Jump to content

(ADWD SPOILERS) Jon and Varamyr


grimslade

Recommended Posts

I think mostly to show us the warging rules, and perhaps to foreshadow Bran's development.

I know most people don't seem to think it matters, but the fact Bran sees no problem with warging Hodor is a very bad sign of moral degeneration. It should be 100% OBVIOUS that stealing someone's body is a bad thing. Not to Bran.

I'll disagree slightly: to a 9-year-old, it's not absolutely obvious, and Bran does feel a bit bad about it. I'll also dismiss the instance where it was taking over Hodor vs. everyone getting killed by the wights. Panic reaction, greater good &c.

(SPCA bonus question: how much less bad is it to take over an animal's body? Nobody seems to bat an eyelash at that.)

The true test – and who's to say the children and/or Bloodraven aren't testing him – is indeed whether he continues it or comes to a realization it's not right.

Here's another thought: Hodor doesn't seem to be terribly handicapped. There's his speech, obviously, but he seems to function fairly well and certainly has shown capacity for independent thought. Might it be possible that Bran could actually help him break out of some mental barricades by “co-habiting”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all for thoughts/reactions. I think most or all of the Other threads from the prologue are part of it too--I didn't mean to suggest that there was one and only reason for it being there. But Jon's last words have to be significant, it seems to me. And setting something like that up in the prologue strikes me as a GRRM sort of thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought GRRM set up an interesting tension with the warging abominations, and how Bran is already guilty of two of the three.

Yeah and I think he'll be breaking the sex rule pretty soon. I mean he has no other options in the romance/getting action regard, so it's quite sad.

The question is, does Bran continue down the Dark Side path - and does Bloodraven give a damn? I don't think Bloodraven has the strongest of ethical codes. From what we've heard of him he seems to be all about pragmatism, I think.

Plus he dies again when Bran the super-warg rolls in and takes over One-eye's pack. Until I see a Chett-wight I don't think I'll be so happy with a prologue.

The one-eyed wolf yielded to Summer, but I don't think Bran pushed Varamyr outside of the wolf. He just took over leadership and the alpha-wolf role - I assumed that Varamyr was still alive inside One-Eye.

Well Link turned into a wolf and survived several times, now all Jon needs to do is find the master sword (Lightbringer) and turn human again. (I know different, Jon can't actually transform into a wolf, just warg into one)

:laugh: So then who's Princess Zelda, Val or Dany?

Wait a minute. The Dragons are the Triforce!! My god, everything is so clear now...

Ramsay=Pig Ganon??

Bloodraven=Old Man in the cave?! *removes glasses* My god...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason to see the skinchanging rules that Varamyr was taught as being the moral code to which all skinchangers must abide. Various ethical systems grow up around all of the supernatural phenomena in the world of ASoIaF. For example, even though all magic derives from blood and/or fire, practitioners believe in all sorts of different gods, morality related to the use of the magic, etc.

Varamyr's POV taught us the mechanics of skinchanging and told us about the customs of some of the only ones around who are fully aware of their powers and actively practice their use. We don't even know if anyone but Varamyr's mentor held to his standards or how faithfully, if they did. Look at the Night Watch and the Kingsguard: individuals all take the same vows but interpret them differently. I'm not just talking about NW guys visiting whores in Mole's Town. What about the Dornish KG Barristan Selmy mentions who did not deny having a lover and didn't think it violated his vows? This, in contrast to Selmy's own stance that his vows mean he must be celibate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, let's look at this from a literary perspective.

Prologue 1: Ser Waymer Rocye. A lordling ranger, who, through incredibly terrible management of troops, winds up alone and killed by Others. Reflects Jon and Sam, Sam especially, because strangely, he does the RIGHT thing, and kills an Other. Jon makes surprisingly good judgments, and keeps the peace in all of the situations he's in, by not being arrogant like Waymer.

Prologue 2: Cressen. Cressen tries to act as surrogate father, at the end of his life makes a rash and violent decision based on religious ecstasy and kills himself in the process. This is because he does not believe in "magic" when in fact, he should have. Reflects Aemon and Sam. Aemon does believe in magic, and almost makes it to Dany before he dies of old age and poor health (curses, Sam, the wood, the wood! Not the salves, the WOOD). Aemon is one of the notable characters in the series who DOES NOT make any ethical lapses or poor judgments, just in comparison. Recalls Roose Bolton, also an elder, in Storm of Swords due to his killing a supposed ally supposedly for the greater good.

Prologue 3: Chett. A cruel, evil and damned character who is so evil he beats and starves his own adorable pups (*sniff*). Reflects Sam and Jon. Both are reasonably kind and moral gentlemen who survive the first battle of the Others/Wildlings through their good nature and respect for other living creatures. Reflects SANSA in a strange way, who finds herself in a similar situation, but is still trying to be kind. Also slightly resembles Cersei thematically, who despite being in a situation where cooperation would help, ultimately ruins everything through her jealousy and short-sightedness. It also prepares us for the Red Wedding in his cruelty. Also recalls ARYA, due to the similar wretched situations they find themselves in.

Prologue 4: Pate. An insecure failing student who gives away too much for an immediate pleasure. Reflects Sam, who is totally different and will presumedly do the right thing. Recalls Cersei. Cersei is someone who is absolutely TERRIBLE at the Game of Thrones, but feels she must get what she wants right now. Ultimately, she is betrayed by exacting the entities she set up. Also reflects the failed insurrection of Yronn Royce who overestimated his leaverage. Recalls Ned, in a strange way, who may have not realized the stakes at his death. Brienne in her final chapter, remember having given up Tarth and those who loved her, is also similar to Pate. It is all what we believe by the significance of "the golden dragon." PErhaps it also is similar to Dany, who gives in to her own instincts and humanitarian desires rather than heading for Westeros.

Prologue 5: Varamyr. A traitor, warg, and mage-lord of the wildlings, who betrays everyone, and ends up as an animal, possibly doomed from the start. His political machinations of those he controls, like Waymer, might reflect a larger point. Reflects Ned Stark and Doran Martell, in sending their children into a hopeless situation. Recalls Chett in his cruelty to animals. Reflects... Bran, Jon, Dany, Barristan, many others in terms of what it means to be such a wild, fantasy individual.

One of the best chapters in the whole series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the Dornish KG Barristan Selmy mentions who did not deny having a lover and didn't think it violated his vows? This, in contrast to Selmy's own stance that his vows mean he must be celibate.

A bit off the point, but worth mentioning that the medieval meaning of celibate was to be a bachelor i.e. unmarried; the sexual abstinence aspect is only a fairly recent (20th century?) interpretation.

In modern French célibat, the root of the english word, still means merely "unmarried" and has no relevance at all to one's sexual habits.

So it is entirely possible for a member of the KG to be both celibate and have a lover, particularly when one considers the liberal use of other medieval terms through the narrative.

A further aside relates to the KG/NW and the fact that their vows state that they will "take no wife...and father no children"; again no reference to actually having sex so I don't understand why Ygritte/buried treasure etc is a problem.

Given the scope of this board, I'm sure this has all been dealt with elsewhere....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I thought Varamyr's prologue was very obviously an illusion to Jon surviving his assassination attempt through his powers as a warg. I also found it fascinating that Varamyr mentions that none of his own children (the "runts" he spawned with the women he stole) ever showed that they possessed the gift. All of the Stark children, including Jon who likely isn't Eddard's son, all possess it. Combine that with the fact that all the Stark tombs in the crypt have wolves by their sides makes me think that the gift is hereditary with all Starks, and that it separates them from every other family in the North (and goes a long way to explaining how they ruled for over 8000 years).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A further aside relates to the KG/NW and the fact that their vows state that they will "take no wife...and father no children"; again no reference to actually having sex so I don't understand why Ygritte/buried treasure etc is a problem.

The problem is that, historically speaking, you couldn't always perfectly separate "having sex" from "fathering children" in the absence of reliable contraceptives. So every act of vaginal intercourse bears the risk of oathbreaking. Granted, the contraceptive situation in Westeros seems somewhat less dire, since Moon Team seems to be comparetively more accessible and more reliable than whatever real people had during that period history, but is Jon really taking care that Ygritte is diligently taking her moon tea? What if Ygritte actually wants a baby from Jon? The point is that the moment he beds her, the question of fathering children is no longer entirely within his control (at least as long as there's no talk of sheepskin-condom-equivalents or something like that) and if he would really priortize his vows above everything else, he would not relinquish this control.

(That said, I think that Jon is right not to prioritze that particular aspect of his vows above everything else, since having sex with Ygritte is necessary to maintain his cover for the greater good of the realm.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the prologue is there for two reasons:

1. To give more insight into warging. A gift that carries responsibilities, and can potentially be used wrong.

2. To give further insight into the desperation of the wildlings after the failed attack on the wall. Possibly a foreshadow of the seven kingdoms after others become their problem as well.

All of the prologues give us an insight into an area we havent seen before. In this case its a warg that is not a Stark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's an awesome read, sometimes that's enough in itself. wink.gif

Agree. It was cool to see someone embracing their ability and describing it. The Starks just tiptoe around the ability and try not to think about it directly.

Varamyr reveled in it and it was my favorite prologue- very exciting:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...