Heresy 2

[Black Crow]

I think that Joffrey booting him out was kind of a wakeup call to Selmy that maybe he should never have sworn fealty to Robert, and he sought to make amends by trying to contact the "last" (known) Targaryen.

:agree:

Indeed, if Robert was a usurper, the same would go for Stannis and Renly, so I think that was reason enough to look up Dany without suspecting that the Starks had a dark secret in the woodpile.

[Black Crow]

I actually do think that Azor Ahai is the same person (legendary or otherwise) whom Bran knows as the Last Hero, and the legend has simply spread to the east.

Well Mel is going to be horribly disappointed if she finds that the Last Hero was a Stark and that the Starks are the Others. That revelation as Jon flashes his starry blue eyes at her is the sort of thing you could sell tickets for... :cool4:

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Well Mel is going to be horribly disappointed if she finds that the Last Hero was a Stark and that the Starks are the Others. That revelation as Jon flashes his starry blue eyes at her is the sort of thing you could sell tickets for... :cool4:

Well Mel's not exactly the sharpest stake on the sacrificial firewood pile ...

[BrosBeforeSnows]

I really don't think it had anything to do with his perception of Ned or the north. While Barristan was pretty aghast at Robert's will being ignored, Joffrey was, at that time, still the king. Barristan had no good reason to think or know that Joffrey was a bastard, so he wouldn't have been terribly sympathetic to Ned claiming that he was. Robb, though "doing the right thing," really had no nationwide legitimacy. Similarly, not knowing that Joff wasn't Robert's son, Barristan would have no reason to aid Stannis or Renly. I think that Joffrey booting him out was kind of a wakeup call to Selmy that maybe he should never have sworn fealty to Robert, and he sought to make amends by trying to contact the "last" (known) Targaryen.

Ok... that makes sense... i.e. Barristan simply did not understand the implications of Robert's decree (that Ned had, admittedly, altered) combined with Ned's accusations of illegitimacy...

But it seems to me that someone as mechanical and dutiful as Barristan the Bold would've given a little more credit to Ned. He had just read an official letter from Robert that had appointed Ned protector of the realm, in place of Joffrey, and had ordered him to heed Ned's words. Yet all he did when Cersei ripped the letter to pieces was say, "But those were the King's words", rather meekly.

Seems a pretty pathetic protest from such a brave and honorable knight, am I right?

Edit: I would also add; when Catelyn meets with Walder Frey in AGoT, Walder specifically says, "Stark, Tully, Lannister, Baratheon; give me one good reason why I should give a damn about any of you?" (paraphrasing), which implies that Walder, at least, made no distinctions between the families (they were all just as corrupt in his eyes).

We don't see history as readers. We read about Ned's story and assume the Starks are great guys. Walder seems a bitter old man... but what if Walder, and everyone else, has reason (and good reason at that) to hate the Starks? That's what I'm trying to get at. The Starks get no sympathy because they deserve no sympathy. Characters in the world of Westeros don't get to read Ned, and Arya, and Jon Snow's thoughts, like we do. All they know is the Stark's history and what they represent... and they don't seem to like it (unless they're from the North).

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, as I often do, but it seems like Stark-hatred is rather widespread, when you actually take a step back and look at it from an objective point of view.

Consider the Greyjoys as well. Was that sheer opportunism on Balon's part, or an effort to specifically destroy the Starks? I'd say the latter.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Ok... that makes sense... i.e. Barristan simply did not understand the implications of Robert's decree (that Ned had, admittedly, altered) combined with Ned's accusations of illegitimacy...

But it seems to me that someone as mechanical and dutiful as Barristan the Bold would've given a little more credit to Ned. He had just read an official letter from Robert that had appointed Ned protector of the realm, in place of Joffrey, and had ordered him to heed Ned's words. Yet all he did when Cersei ripped the letter to pieces was say, "But those were the King's words", rather meekly.

Seems a pretty pathetic protest from such a brave and honorable knight, am I right?

Edit: I would also add; when Catelyn meets with Walder Frey in AGoT, Walder specifically says, "Stark, Tully, Lannister, Baratheon; give me one good reason why I should give a damn about any of you?" (paraphrasing), which implies that Walder, at least, made no distinctions between the families (they were all just as corrupt in his eyes).

We don't see history as readers. We read about Ned's story and assume the Starks are great guys. Walder seems a bitter old man... but what if Walder, and everyone else, has reason (and good reason at that) to hate the Starks? That's what I'm trying to get at. The Starks get no sympathy because they deserve no sympathy. Characters in the world of Westeros don't get to read Ned, and Arya, and Jon Snow's thoughts, like we do. All they know is the Stark's history and what they represent... and they don't seem to like it (unless they're from the North).

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, as I often do, but it seems like Stark-hatred is rather widespread, when you actually take a step back and look at it from an objective point of view.

Yeahhhh ... I still don't think that Barristan backing down on Robert's will had anything to do with Ned or the Starks or the north specifically. "The king is dead. Long live the king." Robert wrote a will and now Robert's dead. Joffrey's the new king. If Joffrey (or Cersei, rather) chooses to ignore Robert's will, what actual recourse does someone like Barristan have?

You say that the Starks seem to be disliked by outsiders, but aren't all of the major houses hated by outsiders? The Starks are goody-two-shoes, the Tullys have upstart vassals whom they can't control, the Dornish still think they're independent and have bizarre social customs, the Lannisters buy their way out of trouble, the Tyrells turn coat at the drop of a hat, the Greyjoys are barbarian reavers, the Arryns have "kept out of it" to the point of being irrelevant and the Baratheons are usurpers. Do any of the houses come off as sympathetic or honorable or worth following when viewed from the outside?

[Lummel]

Well how about if certain families of first men married and interbred with the children - might that not explain how some human individuals have warging and greenseeing abilities but also why other families retained a prejudice against them? Even if rather like the cagots in France the original reason for the prejudice was long forgotten.

[BrosBeforeSnows]

You say that the Starks seem to be disliked by outsiders, but aren't all of the major houses hated by outsiders? The Starks are goody-two-shoes, the Tullys have upstart vassals whom they can't control, the Dornish still think they're independent and have bizarre social customs, the Lannisters buy their way out of trouble, the Tyrells turn coat at the drop of a hat, the Greyjoys are barbarian reavers, the Arryns have "kept out of it" to the point of being irrelevant and the Baratheons are usurpers. Do any of the houses come off as sympathetic or honorable or worth following when viewed from the outside?

Well, the Boltons do hate the Starks, and have for many thousands of years, and they can't possibly be alone. Our hatred for the Boltons is based on perspective. Their family tradition is so fucked up, and Ramsay is such a demented psychopath, we instantly discredit anything they do... but what if they have (good) reason to hate the Starks?

And the point that everyone hates the Noble families (formerly royal in their own right) is exactly my point. The Starks, ultimately, are no different from the Lannisters. In the past, there may have been "evil" Starks and "heroic" Lannisters (sub any family you like there). The people of Westeros don't see Ned for the good guy that he is. All they see is "Stark"... and "Stark" may not conjure the same noble image in their minds as it does in ours.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Well, the Boltons do hate the Starks, and have for many thousands of years, and they can't possibly be alone. Our hatred for the Boltons is based on perspective. Their family tradition is so fucked up, and Ramsay is such a demented psychopath, we instantly discredit anything they do... but what if they have (good) reason to hate the Starks?

And the point that everyone hates the Noble families (formerly royal in their own right) is exactly my point. The Starks, ultimately, are no different from the Lannisters. In the past, there may have been "evil" Starks and "heroic" Lannisters (sub any family you like there). The people of Westeros don't see Ned for the good guy that he is. All they see is "Stark"... and "Stark" may not conjure the same noble image in their minds as it does in ours.

And? I'm sorry but I guess I don't really get your point. Some people like the Starks, for whatever reason. Some people (including fans of the books) dislike them, for whatever reason. You say they're no different from the Lannisters, and maybe they're not — and many fans root for the Lannisters over the Starks. We know that there have been Stark kings in the past who did terrible things; it's not exactly a secret.

... And?

[Northern light]

Ok... that makes sense... i.e. Barristan simply did not understand the implications of Robert's decree (that Ned had, admittedly, altered) combined with Ned's accusations of illegitimacy...

But it seems to me that someone as mechanical and dutiful as Barristan the Bold would've given a little more credit to Ned. He had just read an official letter from Robert that had appointed Ned protector of the realm, in place of Joffrey, and had ordered him to heed Ned's words. Yet all he did when Cersei ripped the letter to pieces was say, "But those were the King's words", rather meekly.

Seems a pretty pathetic protest from such a brave and honorable knight, am I right?

Edit: I would also add; when Catelyn meets with Walder Frey in AGoT, Walder specifically says, "Stark, Tully, Lannister, Baratheon; give me one good reason why I should give a damn about any of you?" (paraphrasing), which implies that Walder, at least, made no distinctions between the families (they were all just as corrupt in his eyes).

We don't see history as readers. We read about Ned's story and assume the Starks are great guys. Walder seems a bitter old man... but what if Walder, and everyone else, has reason (and good reason at that) to hate the Starks? That's what I'm trying to get at. The Starks get no sympathy because they deserve no sympathy. Characters in the world of Westeros don't get to read Ned, and Arya, and Jon Snow's thoughts, like we do. All they know is the Stark's history and what they represent... and they don't seem to like it (unless they're from the North).

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, as I often do, but it seems like Stark-hatred is rather widespread, when you actually take a step back and look at it from an objective point of view.

Consider the Greyjoys as well. Was that sheer opportunism on Balon's part, or an effort to specifically destroy the Starks? I'd say the latter.

If this was true we would surely read more about this since a lot of POV is non-Starks. The more plausible explanation would be that the Starks and the North have been relative isolated from the rest of the realm before the Robert's rebellion and therefore few houses have had the chance to form any opinions of them pro-rebellion and there cautious of them (Starks).

[Black Crow]

Well how about if certain families of first men married and interbred with the children - might that not explain how some human individuals have warging and greenseeing abilities but also why other families retained a prejudice against them? Even if rather like the cagots in France the original reason for the prejudice was long forgotten.

I agree, and returning to what has become the main theme of this thread, I think its significant that so far as we know the Starks are the only family south of the Wall who can Warg. Someone mentioned earlier that the Bolton practice of flaying their enemies was in imitation of the Starks' ability, but as I recall it began when a rebel Bolton flayed a Stark and this I think was not in imitation but an altogether grimmer reference. The fact of the matter is that as Wargs, and perhaps even at a higher level skin-changers, the Starks are Others, in so far as they "are not as other men", but given what we've been discussing about a connection between the Starks and the White Walkers I wonder if warging and walking are connected.

We know that wargs and skin changers can move over distances from host to host. Its said that White Walkers materialise out of cold amd mist. What if White Walkers are wargs or skin changers who can materialise in other places without a host? As Wargs, rather than "ordinary" humans, this would explain how Starks could become White Walkers.

[kissdbyfire]

Edit: It just dawned on me that Howland attended the Tourney at Harrenhal, which is where he first met the Starks. Of all tourneys, I wonder why he chose to make his debut at that one?.... Obviously, there's something to that. I wonder if he's part of the Order of the Green Men? Or if it still exists?

Howland made his first appearance at the Tourney at Harrenhal because he had been spending time on the Isle of Faces, and when he decided it was time to leave he kinda bumped into the tourney.

From ASoS:

“Sooner if a certain prince would be quiet.”

“I was just asking.”

“The lad knew the magics of the crannogs,” she continued, “but he wanted more. Our people seldom travel far from home, you know. We’re a small folk, and our ways seem queer to some, so the big people do not always treat us kindly. But this lad was bolder than most, and one day when he had grown to manhood he decided he would leave the crannogs and visit the Isle of Faces.”

...

“Did he meet the green men?”

“Yes,” said Meera, “but that’s another story, and not for me to tell. My prince asked for knights.”

“Green men are good too.”

“They are,” she agreed, but said no more about them. “All that winter the crannogman stayed on the isle, but when the spring broke he heard the wide world calling and knew the time had come to leave. His skin boat was just where he’d left it, so he said his farewells and paddled off toward shore. He rowed and rowed, and finally saw the distant towers of a castle rising beside the lake. The towers reached ever higher as he neared shore, until he realized that this must be the greatest castle in all the world.”

“Harrenhal!” Bran knew at once. “It was Harrenhal!”

Meera smiled. “Was it? Beneath its walls he saw tents of many colors, bright banners cracking in the wind, and knights in mail and plate on barded horses. He smelled roasting meats, and heard the sound of laughter and the blare of heralds’ trumpets.

[Black Crow]

Edit: I would also add; when Catelyn meets with Walder Frey in AGoT, Walder specifically says, "Stark, Tully, Lannister, Baratheon; give me one good reason why I should give a damn about any of you?" (paraphrasing), which implies that Walder, at least, made no distinctions between the families (they were all just as corrupt in his eyes).

Purely as an aside I thought this came over very well in the TV version.

[Lummel]

The true chronology of pre-(Aegon's) Conquest Westerosi history is a real problem insofar as the only thing we can say with any certainty is that as related in that history lesson by Maester Luwin, its bunk - and GRRM has of course said as much in that speech by Sam.

There are, however, a number of significant events which we can try and place in a certain degree of context, aided perhaps by GRRM's obvious reliance on ancient British history. ...

Yeah I don't have a problem with chucking the dates and years that we have been given out. To my mind they are just signifiers for very long ago and not some kind of accurate chronology. I think the count of Lords Commander of the night watch is probably more significant and the discrepancy that Sam points out is another of those important interrupted stories - and why is GRRM interrupting his own narrative if not to avoid spilling the beans?

And like you say we get exactly this kind of succession of the races story in Gerald of wales' description of ireland (& probably others too). What we are reading is how the Septons and the Maesters made sense of and rationalised those earlier stories. Things which clashed with their world view presumably were quietly dropped or ignored.

[BrosBeforeSnows]

Also, I would add about Barristan; he obviously resented Ned for his treatment of Ashara Dayne, so maybe that played a role in his decision making?

And to the larger point... perhaps the Starks are hated by some for good reason? In other words, the "goody-two-shoes" label isn't universal.

[Lummel]

Someone mentioned earlier that the Bolton practice of flaying their enemies was in imitation of the Starks' ability, but as I recall it began when a rebel Bolton flayed a Stark and this I think was not in imitation but an altogether grimmer reference.

Thou shalt not change thy skin so to speak, grim. It would go a long way to explaining the enmity but prehaps also the loyalty of certain other houses who might have been close to the other creatures in times gone by.

We know that the founders of the lines of the Storm Kings and the Kings of the iron islands had non-human wives - so why not assume that was the original source of the strengtht of the starks - an alliance with the children?

[Ibbison from Ibben]

I fully agree that we can't take the dates given as being anywhere near accurate, but the character of the events themselves are probably accurate. If the legends say the Pact happened before the Long Winter, I accept that until I see evidence to the contrary. The order of the events are probably correct, but the dates need modification.

(Take, for example, the date in the Citadel article cited above for the Andal invasion. When you look up the reference, the source for the date is merely the Vale legend about Alyssa's Tears (Alyssa being an Andal). There's no reason to consider that to be an accurate date).

If the CotF had been responsible for unleashing the Long Winter, that would have been remembered in songs and legends. The way the current First Men think of the CotF, (as an unfamiliar but not malevolent people) is consistent with the pre-Long Winter Pact. If the First Men had been forced to the negotiating table by the threat of annihilation, the legends would be quite different.

Where can we look for accurate dates? The civilized East, which was literate. The Rise of Valyria is dated to around 5000 years ago. Valyria was noted for its use a fire magic. If, as the very name of the series suggests, there is a link between fire and ice, I contend that the Rise of Valyria and the Long Winter are linked. (This would also account for beginning of the "wonky" seasons.) I would put both events at around 5000 years ago and adjust the rest of the date framework accordingly. Maybe move the First Men invasion up a couple thousand years. The Pact would run from 8000-4000 years ago, across the Long Winter. Put the Andal invasion around 3500-4000 years ago, etc.

[FanTasy]

I agree, and returning to what has become the main theme of this thread, I think its significant that so far as we know the Starks are the only family south of the Wall who can Warg.

I tend to agree with this, but there are other possible explanations. I think it is a logical thing to see the Starks as a family which is very special. As far as we know from evidence in the text four of the six kids were able to get into the skin of their direwolves. For Sansa and Rickon there is no such evidence, Sansa lost her wolf and we don't have a Rickon p.o.v.

That there is connection, probably genetical too, between the Starks and The Others, whoever they may be, that I believe.

But I doubt that warging, skinchanging is something that is a genetical thing, something that you inherit because it is in your (Ed. family-)DNA. Other people had and have the ability, we know from the text. I always had the feeling it all started with the Children. Warging trees is basically not very different from warging an animal or a human.

People with the ability to warg could be a mutation, (ed.: or it could be) a latent ability that everybody has. With the exception of some psychiatric afflictions all humans are capable of seeing things through the eyes of others, to feel what other creatures (human and animal) feel. We call that empathy. Warging could be the dark counterpoint to the human ability to be empathic.

If earlier generations of Starks had the ability to skinchange because they share genetical material to The Others,I think we would have heard some dark tales about it by other families. (Ed. Like the tales about the Boltons, there would be dark tales about the skinchanging Starks.)

[Ibbison from Ibben]

Which leads me off on another tangent (I just can't seem to stay on-thread, apologies) about the Azor Ahai prophesy. It seems to me that it's a very eastern prophesy - even the name Azor Ahai sounds more Ghiscari than anything - and it seems pretty clear that Melisandre has been trying to manipulate her surroundings to fit the prophesy. Casting Stannis as Azor Ahai, making the fake sword, interpreting the War for the Dawn as a battle against the Others, etc.

:agree:

All mentions of AA come from easterners. The legend doesn't seem to be known in Westeros. And Mel has an incredible talent for misinterpreting things.

But the prophesy is all about bringing light against darkness - in the original prophesy that we hear from Mel, is there any mention of cold? That seems to come later, once she has determined that it's the Others that Stannis must battle, right? So it got me to thinking that maybe the original Azor Ahai, as a saviour figure bringing light, was not prophesied for Westeros, but for the slaves in the mines of Valyria?

I would be more inclined to say it relates to events much farther east, around Asshai Beneath the Shadow. Something magical enough to screw up the weather patterns in Westeros very likely had implications worldwide. AA would be an eastern counterpart of the Last Hero, not the same person.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

I agree, and returning to what has become the main theme of this thread, I think its significant that so far as we know the Starks are the only family south of the Wall who can Warg.

Bloodraven can warg, and undoubtedly could while he was Hand. We may not know of any other wargs south of the wall, but they likely exist in families with strong First Men bloodlines. (Bloodraven was a Blackwood.) Some may not understand that they are (like Jon); others may hide it since the Faith (or at least most Andals) consider wargs to be demonic.

[FanTasy]

:agree:

All mentions of AA come from easterners. The legend doesn't seem to be known in Westeros. And Mel has an incredible talent for misinterpreting things.

I would be more inclined to say it relates to events much farther east, around Asshai Beneath the Shadow. Something magical enough to screw up the weather patterns in Westeros very likely had implications worldwide. AA would be an eastern counterpart of the Last Hero, not the same person.

Yes, good catch that the tales we hear about Azor Ahai come from the East.

I think that all people, whereever they live, have developed a belief in a saviour, a hero who saves them or makes them the No. 1. The Dothraki belief in the stallion that mounts the world is very similar to what we hear by Melisandre and Sallador about Azor Ahai, for instance.

The prince that was promised could be the same thing, translated to a western concept.

The Last Hero I belief was an actual person, who was later 'heroified'. And I believe he was an actual person because of the detail in the tale (the amount of companions, the horse, the dog). That detail we don't hear in the prophecies of Azor Ahai and the prince that was promised, they are much more abstract.