HERESY 50

[Toccs]

Essentially, like Ironhand, Strong Belwas and a horde of other supporting characters, Bloodraven is being cut out and the story rationalized by assigning any important bits of his role elsewhere.

Well I can understand cutting Bloodraven out, no biggie, but Strong Belwas is absolutely essential.

[WindsOfWinter]

I don’t think that identifying Bran with the three-eyed-crow is a spoiler at all, but rather means that as I suggested above the three-eyed-crow and/or Bloodraven isn’t critical to the story.

If at the end of it all (the book) Bran was to be revealed as the one who has been manipulating everything from the very beginning, direwolves included, then yes it would be an enormous spoiler and by that very token inconceivable that this would be revealed now.

Instead, Jojen’s identifying Bran as the three-eyed-crow in the current episode is far more likely to be part of the slimming down (or dumbing down if you prefer) which we’ve already seen in all sorts of areas. Essentially, like Ironhand, Strong Belwas and a horde of other supporting characters, Bloodraven is being cut out and the story rationalized by assigning any important bits of his role elsewhere.

What we’re seeing, as with everything else is the inevitable effect of a lack of nuance

I really hope you're right, BC. I felt majorly spoiled after the episode, Bran's chapters always being my most anticipated in the books, and I just don't want to have the end of the story revealed to us readers like that. I've been enjoying the TV show so far because some characters and locations are just amazing to actually "see" on screen rather than only in your head but should they start cutting out Bloodraven (and maybe even Coldhands?) and let Jojen take on the role as Bran's "teacher", him having "the sight" and all, I think I will have to stop watching in order not to figure out any important future plotlines from the books.

I know it's a little off-topic but I don't quite understand some of the decisions they're making anyway, like with the Littlefinger plotline, they're basically putting the cart before the horse, revealing his involvement in Sansa's "rescue" at the very beginning, and it seems like they're doing the same with Bran now. Reveal the outcome (Bran is the 3EC, Littlefinger's a creep playing games with Sansa), and then tell the story backwards. The only other example where I understand they probably didn't have any other choice is Theon/Reek and Barristan/Arstan Whitebeard because they couldn't cloud their identities on TV.

[Hrafntýr]

Although I didn't see the episode, and so don't have a sense of the mood or emphasis of the scene under discussion, I wonder if we're not putting too much emphasis upon the article "the": saying "You are the 3EC" doesn't necessarily have to mean "You are the one and only 3EC," does it? Maybe all greenseers are "the" 3EC, just as in some fashion Bran (and other 3ECs?) are kind of anything. It would make just as much sense for Jojen to say "You are the weirwood" or "You are Summer" etc.

[Black Crow]

Yes there was no real emphasis on the identification. Bran tried to shoot the three-eyed-crow for some unknown reason, missed and Jojen then appeared to say that the reason he couldn't shoot the crow was because it was him. It was very much an all in the mind thing rather than a revealing of the chosen one.

[Mace Cooterian]

Although I didn't see the episode, and so don't have a sense of the mood or emphasis of the scene under discussion, I wonder if we're not putting too much emphasis upon the article "the": saying "You are the 3EC" doesn't necessarily have to mean "You are the one and only 3EC," does it? Maybe all greenseers are "the" 3EC, just as in some fashion Bran (and other 3ECs?) are kind of anything. It would make just as much sense for Jojen to say "You are the weirwood" or "You are Summer" etc.

Good point "bold". It may just be wishful thinking on my part but I'm not taking the Bran you are the 3EC statement as a definitive point that Bloodraven is completely out of the series. I do understand that some characters need to be written out, but I believe HBO can still show BR sitting in his weirwood throne as the master greenseer, before it's all said and done. Again, maybe wishful thinking on my part.

That was my optimistic portion of this post. The pessimistic portion is that I think HBO has bigger hurdles to clear than worrying about catching up with GRRM. As one poster estimated above (assuming two seasons for every book moving forward) it is possible time wise for GRRM to release ADoS in time for the series climatic ending. Quick Math would put ADoS released in 2020 just in time for Season 10. But hears lies the problem and repeating what someone said above...how many shows do you see going 10 seasons?

One of the more recent popular series was the Sopranos...it went 6 seaons. Some of my favorite series (Deadwood went 3 seasons and Rome went 2 seasons) met early ends by means of attrition and the lack of HBO wrapping up the actors/actresses contracts for extended period of times. Now granted, Deadwood and Rome were not based on someones novels..but neither was The Sopranos.

In any event, it is promising that HBO is taking two seasons to present ASoS. This will give them time to explore some meaningful aspects of the books and develop some of the main story arcs. On the other hand, I'm still sratching my head on the lack luster episode 2.

[redriver]

Although I didn't see the episode, and so don't have a sense of the mood or emphasis of the scene under discussion, I wonder if we're not putting too much emphasis upon the article "the": saying "You are the 3EC" doesn't necessarily have to mean "You are the one and only 3EC," does it? Maybe all greenseers are "the" 3EC, just as in some fashion Bran (and other 3ECs?) are kind of anything. It would make just as much sense for Jojen to say "You are the weirwood" or "You are Summer" etc.

Yes,I think we're jumping to conclusions here.I've watched the episode and the pertinent scene several times now.Bran is dreaming,the 3EC appears,sits on a branch and Bran tries to kill it with an arrow.Robb and Jon are there,advising Bran with lines they used in the first Stark scene in the series,"Relax your bow arm" etc.Bran shoots and misses.The older boys laugh like they did previously,then we hear Ned's voice asking,"Which one of you was a marksman at ten?".

Then the Jojen we later meet says,"You can't kill the raven because the raven is you".As far as I'm concerned that reinforces the ideas I've already outlined that the bird is how Bran's subconscious interprets Bloodraven's visits.

Though I will concede that they may be considering removing Bloodraven from the show.That would be a pity.Especially since there are rumours that HBO are considering doing some Dunc&Egg stuff.The old/young BR would provide a nice link.

[Hrafntýr]

I don't really see HBO writing BR out. I agree with Mace Cooterian that we may well see BR sitting on his "throne" all pierced by roots. The horror of Bran's possible future is too central to his storyline to be fully eliminated. And given that the HBO writers have been "creative" with what they do with Bran's visions, I'd expect that we could even get dream visions of BR before Bran actually meets the CotF. If he ever does, that is, because the pessimists could just as easily be right! I haven't actually minded all that much the way that Bran's visions have been reworked in the TV series. I think they still manage to communicate that mix of "regular" dream work with, for want of a better word, shamanic dream work. It's true that they seem to use the dreams sometimes to communicate elements of plot that they don't want to write into the action and characterization of the series, hence the fear that BR might be written out altogether, but on the whole I don't think they do a terrible job with Bran's dreams. After all, look what a nice job they did in establishing the importance of the crypts below Winterfell by having the 3EC repeatedly lead Bran there.

[Tyryan Lannister]

It does indeed and therein lies a complication. The appendix is a handy reader's guide identifying everybody who appears or is referred to in the story so far. In ADwD Bran meeds Bryn Rivers/Blackwood who he thinks is the three-eyed-crow, addresses him as such and despite that curious response the dead man in the tree is thereafter duly referred to in text as well as conversation as the three-eyed-crow.

So is he or does Bran only think he is? The point being that at this stage both Bran and the reader have to proceed on the assumption that its so - unless you're a heretic of course.

Now as to the show we're faced with a similar problem immensely complicated by the absence of a back-story for the crow. All we've really seen so far is the crow leading him towards the Winterfell crypts. We didn't even see inside before Bran woke from his coma.

I think what's happening here is a massive simplification of the story and that essentially the dead man in the tree has been written out of the show. At the end of the day what's going to be important is that Bran becomes the greenseer in the tree. As there's no true frame of reference through his actual dreams in the book I reckon that this is another bit of dumbing down. Cut out Bloodraven and all the mystic stuff. Make Bran himself the three-eyed-crow to take him to the children and that weirwood chair and its sorted.

To us as readers its immensely important part of the story of how Bran is drawn north to become the greenseer. All that they're doing at HBO is cutting it out so as not to confuse non-readers.

Where it is significant however is not in identifying Bran as the three-eyed-crow (whether or not he turns out to be it in the book) but in confirming by his ommission that other than serving as Bran's teacher the dead man in the tree is not going to be a significant player in what's ultimately going on and that he's not the mighty sorceror manilpulating everything in sight in readiness for the great battle.

ETA: and Rickon and Osha aren't on their way to Skagos.

For the time being... what I foresee happening is that at some point, for whatever reason, before they cross the Wall they head that way (maybe something like Osha: I'm not going back there Rickon: I'm too young to venture into the wild of Beyond-the-Wall--maybe it's even Coldhand's suggestion to take them to Skaagos?)

[Tyryan Lannister]

On the other hand, I'm still sratching my head on the lack luster episode 2.

While I agree with this assessment of the episode (and the same descriptor could be used for episode 1 as well) I feel that once the season has ended, going back and watching the episodes one after another will cause these two openers to fit in more concretely and in general make more sense: provided they keep the plot lines the same as in the book, we now have each individual story line set and ready to go (Tyrion-Tywin, Tyrion-Sansa (anyone catch that foreshadowing in the scene between Tyrion and Shae?), LF-Sansa, Joff wedding, Queen of Thorns underhanded playing, Jaime-Brienne-Roose-Qyburn, Red Wedding, the three marches towards the Wall, Davos-Stannis-Mel pre-trip North, Arya-BwB-Hound, Dany-Slaver's Bay pre-Mereen (and possibly pre-Yunkai), and also setting up the Cersei-Margaery dynamic for the later seasons--I believe that covers them all :cool4: )

[Tyryan Lannister]

I don't really see HBO writing BR out. I agree with Mace Cooterian that we may well see BR sitting on his "throne" all pierced by roots. The horror of Bran's possible future is too central to his storyline to be fully eliminated. And given that the HBO writers have been "creative" with what they do with Bran's visions, I'd expect that we could even get dream visions of BR before Bran actually meets the CotF. If he ever does, that is, because the pessimists could just as easily be right! I haven't actually minded all that much the way that Bran's visions have been reworked in the TV series. I think they still manage to communicate that mix of "regular" dream work with, for want of a better word, shamanic dream work. It's true that they seem to use the dreams sometimes to communicate elements of plot that they don't want to write into the action and characterization of the series, hence the fear that BR might be written out altogether, but on the whole I don't think they do a terrible job with Bran's dreams. After all, look what a nice job they did in establishing the importance of the crypts below Winterfell by having the 3EC repeatedly lead Bran there.

But they never actually established Bran as needing to go north due to Winter Coming, for they completely removed the flying-dream sequence from Season 1 (which was one of the things I was most looking forward to seeing :bang: ) I don't even remember ever having a scene where it is decided that they need to go beyond the Wall, only that after the destruction of Winterfell they decide to go north to Jon IIRC

[Frey family reunion]

I still can't believe they write Strong Belwas out of the show. He would have given a much needed comic relief for the series.

[brut]

It's Bloodraven and Bran together. They have three eyes among themselves, don't they.

ETA: Or let me rather rephrase this: The Three Eyed Crow is Bran, Bloodraven, and the Crow's unity as one.

[Black Crow]

I still can't believe they write Strong Belwas out of the show. He would have given a much needed comic relief for the series.

He would indeed, but he doesn't actually advance the story and that's why cutting out Bloodraven is so important. Lets be objective about this:

Bloodraven's part or rather assumed part, in the (written) story so far can be broken down into three areas.

1. There is the dead man in the tree who sits there and tells Bran about greenseeing intermittently over the course of two chapters.

2. There is the assumed but perfectly understandable linkage to the three-eyed-crow who summons Bran because Winter is coming

3. There is the presumed skinchanging and manipulation of everything in sight from crows to Coldhands and half the flora and fauna of Westeros in between.

As to the first there is no doubt of his presence and I agree with Hrafntyr that effectively confronting Bran's own fate will be a powerful moment even in the cut-down show and may by the same token set the scene for Bran refusing to accept that fate. Beyond that to the viewers he doesn't exist.

As readers, taking him and the three-eyed-crow to be one and the same, and factoring in the heart of winter business he is extremely important, but take that away ...

And then of course there's the theory of warging Mormont's crow, Coldhands and everything else... I've never liked this theory because GRRM has been pretty firm in denying the active participation of deities and ascribing all those God-like interventions to Bloodraven is in flat contradiction of that.

The whole point of the Morrigan theory was (is) not that the Crow goddess is the one who's really running everything, but that its ambiguous. Through the crows things are being nudged a little here and there but not overtly in a way that you can lay your finger on far less definitely acribe it to Bloodraven's manipulating everything.

In that sense I think this "revelation" strengthens the Morrigan insofar as the nudging is too subtle to transfer on to the screen. Bran is not being summoned north by Bloodraven and it may be that Jojen the Creepy will instead be his teacher, and in the meantime whether the Morrigan is present or not we can now be sure that it isn't the dead man in the tree who is running everything.

[Tyryan Lannister]

I still can't believe they write Strong Belwas out of the show. He would have given a much needed comic relief for the series.

He would indeed, but he doesn't actually advance the story

Well, he is the one who both protects Dany from getting poisoned by the locusts and it is this event that causes Barry to realize that Hizhdar has to go--and I feel that the reason for Barry relenting on his laurels and essentially committing high treason was because 1) the poison was enough to make even Strong Belwas sick, which means that it definitely would have killed Dany and 2) Belwas had become a very good friend of his over the previous two or so years, so it wasn't just that some random dude got poisoned instead of Dany, it was one of Barry's people; now, yes, in the show, if they keep the poisoning, they will likely have it happen to some random dude and it won't much affect the story line due to Barry still seeing that the poison was meant for Dany, but I feel that removing Belwas and therefore that extra level of "you hurt my friend" is going to cheapen Barry's character a little bit

[Tyryan Lannister]

On BR, above all else Tree-BR is definitely the "Odin" of the story (similar to how Mormont's raven is the "Morrigan", King Robert is the "Zeus", Jaime and Cersei are the "Lancelot and Gwenivere", and Dany is the "Jesus"). Could it be that the main reason for BR-as-Odin is to simply put us in the mindset of the Norse myths as a sly hint as to seeing what will come in the future (namely a Winter Ragnarok)?

[Black Crow]

I've absolutely no doubt that Strong Belwas adds a lot of quality depth to the book, but when condensing quite massive books down for the show something has to give. We're being stripped right back to the essentials, which is why its significant that Bloodraven appears to be out because it means that he's not as important to the story as a lot of people think - especially outside heresy.

And yes, per your #235, given that his active role isn't important its probably the imagery rather than the action which is important.

[Alia of the knife]

The fact that the show calls Bran the three-eyed crow, but the Wiki calls Bloodraven the TEC, doesn't have to be a conflict.

I've always suspected that Bran was pegged to be Bloodravens replacement so that he could pass on.

I'm probably in the minority on this in that I really have no desire to watch the show now since reading the books, and the fact they are changing up things reenforces it.

I get why they have to do it sometimes, but I suppose just speaking for myself, I'm just content to wait for the books. :dunno:

[Tyryan Lannister]

The fact that the show calls Bran the three-eyed crow, but the Wiki calls Bloodraven the TEC, doesn't have to be a conflict.

I've always suspected that Bran was pegged to be Bloodravens replacement so that he could pass on.

I'm probably in the minority on this in that I really have no desire to watch the show now since reading the books, and the fact they are changing up things reenforces it.

I get why they have to do it sometimes, but I suppose just speaking for myself, I'm just content to wait for the books. :dunno:

I'm actually the exact opposite, for the following reasons: 1) I do get to see some of the memorable scenes realized (Red Wedding should be a great scene, as too should the Beric-Hound fight and the Sack of Astapor), 2) I at least find it fun to try and guess where the show is going with certain things that they have changed (e.g. the Littlefinger-Sansa; I feel that Ros will end up playing the role of Ser Dantos, which hopefully means she gets a crossbow in the gut :devil: ), and 3) the changes that they do which annoy me give me something new to bitch and whine about :cool4:

[direwolfgreyonblack]

I apologise as this is lightly off topic from what is currently being discussed and as this is my first post I admit it is quite intimidating. That being said, I've followed the past few heresy threads fairly closely and has quickly become my favourite on these forums. After reading through some of the more recent additions specifically relating to the sacrificing of bastards and the significance this has with the gods of old I thought of something interesting and I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet. Perhaps there is some link to be drawn between bastards, their blood specifically, and an ancient power that exists in the world. I thought of this as I mention when reading through contributions from others, of the significance of wells as well as the old practice of child/bastard sacrifice.

This brings me to Edric Storm and Jon Snow, Melisandre believes that there is power in a kings blood and pleaded with Stannis to sacrifice Edric to the flames. She eventually leeches some of his blood and Stannis casts the leeches into the flames in order to be rid of the three false kings, Robb Stark, Balon Greyjoy and Joffrey Baratheon. What I am suggesting is that perhaps there is power in Edric's blood, not because his father was a king but because he himself is bastard born. This brings me now to Jon Snow, who at the end of ADwD is attacked by his brothers, although I can only speculate as to what happens next I think that perhaps like Edric, Jon's bastard blood has considerable power that will trigger some great event, perhaps through his death.

[Black Crow]

I apologise as this is lightly off topic from what is currently being discussed and as this is my first post I admit it is quite intimidating. That being said, I've followed the past few heresy threads fairly closely and has quickly become my favourite on these forums. After reading through some of the more recent additions specifically relating to the sacrificing of bastards and the significance this has with the gods of old I thought of something interesting and I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet. Perhaps there is some link to be drawn between bastards, their blood specifically, and an ancient power that exists in the world. I thought of this as I mention when reading through contributions from others, of the significance of wells as well as the old practice of child/bastard sacrifice.

This brings me to Edric Storm and Jon Snow, Melisandre believes that there is power in a kings blood and pleaded with Stannis to sacrifice Edric to the flames. She eventually leeches some of his blood and Stannis casts the leeches into the flames in order to be rid of the three false kings, Robb Stark, Balon Greyjoy and Joffrey Baratheon. What I am suggesting is that perhaps there is power in Edric's blood, not because his father was a king but because he himself is bastard born. This brings me now to Jon Snow, who at the end of ADwD is attacked by his brothers, although I can only speculate as to what happens next I think that perhaps like Edric, Jon's bastard blood has considerable power that will trigger some great event, perhaps through his death.

Welcome to the forum :cool4:

All things are possible in this game. We have discussed something of this in the past on the heresy threads, but think that the significance doesn't necessarily lie in the bastardy but the way the mother's identity is concealed.

In Jon Snow's case I think most of us here subscribe to the theory that he is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark, but while most people are running around proclaiming him the lost heir to the Targaryen throne we tend to look on his mother being a Stark as being more important and that he is first and foremost a son of Winterfell. Similarly Bloodraven, or Brynden Rivers if you prefer, is commonly identified as a Targaryen bastard while we look to his mother being a Blackwood - and to Bittersteel being a Bracken and so on it goes.