Drawing Blood From a Bolton

[Arya Targaryen]

Nah I doubt that. It can hardly be the first time a Stark marries in the south like that. But also, everything had long begun moving by then.

I don't know. For almost 7700 years, the Starks were kings in the North, they probably wed in front of ww trees. We don't know much about the last 300 years, but for some reason I think that Rickard's "southron ambitions" resulted in the first southron wedding: Ned and Cat. Robb wasn't the first one to be getting married in front of the Seven (though he very well could be the first King in the North who did that).

(As Ned and Cat were married in a sept, out of all the Stark children, Jon may be the only one whose parents were wed in front of a ww tree, if R+L really were married like that. Not sure if it is important, but I've found it interesting)

BB, great thread, I never thought of a Bolton-Other connection, but it makes sense. I wonder how Jon fits in as the one bringing a balance (or Mance - as wildling king).

EDIT: spelling

[butterbumps!]

I think Moqorro's skin color derives from his ethnicity, not his handling of fire magic.

Actually, The appearance of Moqorro does stand out as something different than ethnicity. This is the passage that first brought this to my attention:

The wizard was a monster of a man, as tall as Victarion himself and twice as wide, with a belly like a boulder and a tangle of bone-white hair that grew about his face like a lion’s mane. His skin was black. Not the nut brown of the Summer Islanders on their swan ships, nor the red-brown of the Dothraki horselords, nor the charcoal-and-earth color of the dusky woman’s skin, but black. Blacker than coal, blacker than jet, blacker than a raven’s wing. Burned, Victarion thought, like a man who has been roasted in the flames until his flesh chars and crisps and falls smoking from his bones. The fires that had charred him still danced across his cheeks and forehead, where his eyes peered out from amongst a mask of frozen flames. Slave tattoos, the captain knew. Marks of evil.

I realize that this is Vicky we’re talking about, but given that he tells us that the black of this man’s skin is not like other ethnicities and actually equates it to being charred, I think this passage gives us ample reason to question whether his appearance has a magical quality.

I know that Moqorro’s skin is not cracked and smoking the way Vic’s hand is. But Vic’s hand was recently burned; it’s a fresh wound, whereas Moqorro’s skin is not. I am curious to see how Vic’s hand “heals” in the next book, and if it heals smoothly, I think this may tell us something about Moqorro’s nature.

I understand that we have other Red Priests that do not have extraordinary appearances. But we do know that Mel uses a glamour and has an unnaturally extended life. I think there’s enough reason to at least question the effects of using magic may have had on these sorcerors.

Actually, I think something Martin said does suggest that pretty strongly:

"'The Others are not dead. They are strange, beautiful… think, oh… the Sidhe made of ice, something like that… a different sort of life… inhuman, elegant, dangerous.'

I’ve seen this quote cited frequently as “proof” that the Others are in fact a race separate from humans, but as Dr P already mentioned, I don’t believe this is any sort of evidence of that. This is not saying that the Others are Sidhe or like Sidhe, but that they look like Sidhe.

The use of “inhuman” doesn’t suggest that they were never human. When Stannis’ energy was being drain by shadow baby production, he too looked less human, like a shadow of his former self. A human can look “inhuman.” It only means that some essential part of “humanness” is absent from their appearance. I don’t believe this quote tells us anything about the nature of the Others one way or another.

I don't think [skinchanging] is a very accurate characterization of the Others at all.

The wights retain memories of their former selves, but they are in fact thralls of the Others. It doesn’t appear to be resurrection of a being with agency, but rather the Others do seem to inhabit the corpses as part of their magic.

[jarl the climber]

Roose appears to be very otherworldy. Other characters remark on his "unfeeling", "icy", and "disturbing" manner. How he never raises his voice and that cold, inhuman look in his eyes. Roose's whole complex about "bad blood will out" is also telling. Why is he so obsessed with this? Could this have anything to do with the possible connection to the Others? The Boltons as a whole seem to be so very envious of the Starks and their skinchanging. The flayed man on the Boltons' sigil does invoke the whole using men and wearing their skin. What do the Others do? They use a form of supernatural power to occupy the skins of men, mindlessly, as wights.

This is a pretty interesting theory.

He does seem to give people the willies. Robb said that when he talked to them all he could think of was the room in the Dreadfort where they flay their enemies. I wonder what Grey Wind thought about him. Theon says that he he made japes about him at this time but now he is terrified of the fellow. Theon did not report anything supernatural about his time at the Dreadfort just that he was tortured. Where do we get this theory that the Boltons are jealous of the Starks skinchanging ability? There is no evidence whatsoever of this in the book. None. They fly the flayed man to intimidate their enemies and freinds alike.

By the end of ADWD Theon starts seeing fear in Rooses eyes. When he orders the Freys and the Manderlys out against Stannis he is no longer speaking in his usual whispery voice. So under the stress of the situation his cool demeanor is starting to crack.

Not that I am totally shooting this theory down. Domerics death is still an open question. There is definitely something odd going on with Roose. Other than his relationship with Qyburn I see absolutely no evidence that he practices any kind of magic. And Qyburn was not with him for very long. But who know maybe he used Rooses tainted blood to antimate Ser Robert Strong. Still you think Roose would have had Qyburn make this super warrior for him. Or it could be that as bad as Roose is even he knows better than to mess with shit like that.

Its also odd that there are no female Boltons but you think somebody what have noticed after thousands of years that the Boltons never produced females. One of my theories, which is unprovable, is that Ramseys mother was a bastard Bolton. That could explain why the husband kept the marriage from Roose and tried to deny him his rights to the first night. It would actually explain quite a bit ecspecially why Ramseys blood is so much worse than Rooses. Roose actually thinks that Ramseys blood would kill a leech.

You figure if the Boltons were going around deflowering all the maidens in their lands there would be a bunch of Bastard Boltons out there.

[Sevumar]

I think it's interesting that you're arguing in one case, the adjectives used to relay a physical description reveal something important about the nature of one character, while in another, you're claiming that adjectives are only providing information on appearance.

Actually, The appearance of Moqorro does stand out as something different than ethnicity. This is the passage that first brought this to my attention...

I realize that this is Vicky we’re talking about, but given that he tells us that the black of this man’s skin is not like other ethnicities and actually equates it to being charred, I think this passage gives us ample reason to question whether his appearance has a magical quality.

I know that Moqorro’s skin is not cracked and smoking the way Vic’s hand is. But Vic’s hand was recently burned; it’s a fresh wound, whereas Moqorro’s skin is not. I am curious to see how Vic’s hand “heals” in the next book, and if it heals smoothly, I think this may tell us something about Moqorro’s nature.

I understand that we have other Red Priests that do not have extraordinary appearances. But we do know that Mel uses a glamour and has an unnaturally extended life. I think there’s enough reason to at least question the effects of using magic may have had on these sorcerors.

Victarion is pretty dramatic in the way he describes the color of Moqorro's skin, but if we go back and examine Tyrion's earlier and less dramatic description, the priest's skin is said to be "black as pitch." Victarion's use of "charred" is informing us about the color of Moqorro's skin in comparison to wood that has been reduced to charcoal, but importantly, it is not conveying any information about the texture or character of the skin.

Given Tyrion's much more down-to-earth characterization of Moqorro's appearance, I think we have to doubt that Moqorro's skin is indication of anything but his ethnic group. Tyrion's PoV discusses Moqorro's appearance with a fair amount of detail, so I think we can trust him to relay any information suggesting that Moqorro's being has been visibly altered by his practice of magic. I would be more inclined to trust Tyrion's description over Victarion's because the former is better educated, more intelligent, and less given to fancy in the way he reports observations in his PoV.

We've seen people with pigmentation corresponding to that of many real-world ethnic groups, so it doesn't seem unbelievable that Martin's world includes populations with Moqorro's deep black pigmentation. Both Slaver's Bay and Volantis are home to slaves hailing from all over Martin's world and there are a large number of ethnic groups represented among the slaves there. To me, that seems much more likely than selecting the more outlandish of two physical descriptions and using it to extrapolate some unseen and unknown magical mechanic that also changes skin pigmentation and that isn't seen in any other character.

I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that long-term use of magic may have an effect on people, but we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude what form that impact would take.

I’ve seen this quote cited frequently as “proof” that the Others are in fact a race separate from humans, but as Dr P already mentioned, I don’t believe this is any sort of evidence of that. This is not saying that the Others are Sidhe or like Sidhe, but that they look like Sidhe.

I don't buy that "inhuman" refers solely to the appearance of the Others. The characterization of the Others has always been as something outside the breadth of normal human experience. Human characters don't understand their communication, their methods, or their magic. If anything, the types of descriptions used for them suggest a force of nature more than a transformed human.

The fact that the characterization of the Others comes from Martin's correspondence with an artist does not mean that only physical traits are being discussed there. SSM includes a large body of descriptions and information given by Martin to Amoka when he was creating character portraits for various ASOIAF projects. Those descriptions include information that not only tells us how the characters look, but what their personalities and essences are like. There's no reason to believe that this is not the case with Martin's description of the Others.

The wights retain memories of their former selves, but they are in fact thralls of the Others. It doesn’t appear to be resurrection of a being with agency, but rather the Others do seem to inhabit the corpses as part of their magic.

I'm not disputing that the Others control the wights, but I don't think the consciousness of the controller is resident within the wight. If each wight had to be controlled by an Other the same way a skinchanger controls an animal, they would be nearly useless as a fighting force. You could derive some utility from them as agents carrying out a pinpoint strike, but the hordes of wights that are described in the books, it seems more like they're being animated and given orders through a type of control spell that uses a different mechanic than skinchanging.

[jarl the climber]

I'm not disputing that the Others control the wights, but I don't think the consciousness of the controller is resident within the wight. If each wight had to be controlled by an Other the same way a skinchanger controls an animal, they would be nearly useless as a fighting force. You could derive some utility from them as agents carrying out a pinpoint strike, but the hordes of wights that are described in the books, it seems more like they're being animated and given orders through a type of control spell that uses a different mechanic than skinchanging.

It reminds me of what Aeron said about the bones remembering. When Summer is eating the Bear wight its not until he starts cracking the bones that it remembers that it is dead. Mel makes a simlar comment when talking about glamors. Clearly a persons remains maintains a memory off their essence. So even though the Wights are animated by the Others by some kind energy or Magic? they do not completely forget who they were. Its interesting that Varamyr did not see his own corpse rise along with Thistles. But yeah I agree with you that the wights just give them a jump start and then then they just give them orders that they carry out on their own. They seem to attack everything living on sight.

[butterbumps!]

I think it's interesting that you're arguing in one case, the adjectives used to relay a physical description reveal something important about the nature of one character, while in another, you're claiming that adjectives are only providing information on appearance.

Can't this same query be thrown back at your logic?

I'm not saying that Moqorro is definitely a fire wight, the way you're saying that Martin's description to his illustrator is definitively proof that the Others were never human. I said that the way his skin is described is enough for us to question whether magic has a physical effect on the user such that they become less human. I specifically said I'm curious to see how Vic's arm will heal to see if that sheds light on whether we can draw conclusions about Moqorro's nature.

I don't think that Martin's quote-- said in an email to an illustrator-- can be taken as proof of anything except what the Others look like. It does not prove that they were never, at any point in their existence, human or another race of humanoids.

Similarly, I do not believe that Vic's description of Moqorro can be taken as proof that he's been literally burned. It is enough, though, to open a query about whether it is possible that this is the case. I know that there have been character descriptions of very dark skin, but the fact that Vic rejects the skin tone of all these other ethnicities leads me to think that it may be a clue that there's something more to this.

Just for clarification on the word "inhuman" Martin uses it in the text in the following instances:

1. To describe the "inhuman" beauty of the Targaryens in the appendices.

2. Sansa's memory of the people's faces in the riot: That night Sansa dreamed of the riot again. The mob surged around her, shrieking, a maddened beast with a thousand faces. Everywhere she turned she saw faces twisted into monstrous inhuman masks."

3. Arya says that Harrenhall was built to an "inhuman" scale.

2 of these 3 uses refer specifically to human who have inhuman qualities. In my experience, "inhuman" is most frequently used to describe humans who no longer contain an essential "human" quality.

[butterbumps!]

Its also odd that there are no female Boltons but you think somebody what have noticed after thousands of years that the Boltons never produced females. One of my theories, which is unprovable, is that Ramseys mother was a bastard Bolton. That could explain why the husband kept the marriage from Roose and tried to deny him his rights to the first night. It would actually explain quite a bit ecspecially why Ramseys blood is so much worse than Rooses. Roose actually thinks that Ramseys blood would kill a leech.

You figure if the Boltons were going around deflowering all the maidens in their lands there would be a bunch of Bastard Boltons out there.

I think this is a really interesting idea. I know you say it's "unprovable," but did you come across anything else that might suggest this?

[Beltway]

He also describes him as "sly and greedy" in ACOK, which was proved by how well he played Theon.

Yes your bring up all the times of him being called sly well

Sly: insidious; furtive which goes a long with his character much better than the cunning definition of sly

[jarl the climber]

I think this is a really interesting idea. I know you say it's "unprovable," but did you come across anything else that might suggest this?

The Mothers actions seem odd. The man, who has the power of life and death over her, hangs her husband from a tree and rapes her under the hanging corpse but she still has the guts to go to the Dreadfort and demand his support and protection. She seems to have prodded Ramsey to demand his rights.

Rooses actions seem out of character as well. It seemed like the greatest idea in the world then his horse went lame and the fox got away. Then she pestered him all those years and he did not have her klilled. Even when she showed up at the Dreadfort Roose only considered throwing the child down the well. Why not the Mother as well or why not cut her tounge out at least, Arya said this is something he would do casually. The whole thing seems odd. Its a possible explanation and it seems to cover everything.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The Mothers actions seem odd. The man, who has the power of life and death over her, hangs her husband from a tree and rapes her under the hanging corpse but she still has the guts to go to the Dreadfort and demand his support and protection. She seems to have prodded Ramsey to demand his rights.

Rooses actions seem out of character as well. It seemed like the greatest idea in the world then his horse went lame and the fox got away. Then she pestered him all those years and he did not have her klilled. Even when she showed up at the Dreadfort Roose only considered throwing the child down the well. Why not the Mother as well or why not cut her tounge out at least, Arya said this is something he would do casually. The whole thing seems odd. Its a possible explanation and it seems to cover everything.

Say Ramsay's mother is a Bolton bastard, maybe he noticed in her the same traits he notices in Ramsay that fostered a sort of attachment, if not outright affection. Maybe her eyes, in particular, are an inherited Bolton trait, perhaps inherited from Roose himself. That could be why he treats her 'well'- well within the highly relative frame of other Bolton behaviors. If this were the case Roose could be Ramsay's father and grandfather, this exact same relation Craster has to his sons.

[Sevumar]

I'm not saying that Moqorro is definitely a fire wight, the way you're saying that Martin's description to his illustrator is definitively proof that the Others were never human. I said that the way his skin is described is enough for us to question whether magic has a physical effect on the user such that they become less human. I specifically said I'm curious to see how Vic's arm will heal to see if that sheds light on whether we can draw conclusions about Moqorro's nature.

I never said that the Martin quote provides proof. I did say that it makes a strong case that the origins of the Others are not with humanity. When Martin uses the word inhuman, he's using it to set whatever he's describing apart from humanity, not to remind people of the human origins of the subject.

I'm not saying that something can't have inhuman qualities and still be human. But when you put 'inhuman' in the context of the rest of what he's saying about the Others, a picture of a species substantially different from humanity emerges. Martin specifically says the Others are a different kind of life, not that they 'look like' a different kind of life. It seems fairly clear that he's getting at the essence of these beings in the description, not stopping at their appearance. The other words that Martin uses to describe them go likewise beyond physical appearance to address the nature of these beings.

If the Others did somehow have origins in mankind, I would expect there to be more clues in the text. As it stands, I see nothing that can be offered to support the idea that the Others started as humans and were transformed into something else through the use of magic.

Similarly, I do not believe that Vic's description of Moqorro can be taken as proof that he's been literally burned. It is enough, though, to open a query about whether it is possible that this is the case. I know that there have been character descriptions of very dark skin, but the fact that Vic rejects the skin tone of all these other ethnicities leads me to think that it may be a clue that there's something more to this.

I think this is just an example of Victarion being Victarion. Again, we have Tyrion's description of Moqorro as a man with 'pitch black' skin. If it comes down to which character I trust more, I'm going to side with Tyrion and his impressions of Moqorro.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I'm not saying that something can't have inhuman qualities and still be human. But when you put 'inhuman' in the context of the rest of what he's saying about the Others, a picture of a species substantially different from humanity emerges. Martin specifically says the Others are a different kind of life, not that they 'look like' a different kind of life. It seems fairly clear that he's getting at the essence of these beings in the description, not stopping at their appearance. The other words that Martin uses to describe them go likewise beyond physical appearance to address the nature of these beings.

If the Others did somehow have origins in mankind, I would expect there to be more clues in the text. As it stands, I see nothing that can be offered to support the idea that the Others started as humans and were transformed into something else through the use of magic.

I think this is just an example of Victarion being Victarion. Again, we have Tyrion's description of Moqorro as a man with 'pitch black' skin. If it comes down to which character I trust more, I'm going to side with Tyrion and his impressions of Moqorro.

Respectfully, Martin does not say "the Others are a different kind of life," he says, "They are strange, beautiful… think, oh… the Sidhe made of ice, something like that… a different sort of life…" -He makes a qualified comparison to a 'known quantity' for the purposes of illustration.

It's really a very vague statement made for a different purpose than actually making a forthright explanation of what the Others are. It all comes down to whether we trust a casual email to an illustrator descibing the way the Others look, versus the canon of the text more.

[FittleLinger]

Respectfully, Martin does not say "the Others are a different kind of life," he says, "They are strange, beautiful… think, oh… the Sidhe made of ice, something like that… a different sort of life…" -He makes a qualified comparison to a 'known quantity' for the purposes of illustration.

It's really a very vague statement made for a different purpose than actually making a forthright explanation of what the Others are. It all comes down to whether we trust a casual email to an illustrator descibing the way the Others look, versus the canon of the text more.

To start, this is one of the better crackpots Butterbumps, and I can totally see how one can make those or similar assumptions. I don't actually buy it (I have seen similar thoughts before), but I like how you layed it out and all the others that contributed. After all, making connections within a crackpot is always a fun and enriching experience, regardless if it turns out to be true or not. That's why it's crackpot.

Regarding what I quoted, I agree with it. I am not making a point of whether the others have derived from humans or not, rather I am expressing the opinion that this particular email has been used and read into a bit too much IMO. It's overrated.

For instance, if the artist had asked, "Describe Barristan", and Martin had said, "Well, imagine Sean Connery", this doesn't mean that they share anything but looks, and even looks are to some extent. The same goes with Other - Sidhe IMO. He just went for something rather famous so the artist can picture it, just like Barristan is not an aristocratic actor in his 80's :P

I, myself, am unsure and divided of whether the others are a derivative or an unique race, and maybe, with just a little (3%) I tend to go to the former. You can always set the dragons as their seeming counterpart, and as creatures that were not seen in a while, but the Others are humanoid. They have heads, torsos, limbs just like humans, even armor and swords. The name itself "Others" suggests "something like us, but different". I mean, dragons are dragons, Giants are giants, krakens are krakens, Others, wherever used, always has this ominous connotation of, "we can't really tell what is the difference, but there is - they are Others" IMO.

Still undecided on the matter though, the thread seems really interesting on a number of points, so I will be following it :)

[Sevumar]

Respectfully, Martin does not say "the Others are a different kind of life," he says, "They are strange, beautiful… think, oh… the Sidhe made of ice, something like that… a different sort of life…" -He makes a qualified comparison to a 'known quantity' for the purposes of illustration.

It's really a very vague statement made for a different purpose than actually making a forthright explanation of what the Others are. It all comes down to whether we trust a casual email to an illustrator descibing the way the Others look, versus the canon of the text more.

I think there's some confusion here on the part of people reading my response to this crackpot. I have never emphasized the comparison to the Sidhe as the important part here, rather, it's what comes after that line that I find informative. The email may well have been "casual," but Martin's communications to artists, especially ones that have done a lot of work for him (like Amoka) have been included as resources on this site precisely because they have some ability to provide insight into the series and illuminate some of its mysteries with additional information while stopping short of spoiling big reveals.

The statement that the Others are a different sort of life strongly suggests important differences down to the nature of their being. That statement is not a reference to a well-known mythological race, but a direct characterization of what the Others are like.

There's also the fact that there's really nothing in the text of the series that supports the degenerate-ice-magic-wielder explanation for the origins and nature of the Others. That's the primary reason why I'm skeptical. It's well and good to come up with things that are cool ideas, but I just don't see this one fitting into the frame of the story. Martin's important revelations usually have substantial groundwork laid for them from early in the series and there's no indication of that in play here.

I, myself, am unsure and divided of whether the others are a derivative or an unique race, and maybe, with just a little (3%) I tend to go to the former. You can always set the dragons as their seeming counterpart, and as creatures that were not seen in a while, but the Others are humanoid. They have heads, torsos, limbs just like humans, even armor and swords. The name itself "Others" suggests "something like us, but different". I mean, dragons are dragons, Giants are giants, krakens are krakens, Others, wherever used, always has this ominous connotation of, "we can't really tell what is the difference, but there is - they are Others" IMO.

I'm not convinced that the Others and the dragons are the exact endpoints of the spectrum of magical beings. I tend to see them more as a manifestation of a force of nature, similar to the Children of the Forest in their origins, and different from humanity in a similar way. Both races share a timeless aspect and a closeness with/control over nature that humanity lacks.

[The Mother of The Others]

Re: Roose sacrificed his infant sons to the Others, perhaps in return for immortality: interesting notion. Maybe he's in this bind now because the one son who was supposed to live to follow after him at the Dreadfort was nixed by Ramsay and Roose himself sacrificed the other sons, leaving his pantry bare at the moment. On Buffy season 3, the Mayor had lived several normal lifespans by cheating somehow, pretending different identities each generation, but always the Mayor. And there was an interesting episode of Friday XIII: the Series that dealt with an Asian dynasty which had really been the same patriarch re-absorbing the life force of his grown children each generation to extend his own life, awaiting the day when one of his kids could finally pass his tests and be proven worthy of taking his place. Maybe the game going on between Roose & Ramsay is their animalistic version of the same prooving process. If Ramsay prooves worthy, he'll inherit whatever treasure trove of magic secrets the Boltons are hoarding. Like with the Sith: "Are you heinous enough? Show me."

Re: Ramsay using poison uncharacteristically: he wanted to inherit Dreadfort and become a lord when Roose died and Ramsay the Bastard was the closest thing to family Roose had left. If blatant about slaying Domeric, he risks getting specifically disinherited, so he does what's required in this case by leaving no evidence of the murder. Poison.

Re: Bolton line was born of NightKing + Other / Corpse Queen: I think the reason the wall was built was because the threat of cross-breeding was always there, waiting to happen, inevitable, like how mosquitoes simply are going to bite someone and give them malaria, just because there's so many people and mosquitoes that it's bound to happen. If the ancients cross-bred with Others, then the descendants of these abominations are still wandering the wastes, and as soon as they're reintroduced into human circles we have a new Night King situation and the threat of humanity being dragged down into an abyss of thralldom by it. Hence the necessity of the wall in the first place. So NK probably didn't have to resurrect his bride, she was already extant as part of the ecosystem. Although now with Qyburn building zombies, who knows.

Re: an Other gene: hope so! And I hope we get more backstory on how there were real magical benefits from wearing the skins instead of only doing it for spite/jealousy. (Or even "better," what if we get to see the skinning magic in practice! when Ramsay or Roose actually perform it successfully now that magic has returned. That's one reason I was hoping to see Arya take on Ramsay, ostensibly as Jeyne Poole recovered. She'd get abused, hunted, she'd turn the tables just when we thought she was about to die, set nymeria upon his dogs, render him helpless, discover that his skinning ritual is based on the FM magics she already knows, and finally she'd practice the Bolton magics for her own delight on Ramsay as part of her taking up residence in the Dreadfort as the surviving lady of the castle, claiming the joint from Ramsay this way in homage to how he'd previously taken power by starving that lady until she ate her own fingers. Arya would thus do the really important work in the North: ending the Bolton line which had been the true undoing of the Starks. Nobody needs that neighbor sticking around into the future.) Too kinked?

Re: Fire & Ice magic as two sides of a coin: with the implication that the coin has been split apart improperly by some fool in ASOIAF's distant past to everyone's detriment and the deeply warring elements need to be fused back together again like Humpty Dumpty so the magic can return to its natural state of harmony and holistic awesomeness. I'd also add another coin to the discussion so that you have some extra change jangling in your pocket: the children of the forest with their natural / LIFE magics vs. the UNLIFE magics of the Others and possibly the death-related magics of the warlocks, etc. Unlife could be an alternate mode of existence eternally opposing Life as we know it; propped up by magic instead of biology, Unlife could have its own separate origins and not necessarily be a perversion of our kind of life. It's a simple choice to be made by the author: if he reveals the Others to be humans-gone-wrong this affirms humanity as the center of all things, whereas having their nature be truly Other would teach us the harsh lesson that the universe has more things going on besides us. If They are magically-propped-up constructs, that does sort of imply that somebody had to construct them, and our kind of life would be the chief suspect. They seem very independent though, so until we're told different I'm letting them have their independence as if the Others evolved on their own. It's certainly an interesting ongoing discussion though, over on the Dance board especially. And zoologists would tell us that only same-species creatures can successfully mate.... (though it's possible this interbreeding part of the legend is the result of embellishment by generations of Old Nans telling bedtime stories to wide-eyed children).

[butterbumps!]

There's also the fact that there's really nothing in the text of the series that supports the degenerate-ice-magic-wielder explanation for the origins and nature of the Others. That's the primary reason why I'm skeptical. It's well and good to come up with things that are cool ideas, but I just don't see this one fitting into the frame of the story. Martin's important revelations usually have substantial groundwork laid for them from early in the series and there's no indication of that in play here.

Actually, I was thinking of pieces fitting into the frame of the story in posting this. The conventional idea of the Others-- that they are something different than humans and that humans have no part of their magic-- is what doesn't fit with the "big picture" in my mind.

We have more than ample suggestion that fire and ice may have no measurable difference. We have confirmation that both have something to do with blood sacrifice; we've seen more of the Reds, but there are very strong similarities happening between the wider survey of Red magic and the smaller snippets we see of the Others.

We see that Fire magic is not inherently good, and actually, we see some very dangerous aspects of it; most troubling to me is their notion of AA's second coming heralding an era of the dead rising (and how is that better than wights?). We also see that fire magic comes from humans.

Let's assume for a minute that the Others are separate from humans, that there's no human association from fire magic. If these ice magics and creatures have no basis in humanity, they are pretty much a giant strawman force for humanity to rally against, probably uniting with fire. Yet, the pieces don't fit. Fire magic is every bit as "bad" as ice magic. It's always seemed very asymmetrical to me in the big picture that the Others would not have a human cause behind them, or that "ice magic" is not accessible to humans, given that fire magic does and is.

On a meta-text level, we have a "song" and a "game." The "game" is extremely human centric. One half of the "song"- fire- is also extremely human-centric. Doesn't it seem strange in a story that is foremost human-centric (from the attention to character development to something like Brienne's arc that is pretty much a comment on humanity), that the second part of the "song"-- ice-- would have a completely non-human instigation?

The "game" and the "song" are both about power. I think of the "song" as the "game" at the next level. Fire has historically been used as a human-wielded political tool and weapon. We have not seen this with ice, but it does seem like Martin wants to keep ice extremely mysterious for the time being. I don't take the fact that we're kept in the dark about the Others to mean that there will not be a big reveal about their nature and purpose. Given that fire and ice seem increasingly to be presented as 2 sides of the same coin, I wonder if Martin's giving us clues about ice through detailing more about fire.

I think the most interesting aspect of this reading (for me) is that it puts the issue of both political and magical imbalance directly into human hands. The conflict therefore would not be "man against magical superpower" but "man against man" if both fire and ice have human causes, which I think it closer to the story Martin's telling us. It would link the "game" and the "song" as essentially the same thing (but at different scales or intensities), and would put both cause of and solution to both the song and the game into human control.

[The Mother of The Others]

Matter vs. Dark Matter? We're made of matter, star stuff, and so Fire is the element we have a majority share in, the most in common with. Ice is not survivable, whereas in small measures we can play with fire and benefit. So we do. Also, the dragons by chance fell into our laps. So we've had access to the Fire Magic Laboratory and have been able to do R & D on fire magic, unlike Ice. I wonder if Fire magic originates with dragonkind and we've only absconded with it or some weird crap like that.

Ooooh. Also, if we're of the opinion that Others are corrupted humans (or Children), doesn't that almost necessitate that Dragons are also magical perversions of ourselves???!!!! This is much more rarely brought up, but it'd be the other side of the equation. If I can have human-dragon morphing, y'all are welcome to your Others-are-humans-gone-wrong theories. That'd be a compromise I'd snatch up in an instant. Love that notion of immolating into a dragon ala the phoenix mythos.

[raenasnow]

Because Martin didn't want to include it. Doesn't mean anything. Despite what people think, plenty of men in the series wait until well past their teens to get betrothed or married. Edmure Tully, Renly Baratheon, and Willas Tyrell are just examples off the top of my head.

the floppy fish, into dudes, and confined to a wheel chair.

:blushing:

[Sevumar]

Actually, I was thinking of pieces fitting into the frame of the story in posting this. The conventional idea of the Others-- that they are something different than humans and that humans have no part of their magic-- is what doesn't fit with the "big picture" in my mind.

We have more than ample suggestion that fire and ice may have no measurable difference. We have confirmation that both have something to do with blood sacrifice; we've seen more of the Reds, but there are very strong similarities happening between the wider survey of Red magic and the smaller snippets we see of the Others.

We see that Fire magic is not inherently good, and actually, we see some very dangerous aspects of it; most troubling to me is their notion of AA's second coming heralding an era of the dead rising (and how is that better than wights?). We also see that fire magic comes from humans.

I don't see the use of (or ties to) ice or fire as inherently good or evil. I think Martin has given us a narrative that has much more to it than the conventional struggle of the 'good' hero versus a 'big bad guy.' I think we can have a story about a conflict between humanity and the nature of the world, and a conflict between various factions of humanity in the frame that we've been given. I don't think that what you call the 'conventional view' of the Others detracts from that kind of story.

I think there's tendency within the board community of wanting to invent increasingly complex and outlandish solutions to the mysteries of the series. As a longtime fan, I really enjoy speculation and considering the various possibilities, but I also try to weigh how likely a given explanation is to fit into the story and how much unsupported material it might rely on.

I'm not arguing that 'fire magic' is inherently morally good or superior to 'ice magic.' I think we're meant to have misgivings about the methods and motives of Melisandre and others of her ilk.

I'm also not sure that 'fire magic' is really a thing unto itself. We have many examples of magic that uses fire, but I'm not sure that the fire is the most important element at work there. There's a possibility that the Red Temple's focus on fire as the operative force is a mistaken interpretation of what's actually going on in many of their magics. Much of what Melisandre does appears to be blood magic in actuality. Yes, she's fond of using fire to kill people, but it seems to me that what's actually powering the spell is the life force of her victim. The role of the fire is to liberate that life force from the poor soul condemned to the flames. She also characterizes life force as 'fires' when speaking of the cost to Stannis of her shadow assassin magic.

Let's assume for a minute that the Others are separate from humans, that there's no human association from fire magic. If these ice magics and creatures have no basis in humanity, they are pretty much a giant strawman force for humanity to rally against, probably uniting with fire. Yet, the pieces don't fit. Fire magic is every bit as "bad" as ice magic. It's always seemed very asymmetrical to me in the big picture that the Others would not have a human cause behind them, or that "ice magic" is not accessible to humans, given that fire magic does and is.

I don't see fire as unambiguously tied to humanity, the way you seem to. Fire has strong ties to dragons, nature, and the earth. Dragons are 'fire made flesh' while obsidian is 'frozen flame.' Both are things that humans interact with, but both have identities and natures of their own apart from humanity.

It might be more accurate to say that fire and ice are two parts of a larger balance, partial answers to the Big Question™ of what's going on in the world. Fire is important to humans, as it is part of what makes humanity unique. It is one of the foundations of civilization and technology, which are in tension with nature and balance. But fire is also destructive to humanity and its works.

It might make sense to put the Others on the nature side of that balance along with the Children of the Forest. Humanity also has a complicated relationship with nature, fighting it in some manifestations and working with it in others.

I think the most interesting aspect of this reading (for me) is that it puts the issue of both political and magical imbalance directly into human hands. The conflict therefore would not be "man against magical superpower" but "man against man" if both fire and ice have human causes, which I think it closer to the story Martin's telling us. It would link the "game" and the "song" as essentially the same thing (but at different scales or intensities), and would put both cause of and solution to both the song and the game into human control.

I don't see the forces at play in the story as being as human-centric as you do. I think that on a high level, humanity both impacts the balance of natural forces in the world as well as deriving power from elements of it. I should probably flesh out this interpretation a bit more and make a post dedicated to it, so it will seem less piecemeal when we're discussing these kinds of topics.

[butterbumps!]

snip

Sevumar, I appreciate your insights, but I'm unclear about the motivations behind your posts, and can't tell what you agree or disagree with. I've been getting lost in what you're trying to say overall, and I apologize because I may be misreading or misunderstanding.

My understanding is this: you've duly noted that the theory I've presented is crackpot and speculative, but it seems like you keep positing your own highly speculative interpretations on things as somehow more "textually" accurate. I'm unclear if your objections stem from your preference for alternate theories, because you believe your thoughts on this are less speculative, or because you actually believe there's no possibility that there's something to this theory.

I'm just unclear what you're trying to say overall. You say: "I think there's tendency within the board community of wanting to invent increasingly complex and outlandish solutions to the mysteries of the series. As a longtime fan, I really enjoy speculation and considering the various possibilities, but I also try to weigh how likely a given explanation is to fit into the story and how much unsupported material it might rely on." You've repeatedly reminded me (here and elsewhere) that you're a "long time reader," but the way you put these little barbs in your posts gives off a tone of superiority in trying to substantiate yourself as an expert of sorts is getting to be a bit much. The irony is that you say that your "long-time readership" has yielded you the knowledge and ability to understand when something is speculative versus something to be trusted, yet, all of your posts have been nothing but speculations, just from a standpoint opposed to mine. Reading something like what I just quoted makes me much less inclined to engage with you in this debate.

I firmly do not believe that my overall theory is outlandish or overly complicated; in fact, I think it simplifies outstanding questions quite nicely and fits seemingly unrelated pieces together. I actually see the way you've been speaking about these theories to be less elegantly resolved and a lot more complicated. I am fine with being wrong about this theory, but it's something I found really interesting and thought deserved further exploration.