Heresy 19

[Tyryan Lannister]

Which Heresy thread is the idea of the Sidhe first brought up?

8 or 9 i believe. It was in response to a released email between GRRM and an artist about how the WW should look, something along the lines of "beautiful, elegant, not dead, but not really alive either... think like the Sidhe" (paraphrased quote from top of my head, so might not be entirely accurate)

[Sword Of Mid Afternoon]

I personally wouldn't call it misdirection. The point of any appendix would be to summarize effectively what is presented within the text, of which these are all limited POV characters, not replace that text. So if there are written records by septons that are wrong, but presented in an Appendix, I wouldn't call that misleading.

I'm curious if there will be an established ruleset within the World book, such as some sort of bar none this is what happened style book, or something along the lines of, "Septon Dude presents a contrarian POV in which this occured at Such Time instead of That Time".

Alright, if it's not intentional mis-direction, it would at the very least be totally inaccurate. And as a fundamental part of the story background, I just can't imagine him including such an inaccuracy in the appendix. If there was secretly a much more brief timeline, there's no way he would've included the "6000 BL - Andal Invasion" bit in his there-solely-to-help-the-reader-understand-things appendix. It would've been "presumed landing" or "suggested landing" or some such similar vagary.

Clearly stated in appendix is about as close to canon as you can get.

*****EDIT 90 seconds after my post... you may not choose to call it mis-direction, but if the 1000yr timeline is correct, not only have I been mis-directed, but so have millions of other people.*****

[mrazny]

Alright, if it's not intentional mis-direction, it would at the very least be totally inaccurate. And as a fundamental part of the story background, I just can't imagine him including such an inaccuracy in the appendix. If there was secretly a much more brief timeline, there's no way he would've included the "6000 BL - Andal Invasion" bit in his there-solely-to-help-the-reader-understand-things appendix. It would've been "presumed landing" or "suggested landing" or some such similar vagary.

Clearly stated in appendix is about as close to canon as you can get.

I don't begrudge your thinking that the Appendix can be reliable. I don't blindly choose to consider it different, I do this based on thematics, and world construction. I never came across a SSM in which someone asked about dates and GRRM said "reference the Appendix, that's the absolute true recalling of events". If that happened, I can whole heartedly accept.

What we do have is a group within the text that believes these events to have occured in the times that they did. The Appendix summarizes the common view. Sam is the uncommon view. Hoster cites and uncommon view, but it is a view. The story revolves around how limited our POV's are with their knowledge base, and I see no reason that this *must* not extend to the appendix.

My point beyond anything is simply... Don't tell me I'm stupid because I extended major themes of the story onto the appendix. That's the primary issue I take with Free Northman, which i'm not neccesarily taking with you.

I think we both have viable reasons to believe what we do about the appendices. And we have no author confirmation on which way we should go, so both are on the table. I'm not asking anymore than some of the extremism to be curbed here.

[Sword Of Mid Afternoon]

On the appendices in general its worth bearing in mind that they're there simply to assist the reader in remembering who's who, whether an active character or one just referred to in conversation.

What they don't do is provide spoilers, but instead give us what's known of that character at the very outset of the book.

Thus Jon Snow is referenced simply as the bastard of Winterfell and 998th commander of the Nights Watch, with no hint of his true parentage or his impending problem with sharp objects. At some point in either Winds of Winter or Dream of Spring we'll learn who his parents really were (or are), but the appendix will give no hint. It'll still reference him as the bastard of Winterfell.

Similarly, Quentyn was referenced almost in passing as a prince of Dorne, with no hint that he was travelling incognito or that he was about to become the late Prince of Dorne.

Same goes for everything else.

My alter ego, Ser Sceptic, wishes it known that he has been having a field day with this.

Even in your example above, if R+L DOES = J.... the Appendices don't give us false info by saying he's Ned's bastard.

Like I said, when the truth or a specific detail is part of a future twist or mystery, vagaries are generously employed.

I agree that certainly there are no spoilers... but there also are no outright falsehoods.

GRRM repeatedly withholds information/details.... he doesn't tell us the whole story, but he certainly does not feed us false information/details.

*****EDIT - Somehow I missed this....

So, a plain and simple debunking of this talk of appendix=word of law: Jon Snow. In every appendix, he is listed as Ned Stark's bastard son; as soon as it's revealed that Ned is actually his uncle, then every appendix has one deliberate "mistake" in it; as such, we are in the right to be cautious about the truth of them.

In Clash - Jon, Bastard of Winterfell

In Storm - Jon, the crow-come-over

In Feast - Jon, Basard of Winterfell, 998th LC

In Dance - Jon Bastard of Winterfell, 998th LC

Appendix be canon, say I.

[greygnarl]

What the appendices say once again seem to not come from GRRM himself but what is known inside the world of ASOIAF.

[romantic]

I came to Heresy because of the weird history issues in the book (Hoster B., Rodrik the Reader, Sam, etc). The importance seems to be the order of the events, world wide, not necessarily what actual year in the foggy past.

On another topic, something jumped out at me the earlier today in a discussion about blood sacrifice and weirwoods. It is a reasonable assumption that there is some phenomenon of weirwoods and blood sacrifice.

We also have the shade of the evening substance made from the black barked and inky blue leaved outside the House of the Undying.

Suppose:

1) that sacrifices are/were made to the shade of the evening trees as they are/were given to weirwoods

2) a confirmed creature that has black blood is Drogon, a dragon.

What if dragons were acquired by the Warlocks and were sacrificed to the Shade of the Evening trees. Maybe they are weirwoods, that act differently because they have been given dragons blood. Thoughts?

ETA: another tidbit:

Another interesting tidbit, as Dany is outside the HotU.

"When they reached the door - a tall oval mouth, set in a wall fashioned in the likeness of a human face..."

That sounds very similar to a face/door under the Wall, the Black Door.

Black and blue would probably be the contrast (opposite) of white and red so either (as you said) the HotU trees are modified/changed weirwoods or they are the 'fire' opposite to the 'ice' weirwoods. If they are the opposite:-

1. did Dany (who should be the 'fire' champion) burn these trees or just the building?

2. are the HotU supporters hunting down their own champion?

3. could the HotU 'parasite beings' be related to, but are now in opposition to, the CoF?

4. 'jojen' paste might be legitimately weirwood paste (with no jojen blood) and the 'ice' version' of the shade of the evening

5. if the HotU beings wanted to destroy Dany to increase their power do their 'opposites' (the CotF) want to do the same to their 'ice' champion (and is this Bran, Jon or someone else?)

[greygnarl]

5. if the HotU beings wanted to destroy Dany to increase their power do their 'opposites' (the CotF) want to do the same to their 'ice' champion (and is this Bran, Jon or someone else?)

This is definitely an interesting thought. this does of course hinge on whether or not the Undying are actually the opposite of the CotF

[Sword Of Mid Afternoon]

I don't begrudge your thinking that the Appendix can be reliable. I don't blindly choose to consider it different, I do this based on thematics, and world construction. I never came across a SSM in which someone asked about dates and GRRM said "reference the Appendix, that's the absolute true recalling of events". If that happened, I can whole heartedly accept.

What we do have is a group within the text that believes these events to have occured in the times that they did. The Appendix summarizes the common view. Sam is the uncommon view. Hoster cites and uncommon view, but it is a view. The story revolves around how limited our POV's are with their knowledge base, and I see no reason that this *must* not extend to the appendix.

My point beyond anything is simply... Don't tell me I'm stupid because I extended major themes of the story onto the appendix. That's the primary issue I take with Free Northman, which i'm not neccesarily taking with you.

I think we both have viable reasons to believe what we do about the appendices. And we have no author confirmation on which way we should go, so both are on the table. I'm not asking anymore than some of the extremism to be curbed here.

When I first started frequenting the Heresy threads back in Heresy 4 or 5, Free Northman was a frequent visitor here and shared in my scepticism. I think he got tired of beating his head against the wall.

He does make several good points now, and then. I share in his frustration at times. We do have a tendency here from time to time to form circular arguments based on an assumption, based on a prior assumption, which was also based on a previous assumption.... ad nauseum, until we're making 15th order projections all of which stemmed from an assumption based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

No one should interpret that as an attack. We've come up with some good stuff along the way, but we all have some strange instinctual desire to spin out of control with theories... my self included.

On The Appendix ... I cant help but treat GRRM's appendix the same way I'd treat any other appendix... from Tolkien to analysis reports at work... their only purpose is to provide clarity to the content which it appends. That's where you put the lists and minutiae that would've been out of place within the document in question.

If anyone can point out some obvious example of false information in any GRRM appendix, I will reconsider how I look at GRRM's appendices.

[nanother]

In Clash - Jon, Bastard of Winterfell

In Storm - Jon, the crow-come-over

In Feast - Jon, Basard of Winterfell, 998th LC

In Dance - Jon Bastard of Winterfell, 998th LC

Appendix be canon, say I.

Confusingly, people are listed multiple times in the appendices - and Jon is listed at the Wall as above, but also as Robb's bastard half-brother under House Stark, at east in Dance which I checked. I'd imagine that's the only place he'd be listed in Game? As it happens I can't access the appendix to that one...In any case, if R+L=J, then I can't see how his place in the House could be stated without either misleading or spoiling it...

In any case, it does seem like Martin is trying to change his mind (or rather, trying to change the story halfway though it to reflect his change of mind), which is not helping the story at all...

[mrazny]

No one should interpret that as an attack.

If it helps any, I didn't view any of your commentary as an attack. Free Northman though, that felt pretty attacking.

I'm not on a crusade to change your mind. I have my reasons as you do yours. I personally don't believe there's a universal application of appendices which would lead to GRRM must treat his appendix in the same manner that Tolkien treated his. For all of the scope of The Lord of the Rings, it didn't deal in misinformation the way that the song of ice and fire does.

My take on Appendices was always as replacement for having to re-read entire chapters to remember what was presented in the text. And that in and of itself is limited to the POVs. That's the strongest corrallary for me as to why the Appendices are also limited.

[nanother]

HotU does bug me, a lot. Interesting observations on HotU/weirwood trees and gate.

Black and blue would probably be the contrast (opposite) of white and red so either (as you said) the HotU trees are modified/changed weirwoods or they are the 'fire' opposite to the 'ice' weirwoods. If they are the opposite:-

1. did Dany (who should be the 'fire' champion) burn these trees or just the building?

2. are the HotU supporters hunting down their own champion?

3. could the HotU 'parasite beings' be related to, but are now in opposition to, the CoF?

4. 'jojen' paste might be legitimately weirwood paste (with no jojen blood) and the 'ice' version' of the shade of the evening

5. if the HotU beings wanted to destroy Dany to increase their power do their 'opposites' (the CotF) want to do the same to their 'ice' champion (and is this Bran, Jon or someone else?)

1. (and 2.) Not sure. If it was any regular building, the flames would surely have spread, but...In any case, I have trouble seeing Dany as their champion... I don't think they represent fire any more than weirwoods represent ice. I believe weirwood red stands for blood, and the white might be bone just as easily as ice/snow. Seeing that they are (well, were) growing all over Westeros, I don't see a reason to link them with Ice. Now, I wonldn't know what to contrast with these things...

3. Interesting idea, but don't knw what to think about it...I got the impression that they were of human origin, but might be wrong

4. I always thought it was legit weirwood paste...but yes, it's effect is very similar to that of the shade of evening, and I think also to whatever the Faceless use in Braavos.

5. I hope not :worried: also, see 1.

[7V3N]

I've put a comparison of the Shade of the Evening and the weirwood past up before:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/ind....

[Sand Snake No. 9]

On The Appendix ... I cant help but treat GRRM's appendix the same way I'd treat any other appendix... from Tolkien to analysis reports at work... their only purpose is to provide clarity to the content which it appends. That's where you put the lists and minutiae that would've been out of place within the document in question.

If anyone can point out some obvious example of false information in any GRRM appendix, I will reconsider how I look at GRRM's appendices.

Isn't House Stark listed as "extinct" in the appendices? Or is that in the wiki -- although I presume the wiki's family tree comes from the appendices. Perhaps that means the appendices are supposed to reflect the knowledge in universe, rather than the readers knowledge.

[Sword Of Mid Afternoon]

Trying to be objective... and I think I am doing a decent job... I have no 'stake' in the tradition timeline being accurate... I'm just applying the facts as best I can.

What troubles me most about the proposed 87.5% reduction in the timeline theory is that so much of the alleged evidence in favor of it lies with:

((This would be where the assumptions based on previous assumptions, based originally on circumstantial evidence makes an appearance)))

-Teenage Hoster Blackwood & Rodrick the Reader both stating little more than "There seems to be differences in the accounts of the Andal invasion(s)."

-Multiple instances of characters stating "<ACTION> hasn't happened in a thousand years!" in conversations.

-** This second bit of evidence is an excellent example of our tendency to construct house-of-cards theories based entirely on assumptions, just so happens...**(1) More than one European monarch has been creative with his family tree over the centuries, (2) Starks and other ancient Houses are/were monarchs/nobility, (3) We are not given notarized, exact, unequivocal family lineages with DNA evidence for ancient Houses, like the Starks, going back all 8,000 years... which YIELDS ---> All ancient Houses in Westeros doctored their geneaological records an identical length, with identical milestones....

THUS YIELDING.

Westerosi history is actually 87.5% shorter than we've been led to believe and the Long Night ended 1,000 years ago, rather than 8,000 years ago.

Perhaps I have inadequate faith in general.... but it seems to me that all evidence for Long-Night-was-1000-years-ago theories is circumstantial.... and not terribly strong circumstantial evidence at that.

[Black Crow]

I don't think anybody has come up with the suggestion that the Long Night was only 1,000 years ago, though the reason for the caveat is the incontestable fact that there have been a number of long Winters and therefore scope for confusion between them.

On the one hand for example we have a clear tradition that the Others haven't been seen since the Long Night 8,000 years gone, yet we have Old Nan's statement that was when they came for the first time. Ordinarily it could be argued she simply meant they hadn't been seen before rather than that was the first of a series of appearances, but on the other hand as we've recently been discussing there is also clear evidence the White Walkers/White Shadows at least have been coming back north of the Wall during subsequent Winters. All that's different this time around is the wights.

What is at issue therefore is not whether the Long Night really was all of 8,000 years ago, but whether the Nights King business, the Night that Ended battle and what appears to be the final breach with the Old Races occurred much more recently and is linked with the Andal conquest rather than the Last Hero.

[Free Northman]

I don't think anybody has come up with the suggestion that the Long Night was only 1,000 years ago, though the reason for the caveat is the incontestable fact that there have been a number of long Winters and therefore scope for confusion between them.

On the one hand for example we have a clear tradition that the Others haven't been seen since the Long Night 8,000 years gone, yet we have Old Nan's statement that was when they came for the first time. Ordinarily it could be argued she simply meant they hadn't been seen before rather than that was the first of a series of appearances, but on the other hand as we've recently been discussing there is also clear evidence the White Walkers/White Shadows at least have been coming back north of the Wall during subsequent Winters. All that's different this time around is the wights.

What is at issue therefore is not whether the Long Night really was all of 8,000 years ago, but whether the Nights King business, the Night that Ended battle and what appears to be the final breach with the Old Races occurred much more recently and is linked with the Andal conquest rather than the Last Hero.

Since my name's being mentioned so much, let me add my two cents.

I have an issue with the way in which the Heresy thread would produce a hypotheses in Round 1, and by Round 2 they would use what was only ever a hypothesis as a fundamental assumption, and by Round 3 use this fundamental assumption as a fact on which further extrapolations are now based.

Through incremental steps they then go from an 8000 year timeline to something like a 1500 year timeline.

I state it clearly yet again (before probably leaving this thread again until Heresy 30 or so), that this speculation is running wild, most of it is without basis in fact, and while there are no doubt many, many inaccuracies in the oral histories, you guys have simply taken it way too far.

The new trend I see is this "forensic audit" approach, whereby every sentence by someone like Jeor Mormont or any other relevant character is now picked apart, and depending on his choice of wording, new conclusions are reached.

Heck people, Mormont was chatting casually to Jon. If he said long ago, or a thousand years ago, or thousands and thousands of years ago, you can't make major adjustments to the timeline based on his uninformed word choice.

Same with Catelyn's reference to the weirwoods being burned out in the South. Or comparing her choice of wording with Osha's, two characters with widely differing backgrounds, levels of education and places of residence. You can't base a timeline on their casual comments.

You guys have reached a point of analysis paralysis, where entire theories are dreamed up based on a single wordchoice in a casual sentece, which just happens to almost sound like what someone else was probably meaning if only they had finished x sentence before taking a sip from their cup of mulled wine or whatever.

To conclude my position:

Is the timeline inaccurate? Hell yes. It inevitably is.

Is it inaccurate by a factor of 5 or 10? Hell no.

Most likely, the era of the First Men just lasted much longer, and the Andals arrived more recently than in the initial timeline. But based on corroborating references from the eastern civilizations, civilization dates back at least 8000 years since the extinction level Long Night which resulted in the building of the Wall, long before the Andals arrived.

I'm sure there were less severe Long Winters after that, and there may even have been Others appearing in smaller numbers NORTH of the Wall in these more recent Long Winters. Clearly the Wildlings have more recent knowledge of them. But there is no evidence that anyone south of the Wall has encountered an Other since the Long Night, 8000 years ago. The major incursion by the alien creatures known as the Others, which threatened the destruction of mankind as a whole, occurred prior to the construction of the Wall, approximately 8000 years ago.

Since then, the magic of the Wall has kept them out.

And no, the Andals never encountered the Others. They arrived way too late for that.

[DragonSpawn]

Just to check... was it war between CotF vs FM, then Long Night, then Pact, then Age of Heroes?

It seems a bit futile discussing timelines in any meaningful way given that the Maesters get confused by "Kings who reigned for hundreds of years"

So when GRRM states "There came a night that lasted a generation" > What's a generation when you live in a time where people are mostly like Uncat / Berric / Mel / White Walkers / Gregor / Sandor / Wights / Direwolves-skinchangers-wargs / Greenseer-Trees / Drogo etc etc etc etc etc.... defying natures laws?

Say Jon does come back as a Fire / Ice combo... the fire of life preserved in Ice... he could live for a thousand years... (that's not a prediction by the way - just a possibility)

so "there are Archmaesters who question all of it" is not really surprising because most of them want to be taken seriously... raving about Kings living for hundreds of years would sound crazy...

I just wonder if the Age of Heroes or the Long Night may have lasted 3-4000 yrs... right up to the birth of Valyria..?

[nanother]

No, it was CotF vs FM, Pact, Age of Heroes, then Long Night. And yes, the Age of Heroes (which is apparently sometimes referred to as 'dawn of days') had the Grey King, for example, who supposedly reigned for 1007 years.

[Free Northman]

Just to check... was it war between CotF vs FM, then Long Night, then Pact, then Age of Heroes?

It seems a bit futile discussing timelines in any meaningful way given that the Maesters get confused by "Kings who reigned for hundreds of years"

So when GRRM states "There came a night that lasted a generation" > What's a generation when you live in a time where people are mostly like Uncat / Berric / Mel / White Walkers / Gregor / Sandor / Wights / Direwolves-skinchangers-wargs / Greenseer-Trees / Drogo etc etc etc etc etc.... defying natures laws?

Say Jon does come back as a Fire / Ice combo... the fire of life preserved in Ice... he could live for a thousand years... (that's not a prediction by the way - just a possibility)

so "there are Archmaesters who question all of it" is not really surprising because most of them want to be taken seriously... raving about Kings living for hundreds of years would sound crazy...

I just wonder if the Age of Heroes or the Long Night may have lasted 3-4000 yrs... right up to the birth of Valyria..?

The Children of the Forest talk about being around for about 1 million years. A thousand thousand years is mentioned at one point by Leaf.

About 12,000 years ago, the First Men arrive.

The Pact is signed apparently very soon after that - say about 11900 years ago for want of a better estimate. The point is, this pact is said to last for 4000 years until the Long Night, 8000 years a go.

The Long Night could not have lasted for more than say 10 years, because that would pretty much wipe out all life on the planet, similar to a nuclear winter such as the aftereffects seen in the movie the Road.

My view is that the Long Night is not a true darkness, just a long Winter, where the sun shines for very short periods each day, rather than the perpetual night as seen at the South or North pole during winter.

After the Long Night ends, humanity is pretty much on the brink of extinction, and human civilization starts up again at this point with the presumed birth of the Empire of Great Ghis, and maybe civilizations like Ashai in the East, and of course Kingdoms like the Starks in Westeros.

Then about 5000 years ago the Valyrians discover Dragons nesting in the volcanoes of the Fourteen Fires, and the Valyrian Empire is born. They conquer Old Ghis and much of the known world and set up a civilization of unparralled technology, magic and sophistication.

At this time the great Rhoynish civilization also exists and develops technologies such as Iron Working - although it could well have been imported from the older Ghiscari Empire to the southeast, for all we know.

The contentous part, in my view, is when the Andals move to Westeros. Up to this point, they are still living as simple tribesmen in the Hills of Andalos, east of Pentos. They apparently learn Iron Working from the more advanced Rhoynar, but this merely follows the pattern of technology springing up in the older civilizations of the east, like Ghis, and maybe even Ashai, before making its gradual way west to the Rhoynar and then lastly to the Andals in the far west of Essos.

I think that as the Valryians began expanding, they started putting pressure on the Rhoynar, who in turn were forced to stop all expansion to the south and east, and were therefore forced to channel any excessive population growth to the more primitive western areas inhabited by the Andals.

Thus, the Valyrians indirectly caused the Andals to start migrating, as the Andals were pushed out by the more advanced Rhoynar.

I think the Andals migrated to Westeros between 4000 and 2500 years ago. Probably around 3000 years ago would be a good middle ground (it would fall halfway between the Long count of 4000 years and the short count of 2000 years as presented by Rodrik the Reader).

So they first arrive in Westeros say 3000 years ago, and conquer the Vale first. From there they spread out to the rest of the south, conquering the hundreds of small, divided kingdoms of the First Men one by one. By 2500 years ago they probably rule the entire south.

But get thrown back by the North until the present day.

That's my timeline of the Ice and Fire World.

[7V3N]

Not sure when Heresy as a whole has ever claimed anything to be solid fact. The opposite really. We'd question even the facts.

ETA: I certainly believe the timeline we are initially given is false, but that does not mean I believe the condensed timeline. But these discussions help me learn/decide when I believe events took place.