumping in front of Theon to save him from a spear worth it?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

The text does not imply he's a likely sacrifice. The text implies that Jojen will end up having an accident while wandering around in cave tunnels where he was warned to stay away from.

Another strong disagree, but given that GRRM doesn't spell these things out, I'm willing to buy you a beer if you're proven right, as long as you do the same if I am. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

5 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

It is his self-sacrifice. It's Jojen's personal freedom to choose for himself what risks he will take to help his loved ones and people and beyond.

Is it self-sacrifice if you believe it to be predestination? If it is in fact, predestination? All the more relevant a question if we consider the possibility that it was Bloodraven or other greenseers who planted that green dream in Jojen's head. Not guaranteed, of course, but possible. 

Regardless, GRRM is making such a "choice" a whole lot murkier. People do indeed make a choice, but they are still subject to manipulation. And Meera will be just as distraught, just as lonely.

[sweetsunray]

1 minute ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Another strong disagree, but given that GRRM doesn't spell these things out, I'm willing to buy you a beer if you're proven right, as long as you do the same if I am. 

Here are the quotes

Quote

The caves were timeless, vast, silent. They were home to more than three score living singers and the bones of thousands dead, and extended far below the hollow hill. "Men should not go wandering in this place," Leaf warned them. "The river you hear is swift and black, and flows down and down to a sunless sea. And there are passages that go even deeper, bottomless pits and sudden shafts, forgotten ways that lead to the very center of the earth. Even my people have not explored them all, and we have lived here for a thousand thousand of your man-years."

[...]

One day Meera and Jojen decided to go see the river, despite Leaf's cautions. "I want to come too," Bran said.

Meera gave him a mournful look. The river was six hundred feet below, down steep slopes and twisty passages, she explained, and the last part required climbing down a rope. "Hodor could never make the climb with you on his back. I'm sorry, Bran."

[...]

No one ever knew when he was wearing Hodor's skin. Bran only had to smile, do as he was told, and mutter "Hodor" from time to time, and he could follow Meera and Jojen, grinning happily, without anyone suspecting it was really him. He often tagged along, whether he was wanted or not. In the end, the Reeds were glad he came. Jojen made it down the rope easily enough, but after Meera caught a blind white fish with her frog spear and it was time to climb back up, his arms began to tremble and he could not make it to the top, so they had to tie the rope around him and let Hodor haul him up. 

[...]

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.

(aDwD, Bran III)

No other comment than these quotes.

[sweetsunray]

7 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Is it self-sacrifice if you believe it to be predestination? If it is in fact, predestination? All the more relevant a question if we consider the possibility that it was Bloodraven or other greenseers who planted that green dream in Jojen's head. Not guaranteed, of course, but possible. 

Regardless, GRRM is making such a "choice" a whole lot murkier. People do indeed make a choice, but they are still subject to manipulation. And Meera will be just as distraught, just as lonely.

Yes, people are subject to manipulation, but manipulation does not take away the responsibility from someone in making their choices. Even if you're lied to and make choices based on those lies, those are still your own choices. Is a kid less responsibly for taking something from a store, because another kid challenged them into doing it? None.

Someone manipulating or lying to someone in order to make the other choose to do something just makes the manipulator partially responsible, but the actor not less.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

10 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

No other comment than these quotes.

Here are the quotes that I gravitate toward:

"What do the trees remember?”

"The secrets of the old gods," said Jojen Reed. Food and fire and rest had helped restore him after the ordeals of their journey, but he seemed sadder now, sullen, with a weary, haunted look about the eyes.

…

Bran's eyes widened. "They're going to kill me?”

"No," Meera said. "Jojen, you're scaring him.”

"He is not the one who needs to be afraid."

…

"He wants to go home," Meera told Bran. "He will not even try and fight his fate. He says the greendreams do not lie.”

"He's being brave," said Bran. The only time a man can be brave is when he is afraid, his father had told him once, long ago, on the day they found the direwolf pups in the summer snows. He still remembered.

"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.

"Hodor," said Hodor.

Meera began to cry.

…

And let’s not forget the motif of the chapter: “The moon was a crescent, thin and sharp as the blade of a knife.”

The moon lines help mark the passage of time, of course, but the knife symbolism takes on new meaning in light of how the chapter ends, with a killing by the tree, and Bran waking and tasting the blood.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

10 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Yes, people are subject to manipulation, but manipulation does not take away the responsibility from someone in making their choices. Even if you're lied to and make choices based on those lies, those are still your own choices. Is a kid less responsibly for taking something from a store, because another kid challenged them into doing it? None.

Someone manipulating or lying to someone in order to make the other choose to do something just makes the manipulator partially responsible, but the actor not less.

I agree, but my point was not really to focus on Jojen's morality, but on the greenseers' morality. And on the nature of self-sacrifice. In research ethics we have to obtain the informed consent of our participants. Jojen consented, but he was not fully informed of the situation. That may be something like self-sacrifice, but it's a good deal more dubious, and morally suspect with respect to Team Nature.

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Here are the quotes that I gravitate toward:

"What do the trees remember?”

"The secrets of the old gods," said Jojen Reed. Food and fire and rest had helped restore him after the ordeals of their journey, but he seemed sadder now, sullen, with a weary, haunted look about the eyes.

…

Bran's eyes widened. "They're going to kill me?”

"No," Meera said. "Jojen, you're scaring him.”

"He is not the one who needs to be afraid."

…

"He wants to go home," Meera told Bran. "He will not even try and fight his fate. He says the greendreams do not lie.”

"He's being brave," said Bran. The only time a man can be brave is when he is afraid, his father had told him once, long ago, on the day they found the direwolf pups in the summer snows. He still remembered.

"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.

"Hodor," said Hodor.

Meera began to cry.

…

And let’s not forget the motif of the chapter: “The moon was a crescent, thin and sharp as the blade of a knife.”

The moon lines help mark the passage of time, of course, but the knife symbolism takes on new meaning in light of how the chapter ends, with a killing by the tree, and Bran waking and tasting the blood.

Which are almost all Meera's quotes. She knows like him he was going to die, but unlike Jojen she doesn't know how. Not one of Meera's quotes indicates "being murdered for human sacrifice".  And the one with Bran saying "They're going to kill me" is the typical "horror spook" red herring that George uses when it comes to old gods since aGoT, Bran I, basically. Jojen admitting he's scared, doesn't mean "I'm going to be murdered". It ties to what Ned said to Bran in aGoT, Bran ... the only time to be brave is when you're afraid.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

19 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

No other comment than these quotes.

What so no promise of beer? I'm a huge fan of the Brasserie Dupont from Belgium... 

[sweetsunray]

4 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I agree, but my point was not really to focus on Jojen's morality, but on the greenseers' morality. And on the nature of self-sacrifice. In research ethics we have to obtain the informed consent of our participants. Jojen consented, but he was not fully informed of the situation. That may be something like self-sacrifice, but it's a good deal more dubious, and morally suspect with respect to Team Nature.

He was fully informed. The boy said several times "this is not how i'll die" since aCoK. So, he  knows how he will die from the beginning.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Just now, sweetsunray said:

He was fully informed. The boy said several times "this is not how i'll die" since aCoK. So, he  knows how he will die from the beginning.

He was informed how he would die. But what he if knew that Bloodraven or someone else had put that vision into his head? And that visions don't always tell the truth? That's something that I would like to know before putting my life on the line. I would definitely ding Team Nature for ethics violations here.