Landkings: “Foundation” of Magic in Planetos

[Phylum of Alexandria]

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Is she? I think she’s looking worse by the day, and likely to look even worse in TWoW. 
The world does need saving, but Mel’s defo not the person who’s going to do it. She’ll like become quite antagonistic in the near future. 

I wouldn't say she's doing fine. But then again, I wouldn't say the same for Brynden Rivers either. Though they are serving different teams, I think GRRM paints the two characters rather similarly. They both have noble causes--some of the few people actually worried about the threat from the North, and both of them have a compassionate side. Yet both are also marked by a rather ruthless utilitarianism that can lead to some ugly outcomes, which they will likely dismiss as mere collateral damage for the greater good.

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Qyburn says prophecies can be averted, but I can't remember Mel saying it. Seems unlikely, when she advises Stannis that the leeches can't change his destiny in the war of the five kings.

Mel made a shadow assassin to kill Renly because she foresaw Stannis being defeated by Renly and his forces in a battle for King's Landing. What Mel had actually seen was Garlan wearing Renly's armor and the army with Garlan defeating Stannis.

Quote

Stannis shifted in his seat, frowning. "Was, would have, what is that? He did what he did. He came here with his banners and his peaches, to his doom . . . and it was well for me he did. Melisandre saw another day in her flames as well. A morrow where Renly rode out of the south in his green armor to smash my host beneath the walls of King's Landing. Had I met my brother there, it might have been me who died in place of him." (aCoK, Davos II)

Mel believes she has the ability to see the future in the flames in order to try and prevent it from happening. It's why she checks on attempts on her own life first of all. And in that at least she is successful

Quote

 

The red woman laughed. "No one betrayed you, onion knight. I saw your purpose in my flames."

The flames. "If you can see the future in these flames, how is it that we burned upon the Blackwater? You gave my sons to the fire . . . my sons, my ship, my men, all burning . . ."

Melisandre shook her head. "You wrong me, onion knight. Those were no fires of mine. Had I been with you, your battle would have had a different ending. But His Grace was surrounded by unbelievers, and his pride proved stronger than his faith. His punishment was grievous, but he has learned from his mistake." (aSoS, Davos III)

 

And she's wrong in her denial that had she been there, things would have been different. Her murdering of Renly was the reason why Stannis was defeated beneath the walls of KL by Renly's green armor. Her claim here that Stannis would have won had she been there is a false belief. Her being there could not have prevented the wildfire trap, or the Lannister and Tyrell armies from attacking and rout Stannis's army. Vanity and hubris right there! She seems to have no notion or recognition whatsoever that certain actions and choices lead to reactions and other choices beyond her power.

Quote

"Fire is a living thing," the red woman told him, when he asked her to teach him how to see the future in the flames. "It is always moving, always changing . . . like a book whose letters dance and shift even as you try to read them. It takes years of training to see the shapes beyond the flames, and more years still to learn to tell the shapes of what will be from what may be or what was. Even then it comes hard, hard. You do not understand that, you men of the sunset lands." Davos asked her then how it was that Ser Axell had learned the trick of it so quickly, but to that she only smiled enigmatically and said, "Any cat may stare into a fire and see red mice at play." (aSoS, Davos VI)

Mel explains here to Davos that the flames show what will be, what may be or what was. The "what may be" expresses her belief that not everything she sees will come to pass, that it may be averted. That is also apparently what she claimed of the vision she had of Renly defeating Stannis beneath the walls of KL: she believed that vision was a "what may be" and that it was averted once Renly was killed. But it was "what will be". Her own actions and intervention were a direct cause of it.

And we see this behaviour and type of beliefs again with Jon.

Quote

"You are wrong. I have dreamed of your Wall, Jon Snow. Great was the lore that raised it, and great the spells locked beneath its ice. We walk beneath one of the hinges of the world." Melisandre gazed up at it, her breath a warm moist cloud in the air. "This is my place as it is yours, and soon enough you may have grave need of me. Do not refuse my friendship, Jon. I have seen you in the storm, hard-pressed, with enemies on every side. You have so many enemies. Shall I tell you their names?"

"I know their names."

"Do not be so certain." The ruby at Melisandre's throat gleamed red. "It is not the foes who curse you to your face that you must fear, but those who smile when you are looking and sharpen their knives when you turn your back. You would do well to keep your wolf close beside you. Ice, I see, and daggers in the dark. Blood frozen red and hard, and naked steel. It was very cold." (aDwD, Jon I)

Melisandre had seen his danger before, had tried to warn the boy of it. Enemies all around him, daggers in the dark. He would not listen. Unbelievers never listened until it was too late. (aDwD, Melisandre I)

Why else does she try to warn Jon (and she has) against assassination: to prevent it from happening. Why else does she think of unbelievers never listening until it is too late. Too late for what?. To prevent it of course!

But let Melisandre herself answer your challenge, shall we

 

Quote

 

"Eastwatch?"

Was it? Melisandre had seen Eastwatch-by-the-Sea with King Stannis. That was where His Grace left Queen Selyse and their daughter Shireen when he assembled his knights for the march to Castle Black. The towers in her fire had been different, but that was oft the way with visions. "Yes. Eastwatch, my lord."

"When?"

She spread her hands. "On the morrow. In a moon's turn. In a year. And it may be that if you act, you may avert what I have seen entirely." Else what would be the point of visions?

 

 

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Or not - but it's not vanity, because she doesn't need anyone's admiration, and not hubris because she's doing it for the god not herself.

I'll let Mel answer, once again

Quote

 My spells should suffice. She was stronger at the Wall, stronger even than in Asshai. Her every word and gesture was more potent, and she could do things that she had never done before. Such shadows as I bring forth here will be terrible, and no creature of the dark will stand before them. With such sorceries at her command, she should soon have no more need of the feeble tricks of alchemists and pyromancers. (aDwD, Melisandre)

Vanity, hubris.

As for r'hllor being real? Have you read the transcript of the Forsaken chapter yet

Spoiler

R'hllor is one of the gods Damphair sees dead on the spikes of Euron's throne. Him and the Drowned God and the Seven (even the stranger), Bakkalon the pale child, and the god worshipped at Qohor. All dead. False gods. False idols. But not the Old Gods, or cold gods, or Saagael.

Also, I don't see how doing it for a god makes it any less vain or hubris. Imagining yourself to be the chosen one of a god to do his work is a classic example of vanity and hubris. "I'm special!" is a classic example of vanity and ego. And someone who believes they're special for the god they believe in tantamounts to prime example of vanity. Hence my anology to all the Egyptian High Priestesses in former lives. Being the "special one" for a god just adds self delusion on top of the vanity. It means one cannot admit they're actually pleasing their own ego, so they project it onto a god. And in this way the anology applies just as well - pretending they serve something higher than anyone else... again pure ego-stroking vanity, but projected onto something outside of themselves in order to deny how much it is about the ego.

[kissdbyfire]

44 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I wouldn't say she's doing fine. But then again, I wouldn't say the same for Brynden Rivers either.
 

Really? Well then we disagree here, I think Bloodraven is very well positioned right now, as it were. 

44 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Though they are serving different teams, I think GRRM paints the two characters rather similarly. They both have noble causes--some of the few people actually worried about the threat from the North, and both of them have a compassionate side. Yet both are also marked by a rather ruthless utilitarianism that can lead to some ugly outcomes, which they will likely dismiss as mere collateral damage for the greater good.

Hmmm. Yes and no for me. While I think the OGs and Bloodraven are on the side of humanity & Mel thinks she is, too… well, there are major & important differences. And yes, I think both can be ruthless and willing to sacrifice one/some for the greater good, Team BR actually is knowingly and deliberately working towards that while Mel (and Rahloo) is working towards the same goal as long as achieving it goes through her. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Really? Well then we disagree here, I think Bloodraven is very well positioned right now, as it were. 

49 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Lol, right when I posted my comment I noticed your handle as "Bloodraven's #1 groupie."

7 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Hmmm. Yes and no for me. While I think the OGs and Bloodraven are on the side of humanity & Mel thinks she is, too… well, there are major & important differences. And yes, I think both can be ruthless and willing to sacrifice one/some for the greater good, Team BR actually is knowingly and deliberately working towards that while Mel (and Rahloo) is working towards the same goal as long as achieving it goes through her. 

I think the Green weirwoods are just as self-interested as Team Blue and Red, the crucial difference is that the habitat they work toward is one where most humans and life can thrive. And Mel, for all her righteousness, is rooting for a power that's ultimately just as destructive as the Others. She would be the queen of ashes, charred meat, dust, and shadows.

"Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire..."

[kissdbyfire]

10 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Lol, right when I posted my comment I noticed your handle as "Bloodraven's #1 groupie."

 

10 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I think the Green weirwoods are just as self-interested as Team Blue and Red,

 

I am not so sure of that. I think team green is interested in the survival of life above all else. 

10 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

the crucial difference is that the habitat they work toward is one where most humans and life can thrive.
 

10 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

And Mel, for all her righteousness, is rooting for a power that's ultimately just as destructive as the Others. She would be the queen of ashes, charred meat, dust, and shadows.

 Righteousness can be a terrifying thing, and Mel’s hubris makes things even worse.c

10 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

"Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire..."

Meh. I really don’t think the answer the mysteries in a series of books called A Song of Ice and Fire will have its mysteries revealed by a poem about ice and fire and all that. A tad too on the nose for Martin imo. 

[kissdbyfire]

The thing w/ Mel is, she strikes me as someone who could very easily make the wrong decision in a crucial moment. 
For instance, if she thinks the ‘right’ course of action is doing A but others in the majority think it’s B, I can see her letting the opposite side of the argument getting screwed just so she can go, ‘told ya!’ on them. I’m making light of this scenario, but for illustration only. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

17 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Meh. I really don’t think the answer the mysteries in a series of books called A Song of Ice and Fire will have its mysteries revealed by a poem about ice and fire and all that. A tad too on the nose for Martin imo. 

He's actually quite fond of using famous poems to set his themes. But the poem doesn't reveal a mystery, it just points out that Fire and Ice are equally destructive forces. As an advocate of Team Green, you should agree. Certainly the charred skeletons in Valyria would agree, if they could.

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

He's actually quite fond of using famous poems to set his themes. But the poem doesn't reveal a mystery, it just points out that Fire and Ice are equally destructive forces. As an advocate of Team Green, you should agree. Certainly the charred skeletons in Valyria would agree, if they could.

Oh I do wholeheartedly agree that neither ice nor fire is the answer. And setting themes is one thing but anything beyond that is misreading or wishful thinking. 
And yessss, team green is the only ‘right’ answer!

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Oh I do wholeheartedly agree that neither ice nor fire is the answer. And setting themes is one thing but anything beyond that is misreading or wishful thinking. 
And yessss, team green is the only ‘right’ answer!

Then we agree!

My main point of difference is that, even though Team Green is the way the characters gotta go given the circumstances, I still regard the weirwoods as eldritch abominations, rather than any kind of peaceful nature gods. It's just the least ugly situation to work with.

And I don't think the Others are evil, just self-interested and highly dangerous for life on the planet. All things with warm blood are Hazzea in their eyes, therefore they need to be stopped.

[kissdbyfire]

11 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I still regard the weirwoods as eldritch abominations, rather than any kind of peaceful nature gods. It's just the least ugly situation to work with.

And that’s where you’re going wrong. IMO of course.

You’re falling for one of the many traps Martin has set for readers… but the hour is late and the alcohol consumption has been high, so I’ll leave it until tomorrow for a full reply.

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And that’s where you’re going wrong. IMO of course.

You’re falling for one of the many traps Martin has set for readers… but the hour is late and the alcohol consumption has been high, so I’ll leave it until tomorrow for a full reply.

Hey, I'm all for friendly wagers, especially if they are paid in alcohol.  

78 year old me will be gettin hammered! 

[Springwatch]

12 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

But the leeches and all that was just a scam to convince Stannis of how ‘powerful’ she is.

Curse or prophecy, there's something real there. Real power.

12 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

13 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Besides, what failure? She says flat out it's not her mission to put another king on the throne. Renly's death gifted Stannis an army, and the Tyrells were hostile anyway. If it hadn't been Garlan at KL, it would have been Renly and his army, and Stannis could have suffered an even worse defeat. Even death.

So basically nothing really to do w/ her visions & power? I’m really asking b/c I’m not sure what you’re getting at here…

I said what I meant to say. What are you thinking?

12 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

13 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Spiritualism isn't a fair analogy for religion in a high fantasy novel, though - R'hllor might not be a classic god, but he/it is something.

Are we sure of that? I’m not. There may be ways of tapping into magical sources, and assigning power to a random name is not that hard or that unbelievable. 

To be clear, I personally think the red priests are unwittingly worshipping a maw or similar, not the ever-loving god in their religious texts. But that's very far from our world, where magic and prophecy definitely don't exist.

12 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I do believe all these old legends will play a part. But mostly in giving clues irt what’s to come. IMO there’ll be no NK 2.0 or any of that. 

Brave words!

12 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I disagree here. I think it’s 100% hubris. She’s being arrogant about how much she knows, how much power she has. She says she’s doing it for Red Rahloo, but there’s a good chunk that says she’s doing it for herself as well. Maybe not to benefit from it directly but just so she can go all, ‘I told ya!’ Or ‘I tried to warn you’. 

There's literally no-one whose opinion she values enough to enjoy telling them 'I told ya'. There's no benefit she wants. She's a religious fanatic, start and end.

The original definition of hubris was rivalling the gods, or defying the divine order. Mel's actions are totally aligned to her god's service (as she sees it), so hubris isn't the ideal label.

12 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

And that becomes quite clear when she thinks about how the display of power is important, how the pageantry matters, and how she doesn’t want anyone know how much her magicking costs her.  

Sure. But she wants their obedience to the cause, not their admiration.

12 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Not just the sacrifices, but the zealotry. Mostly the zealotry. Yeah, as enjoyable as her PoV was and her delusion is, she’s not going to be the hero in this story.

It looks likely she'll sacrifice Shireen - I've read enough stories to know that's not usually how the world gets saved.

She might save Jon though (hopefully not over Shireen's dead body).

12 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Is she? I think she’s looking worse by the day, and likely to look even worse in TWoW. 
The world does need saving, but Mel’s defo not the person who’s going to do it. She’ll likely become quite antagonistic in the near future. 

Whatever she does, it's going to be interesting.

[Springwatch]

13 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Mel made a shadow assassin to kill Renly because she foresaw Stannis being defeated by Renly and his forces in a battle for King's Landing. What Mel had actually seen was Garlan wearing Renly's armor and the army with Garlan defeating Stannis.

Quote

Stannis shifted in his seat, frowning. "Was, would have, what is that? He did what he did. He came here with his banners and his peaches, to his doom . . . and it was well for me he did. Melisandre saw another day in her flames as well. A morrow where Renly rode out of the south in his green armor to smash my host beneath the walls of King's Landing. Had I met my brother there, it might have been me who died in place of him." (aCoK, Davos II)

Thoros saw the siege of Riverrun as a sea of leaping flames shaped like lions, so it's likely Mel didn't see Garlan or Renly, but just a token, i.e. the green armour. And also Stannis' army getting smashed. Killing Renly looks like a solid move here. As Stannis says, he might have died in that scenario. As it is, the destiny healed itself (or whatever) and Stannis met a copy and survived.

13 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Mel believes she has the ability to see the future in the flames in order to try and prevent it from happening. It's why she checks on attempts on her own life first of all. And in that at least she is successful.

Quote

The red woman laughed. "No one betrayed you, onion knight. I saw your purpose in my flames."

The flames. "If you can see the future in these flames, how is it that we burned upon the Blackwater? You gave my sons to the fire . . . my sons, my ship, my men, all burning . . ."

Melisandre shook her head. "You wrong me, onion knight. Those were no fires of mine. Had I been with you, your battle would have had a different ending. But His Grace was surrounded by unbelievers, and his pride proved stronger than his faith. His punishment was grievous, but he has learned from his mistake." (aSoS, Davos III)

 

Expand  

And she's wrong in her denial that had she been there, things would have been different. Her murdering of Renly was the reason why Stannis was defeated beneath the walls of KL by Renly's green armor. Her claim here that Stannis would have won had she been there is a false belief. Her being there could not have prevented the wildfire trap, or the Lannister and Tyrell armies from attacking and rout Stannis's army. Vanity and hubris right there! She seems to have no notion or recognition whatsoever that certain actions and choices lead to reactions and other choices beyond her power.

Mel checks for attempts on her own life and it works. I'm guessing she prays to see the plot but not the outcome - a prophetic vision of her own dead body might be more difficult to avert, similar to Mr Green Armour.

If she had been at the Blackwater, things would have been different. The battle is described as (paraphrasing) 'the greens and jades of wildfire warring against the reds and yellows of common flame' - as a representative of red fire, Mel couldn't fail to make a difference, but all the same, I don't think battle victory is anything she needs as such, she just wants her AA to travel further along his destined path.

ETA

I'm not as impressed as you are by unintended consquences. Without Mel's interventions, Stannis' army was very small. Meeting Renly at KL would be a much worse scenario, disastrous even.

[Springwatch]

13 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And we see this behaviour and type of beliefs again with Jon.

Quote

"You are wrong. I have dreamed of your Wall, Jon Snow. Great was the lore that raised it, and great the spells locked beneath its ice. We walk beneath one of the hinges of the world." Melisandre gazed up at it, her breath a warm moist cloud in the air. "This is my place as it is yours, and soon enough you may have grave need of me. Do not refuse my friendship, Jon. I have seen you in the storm, hard-pressed, with enemies on every side. You have so many enemies. Shall I tell you their names?"

"I know their names."

"Do not be so certain." The ruby at Melisandre's throat gleamed red. "It is not the foes who curse you to your face that you must fear, but those who smile when you are looking and sharpen their knives when you turn your back. You would do well to keep your wolf close beside you. Ice, I see, and daggers in the dark. Blood frozen red and hard, and naked steel. It was very cold." (aDwD, Jon I)

Melisandre had seen his danger before, had tried to warn the boy of it. Enemies all around him, daggers in the dark. He would not listen. Unbelievers never listened until it was too late. (aDwD, Melisandre I)

Expand  

Why else does she try to warn Jon (and she has) against assassination: to prevent it from happening. Why else does she think of unbelievers never listening until it is too late. Too late for what?. To prevent it of course!

This is what I meant about Mel's fatalism. She could have put a lot more effort into persuading Jon, and taken measures to protect him. When she says unbelievers never listen, she sounds like Cassandra (had the true gift of prophecy, was never believed, couldn't change anything). She has tried and failed to protect unbelievers before - I suppose messing with destiny is a trickly business.

13 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

But let Melisandre herself answer your challenge, shall we

 

Quote

"Eastwatch?"

Was it? Melisandre had seen Eastwatch-by-the-Sea with King Stannis. That was where His Grace left Queen Selyse and their daughter Shireen when he assembled his knights for the march to Castle Black. The towers in her fire had been different, but that was oft the way with visions. "Yes. Eastwatch, my lord."

"When?"

She spread her hands. "On the morrow. In a moon's turn. In a year. And it may be that if you act, you may avert what I have seen entirely." Else what would be the point of visions?

 

Expand  

Excellent, but the key word is 'may'. That's not hubris, she knows her limits. A god may be able to change the future at will, but it's a lot more difficult for Mel. Sometimes it can't be done.

[Springwatch]

14 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

'll let Mel answer, once again

Quote

 My spells should suffice. She was stronger at the Wall, stronger even than in Asshai. Her every word and gesture was more potent, and she could do things that she had never done before. Such shadows as I bring forth here will be terrible, and no creature of the dark will stand before them. With such sorceries at her command, she should soon have no more need of the feeble tricks of alchemists and pyromancers. (aDwD, Melisandre)

Vanity, hubris.

It's not vanity if she can actually perform what she claims.

14 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

As for r'hllor being real? Have you read the transcript of the Forsaken chapter yet

  Reveal hidden contents

R'hllor is one of the gods Damphair sees dead on the spikes of Euron's throne. Him and the Drowned God and the Seven (even the stranger), Bakkalon the pale child, and the god worshipped at Qohor. All dead. False gods. False idols. But not the Old Gods, or cold gods, or Saagael.

It's interesting - feeds into the idea of hungry gods, gods consuming other gods. Doesn't say to me that R'hllor doesn't exist.

14 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Also, I don't see how doing it for a god makes it any less vain or hubris. Imagining yourself to be the chosen one of a god to do his work is a classic example of vanity and hubris. "I'm special!" is a classic example of vanity and ego. And someone who believes they're special for the god they believe in tantamounts to prime example of vanity. Hence my anology to all the Egyptian High Priestesses in former lives. Being the "special one" for a god just adds self delusion on top of the vanity. It means one cannot admit they're actually pleasing their own ego, so they project it onto a god. And in this way the anology applies just as well - pretending they serve something higher than anyone else... again pure ego-stroking vanity, but projected onto something outside of themselves in order to deny how much it is about the ego.

We've pretty close to debating the meaning of the word 'hubris' here - I'll let that argument rest.

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

Thoros saw the siege of Riverrun as a sea of leaping flames shaped like lions, so it's likely Mel didn't see Garlan or Renly, but just a token, i.e. the green armour. And also Stannis' army getting smashed. Killing Renly looks like a solid move here. As Stannis says, he might have died in that scenario. As it is, the destiny healed itself (or whatever) and Stannis met a copy and survived.

What Thoros saw matters little. We have Stannis' description of what Mel claims she saw. And of course she only saw the green armor. . She simply concluded that it must have been Renly, as everybody else on the battlefield on Stannis' side thought at the time, but the vision was correctly showing her Garlan in Renly's armor. Just like the girl on the grey horse was never Arya, but always Alys Karstark, and the towers overwhelmed by a black and bloody flow are not Eastwatch, but Mel ends up claiming it is. Destiny did not heal itself, because destiny would take into account that Mel has come to Stannis' side and will use baby assassins whenever she can.

She loves making baby assassins. While so far she only made two and ceased to make them with Stannis, she made an offer to Davos and Jon both to make one. I'd say she's a shadow baby making addict. And destiny "knows" it.

The problem is that Mel assured Stannis she could solve this massive realities of the discrepancy in armies with her magic, made him believe he could win it by making no alliances whatsoever. Renly would take Stannis' offer more into consideration if Stannis had come to some sort of agreement with Robb Stark. But Stannis never did, because Mel and Selyse kept affirming that he would not need to.

[sweetsunray]

49 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

It's not vanity if she can actually perform what she claims.

What a weird definition of "vanity".

So, if we follow your reasoning then someone who's objectively beautiful and busy with nothing else but that and using it to compare themselves to others in a prideful manner and wants to show it off at each opportunity is not "vain"?

Vanity says nothing about that person's abilties or looks in comparison to the claims, but how much pride they take in it, how much they judge others lacking it, how much they soothe their inner ego by showing it off at every opportunity, how much their self-confidence is built entirely on this ability, so much they cannot truly admit being in error (as she does not about Renly case). For if she must admit her responsibility in making the defeat happen, her whole ego view on her self crumbles. And Mel is definitely vain about her powers.

 

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

I’m still stewing on Stannis’ shadow killing Renly.

So Renly’s Rainbow Guard was missing a color: indigo. Perhaps they were trying to avoid a representation of the Stranger in their garb. Oh, the irony:

“And the seventh face . . . the Stranger was neither male nor female, yet both, ever the outcast, the wanderer from far places, less and more than human, unknown and unknowable. Here the face was a black oval, a shadow with stars for eyes.” —ACOK, Catelyn IV

The color of death was indigo. The Stranger came after all, in the form of a shadow.

But why have these details here at all? GRRM is pointing us to an important clue in the same book.

There are only 8 mentions of indigo in ACOK. One pertains to sunset in Jon VI, and one pertains to Cressen’s choker crystals from Asshai.

6 of the 8 mentions of indigo occur within the House of the Undying. One of these pertains to Rhaegar’s eye color, but the rest are reserved for the chamber of the Undying:

“A long stone table filled this room. Above it floated a human heart, swollen and blue with corruption, yet still alive. It beat, a deep ponderous throb of sound, and each pulse sent out a wash of indigo light.”

“Through the indigo murk, she could make out the wizened features of the Undying One to her right, an old old man, wrinkled and hairless. His flesh was a ripe violet-blue, his lips and nails bluer still, so dark they were almost black. Even the whites of his eyes were blue.” 

“Then phantoms shivered through the murk, images in indigo.”

“But then black wings buffeted her round the head, and a scream of fury cut the indigo air, and suddenly the visions were gone, ripped away, and Dany's gasp turned to horror.”

“Then indigo turned to orange, and whispers turned to screams. Her heart was pounding, racing, the hands and mouths were gone, heat washed over her skin, and Dany blinked at a sudden glare.” 

Melisandre’s shadow magic, learned in Asshai, is textually linked to the corrupted heart of the Undying, the heart of the Shade of the Evening tree’s power, which emanates indigo light.

Why this connection? I think this is a hint that the Shade trees relate to the Shadowlands. Crowfood’s Daughter’s guesses that the indigo forests in Ulthos southeast of Asshai are likely Shade trees seem correct, and their corrupted state reflects the cataclysm that led to the Long Night.

Not for nothing is there also Azor Ahai imagery in the mix. Fire-Garth plunges his fat red mast into his Red Queen (who would look like a human weirwood when naked) and spews his life fires. Her moon-face opens in agony and ecstasy as she gives birth to great light and flame, followed by shadow. And Green-Garth is felled by the shadow, growing cold as the lights gutter out. Asshai used to be green and fertile, and now it is a barren haunt of perpetual darkness.

Also: Shortly before Renly dies, he mentions that Stannis had threatened to hurl men via trebuchets. This image appears several times in the story, and I have related it to weirwood panspermia. The Six Sisters and the Three Whores call to mind the Three Singers, and they toss boulders and antler men, i.e., they are the “giants who pelted Garth with boulders” instead of sowing seeds. I hadn’t noticed this particular instance of the pattern, and its position in the grand Garth-killing scene is perfect.

My guess is that it’s not just the Team Green weirwoods who look ready to pull down various astral bodies…

[sweetsunray]

14 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

“And the seventh face . . . the Stranger was neither male nor female, yet both, ever the outcast, the wanderer from far places, less and more than human, unknown and unknowable. Here the face was a black oval, a shadow with stars for eyes.” —ACOK, Catelyn IV

I've made that connection for the Andals to a maw such as the corpse queen and the House of the Undying. The 7 faces of the god who truly roamed the hills made me think of 6 + 1, for we are regularly told that there are only songs for the 6, but not the 7th the stranger, as there are only actual facial features for the 6, but not the stranger. So, I've been wondering that the "stranger" or 7th actually alludes to the maw itself, as she would be death (the one eating humans like prey, and the hivemind controller. And then there is the "stars for eyes". The Others and the wights have blue stars for eyes. This is how they are regularly described, even when the sapphire is mentioned. And "the stranger" of course is another way of saying "inhuman" or "alien". The stranger is neither male nor female... hmmmm