Drawing Blood From a Bolton

[Theda Baratheon]

Incredibly interesting thread, and initial post; I really, really, REALLY like this theory.

[Sevumar]

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.

I think I've been pretty clear about what I agree and disagree with in your speculation, but here's a list of key points:

• I think it is highly unlikely that the origin of the Others is explained by a group of humans being transformed by the use of 'ice magic.'
  
• I agree that the Red Priests' use of magic involving fire cannot be classified as unconditionally good. There are deep moral and ethical issues with what we've seen of it.
  
• I don't think there's any reason to believe that Moqorro's appearance tells us anything of import with regard to the effects of 'fire magic' on his person.
  
• I don't think that the mechanic at the heart of the Others' animation of wights is the same as skinchanging.
  
• I have mixed opinions about your thoughts on the Boltons, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they are wielders of 'ice magic.'
  
• In the past, I have considered that the Boltons might have some blood connection to the Others, but my current opinion is that any connection to them is not likely to be based on Other ancestry.
  

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've pretty clearly laid out the things that cause me to be skeptical of some of the ideas you've presented here. The key thing for me is the lack of textual evidence for the interpretation you're presenting. 'Crackpot' is your own description of the theory and when a poster says that, it signals to me that what follows is material that relies heavily on inventions and tenuous connections by that poster. While this is completely fine, it seems to be a pattern on these boards that people like to present ideas with the 'crackpot' label and then respond as though the content of those posts is completely reasonable and well-grounded in the text. That seems inherently conflicted to me.

You say that you posted this speculation with the goal of fostering discussion and exploration of it, and by posting about those parts of it that seemed unlikely to me, I contributed to that discussion. I didn't post about those parts of the OP that did not interest me. My own stance on much of what's going on in the series is that we simply don't know yet, but that we can use the information we have to come to some conclusions about what fits well in Martin's world and what doesn't.

My approach is to try to gauge the likelihood of various fan ideas by matching them with things we know from the series and things that are hinted at by the author. I also try to ask myself how much the overall picture fits with something that readers are likely to get by reading the text without consulting online discussion forums. I know that others take the approach of trying to come up with the most interesting and most original ideas they can and posting them. I've come up with, discarded, and revised a number of my own interpretations too. I don't have an agenda to promote one specific 'theory of everything.'

I'm just unclear what you're trying to say overall... 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.

During the long wait between Feast and Dance, there was a trend of posting a lot of 'out there' theories. Now that we're settling into the long wait for Winds and the bones of Dance have been pretty well picked clean, I'm noticing a return to those kinds of topics. I have tried to be a contributor who approaches the content posted here by asking whether or not the many interesting ideas work within the setting and story we've been given by the author. Often, there is a sense that people are simply making up stuff for the sake of making up stuff and that there may not be a focus on a good fit with the precedent and the world of ASOIAF.

[Dr. Pepper]

<snipity snip snip>

Sevumar, you aren't doing a very good job of providing something to this thread. The OP opened with a statement that this was very crackpot. It's a speculative post and yet you've come in with remarks about how readers speculate too much while also offering your own speculation and notes about how you're a long time reader who has written extensively on one topic or another. Frankly, the main thing I ever see you write extensively about is how you're a long time reader who has written extensively about something. I have almost no idea what opinions or theories you hold because you'll write a contrarian post in one thread and then turn around and write a contrarian post in a thread that contradicts the first one. It's getting tiresome.

Discussing the period of time you've been reading or writing isn't helping your argument any. If you are naturally disagreeable, fine. Please do us the favor of writing extensively on what you disagree with, provide evidence and leave out the comments about your superiority. I'd rather read and participate in discussion about the books rather than what you do in your free time.

[Sevumar]

Sevumar, you aren't doing a very good job of providing something to this thread. The OP opened with a statement that this was very crackpot. It's a speculative post and yet you've come in with remarks about how readers speculate too much while also offering your own speculation and notes about how you're a long time reader who has written extensively on one topic or another. Frankly, the main thing I ever see you write extensively about is how you're a long time reader who has written extensively about something. I have almost no idea what opinions or theories you hold because you'll write a contrarian post in one thread and then turn around and write a contrarian post in a thread that contradicts the first one. It's getting tiresome.

The funny thing is that I have done exactly as you have suggested I do. I posted responses to those items I don't think are well-supported by the the text and provided evidence from the books and from secondary sources supporting my positions. I also asked repeatedly where we could find information in the books that supports the interpretations that the OP posted for discussion.

I'm not a person who affirmatively 'subscribes' to one set of theories or another. As I've said before, my approach is largely to pick what I think is likely and see how it evolves/plays out as we get more information. I find it odd that there are a lot of people who post what they label as 'crackpot' theories and then who act defensively when others respond by asking where the textual clues and hooks are that make these theories more likely than others.

[butterbumps!]

I think I've been pretty clear about what I agree and disagree with in your speculation, but here's a list of key points:

Instead of repeatedly saying that you disagree, why not actually make arguments and draw from the text to provide the framework for why you disagree? I know you're going to say that you have been doing that, but what you've actually been doing is flat out rejecting my textual citations and logic, and trying to chip away at every nitty-gritty detail one piece at a time rather than building an alternative viewpoint. It's one thing to point out things you believe are logical fallacies on my part or factors I've not considered, but nothing I wrote is textually inaccurate. If you have an idea about a unified theory that is wildly different than this one, then it would be more productive to write it out similar to the way I wrote mine, not chip away at every detail despite the fact that we're coming from 2 very different premises on this.

Your issues with this theory are obviously way beyond brainstorming details or possibilities. You've made up your mind that it is not this way, and that's fine. But these broken up posts arguing your own speculative positions that just say "I disagree" are really unproductive. And for the record, you have not been clear about your positions, or at least, why you believe your view has more "thematic evidence" (and saying you're a long time poster doesn't count as "thematic evidence").

The key thing for me is the lack of textual evidence for the interpretation you're presenting. 'Crackpot' is your own description of the theory and when a poster says that, it signals to me that what follows is material that relies heavily on inventions and tenuous connections by that poster.

I have provided substantially more textual evidence in this thread than exists in 90% of the threads on this forum and 100% more than all of your posts here.

You say that you posted this speculation with the goal of fostering discussion and exploration of it, and by posting about those parts of it that seemed unlikely to me, I contributed to that discussion. I didn't post about those parts of the OP that did not interest me. My own stance on much of what's going on in the series is that we simply don't know yet, but that we can use the information we have to come to some conclusions about what fits well in Martin's world and what doesn't.

You've made it abundantly clear you're not interested in having a discussion. You have a fundamental difference in opinion about the "big picture;" instead of posting a fleshed out essay on your theory that shows where we align and do not, you're sniping at every little point I make to tell me you disagree.

And you are also approaching it with a sense of superiority and paternalism that is off-putting, and rich when you're trying to turn this back on me by trying to claim you have conversational intentions.

My approach is to try to gauge the likelihood of various fan ideas by matching them with things we know from the series and things that are hinted at by the author. I also try to ask myself how much the overall picture fits with something that readers are likely to get by reading the text without consulting online discussion forums.

I do the same thing; we came to different conclusions on this particular matter.

During the long wait between Feast and Dance, there was a trend of posting a lot of 'out there' theories. Now that we're settling into the long wait for Winds and the bones of Dance have been pretty well picked clean, I'm noticing a return to those kinds of topics. I have tried to be a contributor who approaches the content posted here by asking whether or not the many interesting ideas work within the setting and story we've been given by the author. Often, there is a sense that people are simply making up stuff for the sake of making up stuff and that there may not be a focus on a good fit with the precedent and the world of ASOIAF.

Do you realize how rude this is? This isn't exactly a "Jaqen is Syrio and possibly also Ned who raped Lyanna and had Darkstar" thread, and I'm starting to lose patience with your continuing to try to equate this to something like that. It's not getting past me that you keep trying to upend this entire thread by continuing to make comments that try to make it seem like this has no merit or that I'm "making things up" (seriously?) because it's not something we've been spoon fed in the books, and I've frankly given more than enough passages in the books where my suggestions can be supported. If you don't like speculations, avoid threads that say in the OP "this is highly speculative."

Until you lose the attitude and become more articulate and conversational about your stances on things (with actual analysis of the text and quotes would be nice), then I think we're done for the time being.

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Folks, let's not get all meta about who cites the most evidence, or who has been reading longer, or who has said what in the past.

Either an argument will stand on it's own merits or it won't.

And it is OK to disagree.

[/MOD]

[Sevumar]

I know you're going to say that you have been doing that, but what you've actually been doing is flat out rejecting my textual citations and logic, and trying to chip away at every nitty-gritty detail one piece at a time rather than building an alternative viewpoint. It's one thing to point out things you believe are logical fallacies on my part or factors I've not considered, but nothing I wrote is textually inaccurate.

I guess I'm not sure why you seem to think that the only appropriate expression of disagreement with some of the material in your post is the presentation of an all-encompassing 'alternative theory.' I don't see anything wrong with responding to the points that I have disagreement with and inviting you to elaborate on why you believe the text supports the interpretations you're offering. That's the essence of discussion and that's what I've done here.

I've already laid out my basic approach to discussing speculation on the way things work in the world of ASOIAF, which is to start from a position of 'we probably can't know for sure on much of this, but we can talk about ideas and evaluate their likelihood.'

Your issues with this theory are obviously way beyond brainstorming details or possibilities. You've made up your mind that it is not this way, and that's fine. But these broken up posts arguing your own speculative positions that just say "I disagree" are really unproductive.

Again, I'm not sure why you require a statement of 'what I believe.' I don't approach most discussions with the intent of advocating a particular viewpoint, but attempting to gauge how good the fit of a particular idea is and how well it meshes with what we can glean of how Martin's world works from the information presented in the books.

If you look at my post history, you can see that I have always responded point-by-point to issues that I want to contribute to. I'm generally not a person who only posts to say, 'I agree.' When I do post to express agreement, it usually includes other material that incorporates other information, other possible connections, or variations that might also work with the content.

I have provided substantially more textual evidence in this thread than exists in 90% of the threads on this forum and 100% more than all of your posts here.

You did not respond when I asked why you have focused on Victarion's more dramatic description of Moqorro and discarded Tyrion's matter-of-fact report about the Red Priest, even when I quoted the language used by Tyrion and explained why I found his description more trustworthy.

You seemed to drop the line of discussion about the nature of the Others' control of wights when I mentioned how this interpretation might not fit with what we've seen of their command and control mechanics.

In the thread of discussion about the nature of the Others, you tried tried to discount the value of Martin's own descriptions of them because of the occupation of the person the correspondence was addressed to.

[butterbumps!]

Sevumar, I suggested an expository form since it's very clear you disagree with the entire premise, and thought that would be a better way to understand how you're connecting all of the pieces. It is extremely unproductive to go through point by point on something like this when you disagree with everything. Generally, when I disagree with a premise this much I either don't contribute to that thread or I try to frame the full premise for why I disagree with something. Otherwise, it's just a back and forth about details neither party will ever agree on, and it's not really a style of discussion I find adds much.

I did try to respond to your points in good faith. But please bear in mind that your posts have carried a tone of dismissal that is off-putting, and seemed like you were not actually arguing in good faith. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but given that you seem to wholly disagree with this, combined with perhaps unintentional attitude, I don't believe your previous arguments were completely in good faith.

I found Vic's description of Moqorro's skin to have an interesting juxtaposition to what Moqorro did to Vic's arm. Tyrion's earlier observations of Moqorro as "black as pitch" do not conflict with Vic's later, more elaborate description. An argument could be made that Martin chose to put a more elaborate description of the skin as "burned" close to the passage where we see Vic's arm be burned as a writing strategy. I agree that Tyrion is more reliable than Vic, though in terms of exotic ethnicities, Vic is more experienced than Tyrion given the fact he's a pirate who travels all over the globe and has likely encountered more people.

I personally put more stock in the books of ASOIAF than an email to an illustrator that was intended to guide the illustrator regarding what the Others look like. It's comparing a canonical source to one that isn't canonical. I don't doubt the veracity of Martin's description as it pertains to what the Others look like, however, I strongly disagree that the email was intended to say that the Others are actually non-human. The purpose was to convey how they looked. That is the basis upon which I disagree foremost. The second place I disagree is that I believe Martin is careful about descriptions in text, and when something in the text says "it looks like the skin was burnt" regarding a fire priest, I think there's something more deliberate there than the email you speak of.

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Thread reopened after polite requests from several posters.

Please refrain from derails.

Thanks.

[/MOD]

[Stannis ftw]

This is one crackpot that makes sense and that I hope is true.

Or, to reverse, without this Boltons dont make much sense.

This would also "ground" the Others somehow. In a reasonable way.

[E-Ro]

I wasnt going to respond to this thread, just admire its beauty from afar. But I must say, WOW! What a theory, I cant beleive I never thought of anything like this before. It all makes so much sense and really fits.

To contribute to the thread, Its interesting that there is no mention of others being in westeros before the first men.

[Minstral]

Its a pretty good theory, despite its crackpot status. I will admit that the back and forth of clarifying arguments reminds me of a Monty Python skit at the "argument clinic". And that gives me an idea for a signature.

One issue I have with the theory is the designation of generic "fire magic" and "ice magic". It reminds me of the type of magic that GRRM has stated that he tries to avoid.

[butterbumps!]

One issue I have with the theory is the designation of generic "fire magic" and "ice magic". It reminds me of the type of magic that GRRM has stated that he tries to avoid.

Could you expand on what you're referring to? I'm not sure I'm familiar with the quote by Martin that you're referencing.

[jarl the climber]

Could you expand on what you're referring to? I'm not sure I'm familiar with the quote by Martin that you're referencing.

I think what he is refering to and I might be wrong is that Martin said that magic in his series will not follow any kind of logical rules or reasoning.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

One issue I have with the theory is the designation of generic "fire magic" and "ice magic". It reminds me of the type of magic that GRRM has stated that he tries to avoid.

Are you referring to this?

Q: Some of your hard-core readers, myself included, have spent a lot of time speculating about how many different kinds of magic there are in your world. Or is it all the manifestation of the same mysterious supernatural forces?

A:That's something I like to reveal little by little.

I can tell you generally that when treating with magic in fantasy, you have to keep it magical. Many fantasy writers work out these detailed systems, and rules, and I think that's a mistake.

For magic to be effective in a literary sense, it has to be unknowable and strange and dangerous, with forces that can't be predicted or controlled. That makes it, I think, much more interesting and evocative. It functions as a symbol or metaphor of all the forces in the universe we don't understand and maybe never will.

If so, I think Martin's thoughts on magic lend themselves nicely to bumps' theory. Martin doesn't give away any information on or labels for magic or magical systems, but he doesn't deny that they may be systems and these systems may be sortable. He only says he likes to keep them mysterious, which jives with the subtlety of the hints surrounding Bolton's possible magical activities.

I think he certainly is not denying that there are multiple types of magic, he only says that, while he will reveal more, he has no intention of ever offering a detailed description of magical varieties an the 'rules' of their practice. He does, however, point to a unity of magic in his world in one sense- it is dangerous, unpredictable, and uncontrollable. Which, I think, also matches up very nicely with the contention that both 'fire' magic and 'ice' magic might have the same corrupting, damaging effect on those who wield it (to make no mention of those they wield it against).

If you weren't referring to that, I apologize and please ignore me :P

[Florina Laufeyson]

I wonder if Martin's "anti" law of magic will mean that the Others could interbreed with humans somehow. Or at very least, theres Other blood in with First Men blood. I do suspect we will see some wackier stuff involving magic in the next books.

[Minstral]

Could you expand on what you're referring to? I'm not sure I'm familiar with the quote by Martin that you're referencing.

You mean an explicit quote that he made and I heard when I made that post? I didn't have one. I drew this conclusion from the paraphrasing of some articles and what I have heard in this forum. That is to say that GRRM handles the concept of magic differently from other writers. But since you asked... I looked for one:

from this article he is asked about dragons and he expands on the concept to include this quote from GRRM (specifically the second paragraph)...

I never wanted to do talking dragons--perhaps I am still too much of an sf writer to be happy with creatures that are too like humans. If dragons were intelligent, they would be so in ways that we could not recognize as such. I gave some serious thought to avoiding any overt fantasy elements and doing something that would only be a fantasy in that it took place in imaginary places and avoided known historical facts. As it is, I have carefully rationed magic. I went back to The Lord of the Rings and looked at how Tolkien does it. The Lord of the Rings is set in a magical world but there is not that much magic actually on stage. For Tolkien, wizardry is knowledge, not constant spells and incantations. I wanted to keep the magic in my book subtle and keep our sense of it growing, and it stops being magical if you see too much of it. In Tolkien, Aragorn's sword is magical because it just is; not because we regularly see it helping him win fights. In these books, magic is always dangerous and difficult, and has a price and risks.

The whole point of the scene in A Game of Thrones where Daenerys hatches the dragons is that she makes the magic up as she goes along; she is someone who really might do anything. I wanted magic to be something barely under control and half instinctive--not the John W. Campbell version with magic as the science and technology of other sorts of world, that works by simple and understandable rules. Nor precise words and series of passes that you forget when you have done them and have to learn again, as in Vance's Dying Earth. When Vance did it, it was original--I just picked the Liane the Wayfarer section for the Fantasy Hall of Fame anthology--but I wanted to do something else. And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.

If magic is one part beyond human comprehension and another part instincts, then I don't really buy the Bolton's going about strengthening their bloodline and their "otherness" in an intentional way through the use of deliberate rituals. Perhaps they believe themselves to have a otherworldly connection, and their actions are a call back to this, but it may have no "magical" effect. It could be a part of a family culture (a depraved one at that), or they may even be "instinctively" acting in ways due to their theorized origins.

Mostly, I am hesitant to commit to a theory that requires many variables to be true. I am certainly not weakening your argument by stating that I am not entirely comfortable with your premises. So I admit its interesting, but I am cautious when quantifying magic in any identifiable way may perhaps be counterproductive if GRRM shows that this is not the case. Furthermore, the nature of the others being men corrupted through the use of "ice magic" is a bit of a leap to me when trying to rationalize their origins, just because we see Melisandre in pain from her use of magic.

[butterbumps!]

If magic is one part beyond human comprehension and another part instincts, then I don't really buy the Bolton's going about strengthening their bloodline and their "otherness" in an intentional way through the use of deliberate rituals. Perhaps they believe themselves to have a otherworldly connection, and their actions are a call back to this, but it may have no "magical" effect. It could be a part of a family culture (a depraved one at that), or they may even be "instinctively" acting in ways due to their theorized origins.

Thanks for article citation; it's really interesting, and I don't know if I'd seen it before. I have to think on it some more, but the part that I bolded struck me as something we've seen with the Valyrians, or at least, the Targ practices of keeping the "dragonblood" pure. I suppose it could be possible that magic doesn't work that way, though it seems like some people within the ASOIAF universe to believe in this sort of thing-- bloodline preservation, rituals, etc. I think it's entirely possible that there's a disconnect between the rituals people perform believing that they will produce some magical effect and the actual causation of that effect.

[The Mother of The Others]

I can tell you generally that when treating with magic in fantasy, you have to keep it magical. Many fantasy writers work out these detailed systems, and rules, and I think that's a mistake. For magic to be effective in a literary sense, it has to be unknowable and strange and dangerous, with forces that can't be predicted or controlled. That makes it, I think, much more interesting and evocative.

the magic system in Dungeons and Dragons gets it totally wrong, then. It's completely labeled, grouped, homogenized, explained, each spell a known quantity ranked by power level. Hey, maybe that's why that stuff wasn't as fulfilling as it seemed it would be. You'd get a full spell list and it'd feel empty and unsatisfying still, because it was more like a toolbelt that functioned like clockwork instead of feeling magical anymore. So it got un-amazing real fast, and you'd wonder where things went wrong.

Now that we've just been told by GRRM not to try to classify magic into clearly defined groupings, these are my feelings on where the FM fit in to the overall scheme of things:

I think the FM take the same approach to magic as they do toward religions. All gods are valid at the Temple of Black & White and all people worthy of being avenged if they were wronged deeply enough. Everything is a tool to be used when appropriate. All information is valued and filed away for future use.

They're like a Jack of All Trades cult. Take a little something from every magical discipline on earth and mix it all together.

they employ glamors, they keep weirwood on hand, and they steal a page from the darkside of the warlocks with their alchemy and death magic.

But whereas the warlocks personally believe in defying death, the Faceless insist that all men must die, and they personally adhere to that belief, accepting it when their time comes.

So by borrowing something from everyone, the Faceless end up in the middle of the light-to-dark spectrum, because it all averages out when they learn and adopt and practice so many varied skills. Their empathic ways result in them hovering in the middle as a neutral force without the toxic buildup in their souls we see in the warlocks and perhaps in the fire priests. (We just might not see the evidence of toxic buildup in the fire priests because they cleanse themselves with fire? Whereas the toxic quality of warlock magic is more visible). FM keep themselves balanced so that they're capable of bringing balance to society when called to. That way they're able to claim the ethical high ground when it's time for them to slay someone to balance the scales of justice. So their brand of magic is neither fire nor ice, nor life nor unlife, light nor dark---because they're all of the above. (the Buffet school of magic.)

Unfortunately, even though being a Faceless might not blacken the soul magically, it seems they're intent on shrinking Arya's soul. This No One business may just be one of the tests, something she's actually supposed to resist like she's doing. Or she might ultimately have to leave them to avoid having her identity crushed. Or it might get crushed. That'd be bittersweet. The crushed No One goes on to accomplish great things and is a great help to the hero team, yet is personally lost.

Anyway, the point of pointing all this out is to say the Boltons and Warlocks and Others would probably have Unlife as the common thread of their magical traditions, whereas the FM are a more complex mixture, like a mutt. I don't know what's going on with the fire priests or how to classify all the varied crap they've busted out with as a group.

[Ragnorak]

Roose Bolton is built up as fairly creepy from his introduction. The first reference we get is Ned mentioning that Roose wanted to cut Barristan's throat after the Trident in the context of "Mercy is never a mistake." -- Roose the Unmerciful.

Bran notes Roose as one of the bannerman that test Robb but it is the Greatjon scene that plays out.

Robb seemed half a stranger to Bran now, transformed, a lord in truth, though he had not yet seen his sixteenth name day. Even their father’s bannermen seemed to sense it.

Yet that very night, his brother came to Bran’s bedchamber pale and shaken, after the fires had burned low in the Great Hall. “I thought he was going to kill me,” Robb confessed. “Did you see the way he threw down Hal, like he was no bigger than Rickon? Gods, I was so scared. And the Greatjon’s not the worst of them, only the loudest. Lord Roose never says a word, he only looks at me, and all I can think of is that room they have in the Dreadfort, where the Boltons hang the skins of their enemies.”

“That’s just one of Old Nan’s stories,” Bran said. A note of doubt crept into his voice. “Isn’t it?”

“I don’t know.” He gave a weary shake of his head.

This is quite a powerful scene. It is our window into Ned and his "lord's face"compared to his family warmth that we never really get to see on screen (a little with Arya's pack speech maybe.) This is probably the only scene in the series of a man in the martial society of Westeros admitting fear and weakness. There's some of that among Jon and his peers but it still has a veneer of soldier-like bravado. He is admitting his fears and concerns and doubts. Robb is seeking comfort and reassurance from his little brother in possibly the healthiest emotional family scene of the series. In this scene of love and family, Robb is more unnerved by Roose than this beast of a man Greatjon who tosses around the captain of the guard likes he's a three year old. Roose is a thing of Old Nan's stories and is presented this way in specific contrast to the powerful family warmth of this scene as he was placed in opposition to Ned and the value of mercy earlier. There is a deliberate attempt to portray Roose as creepy and in opposition to the Stark core values.

"Only death can pay for life." This is a common enough fantasy concept and fits with the idea of a balance in the world and even our innate sense of fairness. When Thoros brings back Berric there is no death to pay for that life. Berric complains to Thoros about "too many times" and about a sense of being consumed like fire is hinted at iirc. Berric's death can be said to pay for Cat's life but it doesn't seem to have been a requirement. Berric only gave the kiss to Cat when Thoros refused. Is Cat alive? She feels more like a revenant than the mother we last saw. In our first resurrection we have Dany and MMD in a bit of a philosophical discussion about "what is life?" I wonder how much of that is asking the same of unCat and Berric.

I wonder if it is similar to Mel and her shadow babies that seem to siphon off the life energy of her mate. Would Berric or unCat die if Thoros died? Is there life force tied to or borrowed from him? Is this similar to the wights? The wights are another form of magical "life" that bypasses or violates the "Only death can pay for life" rule. We know from Ghost and Jon that the Wall seems to block warging which may be an indication that the wights are warging the dead since the Wall is designed to stop them. Jojen talks to Bran about his concerns that the wolf will consume him and wants him to exert conscious control over Summer. Are Berric, unCat, and wights the same things but the Red Priests don't know how (or at least Thoros doesn't) to exert control over the warg-like bond? Are unCat and Berric much different from Coldhands?

I know Martin isn't very rules oriented in his creation of magical worlds but there needs to be a sense of internal consistency for the reader to buy into it. The death for life is fairly simple and straightforward. The lack of a life for life exchange in both Red Priest resurrection and the raising of wights is at least a plausible connection between the two.