Since I suspect that Robb's remains might have been a victim of such a thing, I believe that story could be a set up for us to see that it might have happened not that long ago, as well, say if Bael and the Stark Maid did exist in the time of the kingsroad and Stark's as lord's, not kings.
Interesting. I always got the impression that the whole point of flaying someone was to do it while they were still alive. I think that the tradition seems to have endured, though they may not have beaten enough Starks to do it exclusively since it wasn't out in the open.
I am the Green Bard I am Irish & French & American I blog about ASOIAF GRRM w/music and art at alivealive0.home.blog
Crying Cockles and Mussels, AliveAlive0 - The song Molly Malone
Descendants of Garth have sigils with gold for the most part, Oakhearth, Beesburry, Crane, Goldtree etc, blue, red and green are used as well, if Starks had blue flowers originally we will have three houses with blue flower that I am aware, though I don't know how correct Reach myths are about Garth's descendants, we know Foss was an Archer, and Tarly sigil is an archer, we know Tarly founders were twins and we have Fossoway with green and red apples, why is there a no cadet branch for Tarly?
Actually, less than half of them have gold, as far as I can tell after a quick check. There is no sigil for the family of Owen Oakensheild, but the rest have them. I am wondering about gold versus, say grey on those sigils. Several do have green, but several also have grey as an important color. Does some of that color have to do with the mother's of those children, as well as Garth? House Crane, who is tied to Rose of Blue/Red lake actually has a light blue background and golden cranes, which is kind of unusual, since I don't think of cranes as being yellow. But look at Hightower and Stark, grey is very important. Hightower is listed with a "smoke grey" background and the cendree of the Stark direwolf is considered "ash grey". There must be an importance in that color choice for these two houses. House Rowen is gold on silver, so that is also unusual in heraldry, to place a metal color over a metal color. Very odd.
Robert and Delena cursing Stannis' bed is an interesting info, although it contains to Lord's right as well, Robert deflowers the maiden in his vassal's bed, but the maiden is not the bride, what would happen if Robert was with Selyse or Stannis married Delena, could Robert bless Stannis' marriage then?
Well, in the days of the Lord's Right, Robert would have had the right to have the first go at Selyse, but he uses her cousin instead. And he plants the child that night, not the groom. There probably is some compare/contrast going on with this situation related to the First Night. Perhaps it would have been better for Stannis if Robert had planted a seed in Selyse, keeping a tradition of the First Men (probably Garth Greenhand's tradition) but since they did not do it that way, then Stannis's marriage bed is symbolically cursed in some way?
I don't know jf Hightower are tied to Garth except marriage of Maris to Hightower, maybe Starks themselves are not tied to Garth, except Rose marrying Brandon who wasn't Garth's son.
Well, if Arthur Dayne is another parallel to Elric (I will swear Bloodraven is until my dying breath)
Actually, if GRRM's use of other stories and myths is any guide, it isn't a clear correspondence. We should expect a bit of Elric here and a bit there and an inversion or two somewhere else.
Yet, the threat of withholding heaven and the divine afterworld does seem to work with Christianity. The medieval church held much power and fear tied to the threat to excommunicate people.
The hold of the medieval church was partly based in fear of the afterlife, but probably more in the church's temporal power. It was, in many ways, a de facto governing organization. The church had an army, it had physical punishments, and more importantly, it was a symbol of identity of the people. For the church to excommunicate an emperor was to undermine the belief in the emperor. A king didn't crawl before the Pope because he was afraid of hell; it was because he was losing the support of his nobility. Yes, the afterlife is definitely part of the mix, but I'm not at all convinced that it was a particularly strong factor. Martin Luther was famously driven by a fear of hell. Ignatius of Loyola had an exercise build around imagining hell, with the idea that it could be a prompt to right action and understanding if there was a strong focus on that fear
Perhaps Bran was always destined to fall, only his process has been sped up by fate and necessity, possibly?
Destiny is tricky. If Bran was destined to fall, was he destined to fall at that particular place and time. It's like Mel's demonstration with the leeches -- there is a practical reason why each of those kings died as he did, but maybe Rhllr's thumb was on the scale of fate somehow.
It actually might. But how would Ned know this? Was it dumb luck? Or possibly information he received in dreams? Something he seen his father do before him? And is it the tree that is important or the black pool?
I suspect that he was taught it, perhaps by his father or brother. The practice really isn't that different from common religious belief. One traditional purpose of sacrifice is to put the sins, weaknesses, punishments, or enslavements on something else. On the Day of Atonement, the sins of the people are displaced to a goat. Many Christians see Jesus as taking on their sins as a sacrifice; for others, it is not sins but the things that have power over them. Maybe Ned stands in the long history of sacrifice, giving the old gods blood which otherwise would give the sword the power to enslave him, and maybe his father and his father's father did the same
It is. The hero, Thomas Covenant, starts out as rather detestible, then proves himself to be worse than was originally apparent, thoroughly justifying his actions in his own thoughts. Throughout his arc, he remains a flawed and never entirely heroic human being. At times, I was uncomfortable that I was identifying with his character.
Gendry would be keeping these secrets from Arya and Ned, so does that hint that Robert kept the secrets of Lyanna… as well as Ned.
Ned's thoughts make it clear that Ned had secrets about RR that he kept from Robert. It could be interesting if Robert had some dark secrets of his own, maybe secrets that ultimately destroyed Lyanna
Interesting. I always got the impression that the whole point of flaying someone was to do it while they were still alive. I think that the tradition seems to have endured, though they may not have beaten enough Starks to do it exclusively since it wasn't out in the open.
It's certainly a terrible punishment if you are alive, but whether you are alive or not, I think there is power in the skin of a warg, for someone who wants to be a warg. Some of those idea's come from hints we have in this story, and some of them come from a short story of GRRM's called The Skin Trade. I might end up being wrong about this, but even Robb has an ill feeling when he thinks of the room in the Dreadfort that is rumored to be a place where the skins of enemies are hung. Dead or alive, I think Robb Stark was skinned. And this would be a different intent than what the Bolton's do to most of their enemies, which we do see; this would be something that is between Stark and Bolton, something that fed the ancient feud between the Red Kings and the Winter Kings.
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
I don't know jf Hightower are tied to Garth except marriage of Maris to Hightower, maybe Starks themselves are not tied to Garth, except Rose marrying Brandon who wasn't Garth's son.
We are not directly told that House Hightower is descended from Garth, but it's pretty much all laid out. Maris married Uthor of the Hightower (no reason to think they didn't have children because what's the point of her blood if she didn't pass her genes?), and the Hightower itself is also tied to Brandon the Builder, another person who is supposedly Garth's grandson. If this is like the speculation on Storm's End, also built by Brandon the Builder, then it's a connection of these large, mythical and magical places in Westeros, being tied back from the very start, to Garth Greenhand.
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
Actually, if GRRM's use of other stories and myths is any guide, it isn't a clear correspondence. We should expect a bit of Elric here and a bit there and an inversion or two somewhere else.
Well, honestly none of GRRM's parallel's are exact copies, but there is enough familiarity in them to see them, even if it's a hazy reflection. And I did say that GRRM would take these things and make them his own. If Elric is part of the inspiration for Ser Arthur Dayne, it seems like King Arthur and his Excalibur is also some of the inspiration for SAD.
The hold of the medieval church was partly based in fear of the afterlife, but probably more in the church's temporal power. It was, in many ways, a de facto governing organization. The church had an army, it had physical punishments, and more importantly, it was a symbol of identity of the people. For the church to excommunicate an emperor was to undermine the belief in the emperor. A king didn't crawl before the Pope because he was afraid of hell; it was because he was losing the support of his nobility. Yes, the afterlife is definitely part of the mix, but I'm not at all convinced that it was a particularly strong factor.
The medieval catholic church saw themselves as a bridge between humans and God. They taught that the only way to speak to God was through representatives of the church, and so if you were excommunicated, you were cut off from God. Which is actually very un-Jesus-like! You were also cut off from heaven. And certainly it's a political power tug-of-war, it's also one group saying they control your spiritual life. This was one of the reason that the Catholic Church fought against translating the bible into languages other than Latin, because if it was in Latin, then most of the population of the world who believed then needed the church to translate for them as well (and then donated money for this "gift"), and it's one of the principles of the reformation. GRRM plays with this in his story and he has a lot of history to draw from, especially the war between church and state.
The medieval Catholic church held vast wealth and power, but on many levels was terribly corrupt. Power corrupts people, power corrupts organizations. When I am thinking of the threat of excommunication with a ruler who was denied heaven, I am thinking of Henry VIII of England, who's feud with the church sizzled and finally snapped with excommunication and Henry saying, "fine, I will make my own church and show you who's boss". And he did create the Church of England. He not only opened a path back to heaven for himself, but he opened himself up to all the money that people pledged to the Catholic Church in England and it helped fill his coffers (as well as stealing great wealth from churches. He also then translated a prayer book into English so his subjects could read, therefore interpret the bible on their own, and allowed them to speak to God without the direct need of a priest. There wasn't just one accomplishment that came from this action, there were many. But this schism had reverberations for hundreds of years after the fact. But it did separate England from the direct power of the Catholic Church, and it separated the Roman Catholic Church from the people of England and the money and goods they would donate to the church. It's certainly complicated, and there is a lot of grey area for interpretation.
Destiny is tricky. If Bran was destined to fall, was he destined to fall at that particular place and time. It's like Mel's demonstration with the leeches -- there is a practical reason why each of those kings died as he did, but maybe Rhllr's thumb was on the scale of fate somehow.
I still think that Mel used the leeches like a parlor trick. She saw what was going to happen, then she used the leeches to prove to Stannis that her God's power could control the future. She wanted to control Stannis and she wanted him to give her Edric as a full sacrifice, not just a few drops of blood. But as we see with her vision of Renly's "ghost", nothing she did changed the fact that a warrior in Renly's armor defeated Stannis on the Blackwater, even though Renly himself was dead. I think she see's the same visions that others can see, such as the Ghost of High Heart. She might seek them out in her flames, but it's not unlike how people use Shade of the Evening to seek some cosmic dream stream. It's all connected, but people have different intents or goals. The Ghost of High Heart just wants a song and a sloppy kiss, while Mel wants the blood of a child, and Euron wants to use his brother's subconscious to help guide his own actions while being quite ready to make a blood sacrifice of Aeron when the time comes. Euron and Melisandre have some interesting similarities.
And yes, if Bran was destined to fall, it would have happened anyway, but what if he actually fell before he was meant to. Perhaps Bran was supposed to reach adulthood and then have a tragic fall, but for some reason, people who are wanting to make things happen, wanted it to happen sooner than later. Renly might have always been intended for death, but perhaps he wasn't supposed to die when and where he did, perhaps he was supposed to accomplish other things first. It's rather a slippery slope and I don't really know. It's also possible that Bran was meant to fall that day, but he was meant to die, but because of otherworldly intervention, he managed to live? There are lot's of possibilities. I just wonder if Jaime was always destined to loose his hand, for some reason we still are not aware of. Just like I think there are hints in the text that Jon will lose an eye, but he just seems to skirt the reality.
I suspect that he was taught it, perhaps by his father or brother. The practice really isn't that different from common religious belief. One traditional purpose of sacrifice is to put the sins, weaknesses, punishments, or enslavements on something else. On the Day of Atonement, the sins of the people are displaced to a goat. Many Christians see Jesus as taking on their sins as a sacrifice; for others, it is not sins but the things that have power over them. Maybe Ned stands in the long history of sacrifice, giving the old gods blood which otherwise would give the sword the power to enslave him, and maybe his father and his father's father did the same
He might have been taught that or learned by demonstration, but I doubt there was a spoken path that explained blood in exchange for foregiveness. That doesn't seem to be how the old gods operate. It's a largely silent form of worship, and there are no written records to guide worship. I think it's more tied to instinct than method, and every House's individual's instinct might be different from another's, or even every House's methods might be different from another's.
When Ser Bartimus talks about the northerner's placing the entrails of the slavers who held them captive in the branches of the weirwood tree, did they do it to feed the weirwood blood with direct intent, like watering a tree? And if so, was it a thank you for being freed? Or was it more a punishment to those who died? It can serve more than one purpose, have more than one method, and might have varied depending on the knowledge of each of those individual slaves that was freed.
Ned's thoughts make it clear that Ned had secrets about RR that he kept from Robert. It could be interesting if Robert had some dark secrets of his own, maybe secrets that ultimately destroyed Lyanna
I think they both had secrets they kept from one another. Ned was ready to confess the secret's he knew (or at least some of them) that day on the kingsroad, but Robert was not ready to hear that, perhaps because then he would have to confess his own secrets and he could not face that. That day, Robert evades Ned's intentions. I think a lot of truth could have been revealed that day, but instead it did not happen.
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
Well, honestly none of GRRM's parallel's are exact copies, but there is enough familiarity in them to see them, even if it's a hazy reflection. And I did say that GRRM would take these things and make them his own. If Elric is part of the inspiration for Ser Arthur Dayne, it seems like King Arthur and his Excalibur is also some of the inspiration for SAD.
In SAD, I see some Arthur and some Lancelot. I think we may have discussed the Lancelot aspect in discussions of Lyanna and who got her with child if she was with child.
The medieval catholic church saw themselves as a bridge between humans and God. They taught that the only way to speak to God was through representatives of the church, and so if you were excommunicated, you were cut off from God
I think they had a bigger notion of God than our culture does. God wasn't just about moral judgment and the afterlife. God was more directly involved in rain and storms and plagues and healing, and certainly in cultural identity. To be cut off from God was a blow to social standing and to odds of survival.
Well, he was the guy that threatened an unpleasant afterlife for those who failed to care for the weak and the prisoners and the outcast. That's teaching that can be awkward for any institution that has a prominent role in governance. It's much more practical to put access to God in the hands of the wise and good than in the hands of the poor and despised.
I am thinking of Henry VIII of England, who's feud with the church sizzled and finally snapped with excommunication and Henry saying, "fine, I will make my own church and show you who's boss". And he did create the Church of England
I was thinking of Henry II, who had to do public penance. By the day of Henry VIII, reformation was in the air. But Henry VIII worked an amazing trick with a reformation that wasn't a reformation. Making only those changes that were required to wrest power over the church from the hands of Rome. Of course, knocking over that domino did mean that a lot of others were going to fall, but most of the changes in the church (including the divestitures) followed pretty naturally from the decision that the Church in England would no longer follow Rome (and from the resultant power struggles). I've had a hard time placing the High Sparrow as a parallel with any particular pope or religious leader. The Sparrow movement seems like a reformation movement. But it is taking place from within. The High Sparrow is styling himself as (and maybe actually is) a man of the people. I don't know of any pope or powerful religious leader who did the same in the medieval. Of course, there was St Francis, and many monks and nuns who took on real physical poverty, but combining that with power transforms it. The Sparrow movement looks a bit like the Peasants' Revolt or some other wings of the Radical Reformation. But again, they were outside of the establishment. I wonder if GRRM was going for a resemblance to the Populist Progressives in the early 20th century, who were very religious, concerned for the welfare of the poor, enforcing of traditional sexual morality, social reformers (eg prohibition), and very influential in the election of Woodrow Wilson. Maybe the High Sparrow is a Methodist, rather than a Catholic. For that matter, the Progressive movement as a whole looked similar except for the religious aspect.
I still think that Mel used the leeches like a parlor trick. She saw what was going to happen, then she used the leeches to prove to Stannis that her God's power could control the future
I think this theory is pretty compelling. Except that we haven't seen much sign that Mel is particularly good at seeing the future. (I think there is some room to question whether anyone can.) Even when we have some idea what Mel is seeing in her fires, she jumps to wrong conclusions and reads everything she sees in light of her fixed ideas. Maybe she got it right that one time and saw the deaths of three kings. Or maybe she had spies (Varys?) who let her know the plans that were in the works. Or maybe her blood magic did have some power. None of those theories are particularly compelling for me.
And yes, if Bran was destined to fall, it would have happened anyway, but what if he actually fell before he was meant to.
In-world (or in ours, for that matter) I'm not sure I know what 'destined' means. That some god or fate had a plan for him? That GRRM had decided that Bran must fall and Jamie must lose a hand? And that is really the problem I have with prophecy, in GRRM's world and ours. Human behavior and human institutions do tend to follow a certain number of patterns, so I prophet can watch and describe things in ways that others do not see, and eventually be acknowledged as someone with access to a deeper or higher truth. And if we read prophecy loosely enough, we can see those familiar patterns taking shape and re-assess the parts that don't fit as well to make them fit. But that doesn't mean someone has really gotten a look at the work of the future. When we go to war, there are always people who say that it will lead to terrible suffering. They may be prophets, but they do not seem to have some mystical foreknowledge.
He might have been taught that or learned by demonstration, but I doubt there was a spoken path that explained blood in exchange for forgiveness. That doesn't seem to be how the old gods operate. It's a largely silent form of worship, and there are no written records to guide worship. I think it's more tied to instinct than method, and every House's individual's instinct might be different from another's, or even every House's methods might be different from another's
There definitely doesn't seem to be any fixed text of the old gods. But many of the practices do seem to be very old and enduring. I think the practices are passed from parent to child and endure in that way. The houses vary widely in their practices because they are being passed down different lines. There aren't priests or authorities to tell any house that they need to correct their ways. Oral traditions and practices do evolve, and each house evolves and adapts their practices more-or-less independently of the others. If my great grandfather, needing to frighten his enemies, strung the entrails of a few of their soldiers in a weirwood then had bumper crops the next year, he might have taught the next generation to do the same
I think Robb Stark was skinned. And this would be a different intent than what the Bolton's do to most of their enemies, which we do see; this would be something that is between Stark and Bolton, something that fed the ancient feud between the Red Kings and the Winter Kings.
Perhaps. I am not sure where it would be useful moving forward in the story. The Bolton's are pretty much effed, regardless of whether or not there is a twist regarding Robb's skin.
I don't know jf Hightower are tied to Garth except marriage of Maris to Hightower, maybe Starks themselves are not tied to Garth, except Rose marrying Brandon who wasn't Garth's son.
We are not directly told that House Hightower is descended from Garth, but it's pretty much all laid out. Maris married Uthor of the Hightower (no reason to think they didn't have children because what's the point of her blood if she didn't pass her genes?), and the Hightower itself is also tied to Brandon the Builder, another person who is supposedly Garth's grandson. If this is like the speculation on Storm's End, also built by Brandon the Builder, then it's a connection of these large, mythical and magical places in Westeros, being tied back from the very start, to Garth Greenhand.
Based upon eye color, I would say that The Starks are descendants of the Opal Emperor, the Dayne's and Targ's, the Amethyst Empress, and Garth and Lann, the Jade Emperor. Uthor Hightower, I would say, is descended of the Tourmaline emperor, though the eye color evidence is less tangible. THere is also the Uthor Hightower / Uther Pendragon and arthur Dayne, King Arthur connection which may suggest a direct lineage descent between the Daynes and the Hightowers. House Durandon would trace their GeotD blood from Elenei, which would also be a scion of the Tourmaline emperor. I also wonder whose daughter she was, that of the emperor directly, or a daughter of the Hightwoer.
Certainly the intermarrying would have happened later as you are suggesting, though I would certainly not be sure of specifics there. I am just saying that I think all the main Westerosi royal first men "kingsblood" bloodlines can be traced back to the God-on-earth, save perhaps the ironborn and the vale / Riverlands / Crownlands.
I am the Green Bard I am Irish & French & American I blog about ASOIAF GRRM w/music and art at alivealive0.home.blog
Crying Cockles and Mussels, AliveAlive0 - The song Molly Malone
In SAD, I see some Arthur and some Lancelot. I think we may have discussed the Lancelot aspect in discussions of Lyanna and who got her with child if she was with child.
Yes, and it will make a lot of sense to me if it's Arthur who is the father of her child.
I think they had a bigger notion of God than our culture does. God wasn't just about moral judgment and the afterlife. God was more directly involved in rain and storms and plagues and healing, and certainly in cultural identity. To be cut off from God was a blow to social standing and to odds of survival.
It's interesting how you (in your example) connect God's power to the rain and storms and plagues and healing, because that is another aspect of Christianity that was borrowed or adapted from more ancient religions. I guess the powerful God that the Hebrew's wrote about was also quite capable of these types of actions. All those plagues upon Egypt, for instance. The gods or God himself, is usually tied to he unexplained or powerful, and that has probably never changed in human existence.
Well, he was the guy that threatened an unpleasant afterlife for those who failed to care for the weak and the prisoners and the outcast. That's teaching that can be awkward for any institution that has a prominent role in governance. It's much more practical to put access to God in the hands of the wise and good than in the hands of the poor and despised.
It's certainly easier to let people in power hold the reigns of religion, since they are already in power, and they don't want to let that power slip into someone elses hand. And power breeds power, whether that is right or not.
I was thinking of Henry II, who had to do public penance. By the day of Henry VIII, reformation was in the air. But Henry VIII worked an amazing trick with a reformation that wasn't a reformation. Making only those changes that were required to wrest power over the church from the hands of Rome. Of course, knocking over that domino did mean that a lot of others were going to fall, but most of the changes in the church (including the divestitures) followed pretty naturally from the decision that the Church in England would no longer follow Rome (and from the resultant power struggles). I've had a hard time placing the High Sparrow as a parallel with any particular pope or religious leader. The Sparrow movement seems like a reformation movement. But it is taking place from within. The High Sparrow is styling himself as (and maybe actually is) a man of the people. I don't know of any pope or powerful religious leader who did the same in the medieval. Of course, there was St Francis, and many monks and nuns who took on real physical poverty, but combining that with power transforms it. The Sparrow movement looks a bit like the Peasants' Revolt or some other wings of the Radical Reformation. But again, they were outside of the establishment. I wonder if GRRM was going for a resemblance to the Populist Progressives in the early 20th century, who were very religious, concerned for the welfare of the poor, enforcing of traditional sexual morality, social reformers (eg prohibition), and very influential in the election of Woodrow Wilson. Maybe the High Sparrow is a Methodist, rather than a Catholic. For that matter, the Progressive movement as a whole looked similar except for the religious aspect.
Henry II did not have to do a public penance, he chose to do that. He was not threatened with excommunication as far as I know, but he was slowly losing his supporters after the murder of Thomas Becket, even his wife and sons had deserted him. The Church was certainly unhappy with him. It was Henry himself who chose the penance option, and in this way, he saved his kingdom. I think he was much more concerned with losing his physical kingship and all that entailed more than the was afraid of losing his connection to God. However, his penance did involve God, or at least the members of the church as part of his penance, and it's said that he felt that God accepted his penance and helped right the problems in his kingdom, such as an invasion from a rival Scottish king.
The High Sparrow is an interesting character, and I am sure his influence does come from several aspects of history. There is certainly some aspects of reformation involved in him and his actions as a concept. We also don't know quite how the High Sparrow's story will end, nor do we know his whole background, so that could also change how we view the influences on the character. I also see a bit of the Knight's Templer in the story of the Swords and Sparrow's, at least the Sword's aspect of the story. The Swords can grow to be powerful in a military sense and they are also quite devout. I think there power and wealth could be a hint at the power and wealth of the Knight's Templer in Europe, which basically was seen as an army of the Church that was established and strong in most every country in Europe, and perhaps could be used as a threat against the reigning monarchy, such as we see with Philip the Fair of France and his eventual destruction of the Knight's Templar in Paris.
I think this theory is pretty compelling. Except that we haven't seen much sign that Mel is particularly good at seeing the future. (I think there is some room to question whether anyone can.) Even when we have some idea what Mel is seeing in her fires, she jumps to wrong conclusions and reads everything she sees in light of her fixed ideas. Maybe she got it right that one time and saw the deaths of three kings. Or maybe she had spies (Varys?) who let her know the plans that were in the works. Or maybe her blood magic did have some power. None of those theories are particularly compelling for me.
Well, she certainly see's something. She saw a man in Renly's armor beating Stannis on the Blackwater, therefore her plot to kill Renly, which ultimately didn't change what she saw. There is also the vision she says she has of the three Night's Watchmen who are murdered north of the wall and who are returned with their heads on spears and their eyes removed. She must have seen some of that, or orchestrated it herself. She see's something around Jon, skulls and daggers, and he is certainly surrounded by daggers in his last POV chapter. I think she clearly is connected to some time of dream stream, and as to seeing the future, I don't know how it works, but we know things like deja vu happen, which is hard to explain. Science tries to explain this feeling away, but they don't do a very convincing job of it as far as I am concerned. And just because Melisandre's interpretations seem like shite, we can't discount that she see's some things that she feels must be visions of the future. We still have that whole "grey girl on a dying horse" vision to see to it's conclusion. She seems to think it's Arya, and though so far we don't have that happening, it doesn't mean it can't still happen later in the story and it actually will be Arya in grey on a dying horse.
And it's not just Mel that has dreams that could touch on the future. Bran might, the Ghost of High Heart certainly seems to, and Dany and Aeron both seem to have visions of the future enhanced by Shade of the Evening. Some kind of time loop could explain this, or GRRM could just go with "magic" as his explanation. As the God of his story, he can explain it however he wants, or not explain it at all, which is what he will probably do.
In-world (or in ours, for that matter) I'm not sure I know what 'destined' means. That some god or fate had a plan for him? That GRRM had decided that Bran must fall and Jamie must lose a hand? And that is really the problem I have with prophecy, in GRRM's world and ours. Human behavior and human institutions do tend to follow a certain number of patterns, so I prophet can watch and describe things in ways that others do not see, and eventually be acknowledged as someone with access to a deeper or higher truth. And if we read prophecy loosely enough, we can see those familiar patterns taking shape and re-assess the parts that don't fit as well to make them fit. But that doesn't mean someone has really gotten a look at the work of the future.
Well, GRRM is ultimately the great God in his own story. And the universe is much bigger than life on just one planet, we know that in our own existence. Heck, our planet is just one part of our solar system, and our solar system is just a blip in the universe. And that's only the known universe, not even what might lie beyond anything we can imagine.
When we go to war, there are always people who say that it will lead to terrible suffering. They may be prophets, but they do not seem to have some mystical foreknowledge.
Some of this is just knowledge based on the past. Even if you gain something, war always has a cost. People are aware of that, and seem to know that death and suffering are part of war. I think you have to hope that what you gain is ultimately worth what you are willing to lose.
There definitely doesn't seem to be any fixed text of the old gods. But many of the practices do seem to be very old and enduring. I think the practices are passed from parent to child and endure in that way. The houses vary widely in their practices because they are being passed down different lines. There aren't priests or authorities to tell any house that they need to correct their ways. Oral traditions and practices do evolve, and each house evolves and adapts their practices more-or-less independently of the others. If my great grandfather, needing to frighten his enemies, strung the entrails of a few of their soldiers in a weirwood then had bumper crops the next year, he might have taught the next generation to do the same
Practices do continue even if the intent is lost. And those practices will also change with time, just based on human nature. It's just like telling a joke or a story, it always changes subtly, with each telling. This is the trouble with oral traditions. And that seems to be the most of the teachings of the old gods, although there are runes in this story that are tied to the First Men, and I think that interpreting them could be an important look into the history of Westeros. But if a lauguange is lost, interpretation is difficult. Unless you find a Rosetta Stone, and then you still have to hope that your interpretations are correct.
Speaking of traditions and knowledge, this reminds me of an old story that was told to me years ago. The story goes like this, A girl was learning to cook from her mother, and they were making a roast or a ham, whatever. The mother showed the daughter that you need to cut one end off of the roast off and dispose of that before cooking the rest of the roast. The daughter asked why they did this, and the mother stated that she didn't know the answer, but that is what her mother had taught her. Perhaps this end of the roast that was disposed of was meant to be a sacrifice or offering, the daughter wondered and the mother did not know. The daughter asked many friend if they did this, and not one of them cut off the end of the roast before cooking it, or knew of anyone who did. So, the young woman and mother decided to ask the grandmother why they did this with a roast before cooking it, and the grandmother told them that her roaster pot was too small for most roasts to fit in, so she always trimmed an end to get it to fit, and that there was no more reason than that. So, all this time, the mother had repeated her mother's actions, without knowing what the intent or meaning was, and it turns out that it was only based on the size of the pan, not something that made any roast improve on cooking.
I will also tell you, this story, among many, was told to me by a lady who also told me that if you butcher a pig at the wrong time of the moon, it will make your bacon curl. Oh, she was an old cook I worked with and she was full of great stories! She came from an old Norwegian family north of town, and was probably 40 years older than me. Gosh, she was fun! She also like to take her dentures out when she drank beer because she said the beer tasted better than way. Sometimes she left her teeth just sitting out on the bar for all the world to see. She was a character, for certain!
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
Perhaps. I am not sure where it would be useful moving forward in the story. The Bolton's are pretty much effed, regardless of whether or not there is a twist regarding Robb's skin.
Well, the Bolton's have managed to survive for thousands of years being the enemy of the Stark's, and they still hold their castle and their house exists. I would not count Roose out, yet. And even if we never get that twist with Robb's skin, I don't know why we wouldn't at least wonder if Roose took Robb's skin as a prize, in the way that we know Bolton's have done to Stark's in the past. It's mentioned time and time again in stories. And Roose is a creepy fooker, all that pale skin and leeches and his cold and frightening pale eyes. I am not counting him out at all, and even if things don't look great for the Bolton's, I think Roose's actions have brought the "old gods" back to the forefront in the story, and that might have been his intention all the while. I don't think he ever planned to hold Winterfell, and he isn't trying to make himself king, so his motivation is something else. He is setting Ramsay up for a fall!
Based upon eye color, I would say that The Starks are descendants of the Opal Emperor, the Dayne's and Targ's, the Amethyst Empress, and Garth and Lann, the Jade Emperor. Uthor Hightower, I would say, is descended of the Tourmaline emperor, though the eye color evidence is less tangible. THere is also the Uthor Hightower / Uther Pendragon and arthur Dayne, King Arthur connection which may suggest a direct lineage descent between the Daynes and the Hightowers. House Durandon would trace their GeotD blood from Elenei, which would also be a scion of the Tourmaline emperor. I also wonder whose daughter she was, that of the emperor directly, or a daughter of the Hightwoer.
I know people who connect the Stark's to the Pearl Emperor, and that makes more sense to me. Pearls are mentioned in this story, and Arya has connections with the Black Pearl in Braavos. A black pearl isn't truly black, it's grey. Grey like the eyes of the Starks. There seems to be a distinction between the Pearl Emperor and the pearl-white emperor's, so it make sense to me that the Pearl Emperor isn't associated with a white pearl. As to opal's, they come in many color's, and are often associated with fire in this story. One major opal in the story is on the cup that Mace gives to Joff on his wedding, and on that cup, the opal is associated with the sun of House Martell, which makes me think it's certainly not grey, but probably bright and sparking with many colors.
At this point, any of our theories have some things that favor them and some things that don't, and we can't all be expected to see the same things. I am not entirely sure it's connected just to eye color. After all, what color is tourmaline? It's usually blackish but can be almost any color of the rainbow, and it often is bi- or tri-colored. When looking at the Opal Emperor, I do think it's important to realize that both the Amethyst Empress and the Blood-Stone Emperor both follow and come from the Opal Emperor, but I think it's important that the Pearl Emperor came long before any of these others. And the Stark's have been around in Westeros for a long, long time.
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
It's interesting how you (in your example) connect God's power to the rain and storms and plagues and healing, because that is another aspect of Christianity that was borrowed or adapted from more ancient religions. I guess the powerful God that the Hebrew's wrote about was also quite capable of these types of actions. All those plagues upon Egypt, for instance. The gods or God himself, is usually tied to he unexplained or powerful, and that has probably never changed in human existence.
I was intrigued by the radical theologians of the 1960's who spoke of the God of the Gaps. In effect, God (or the gods) was responsible for everything we cannot explain. But the progress of science has caused those gaps to shrink. The ancient gods were responsible for weather, plague, stars, because there was no other explanation. Now we don't so much look to God for those explanations. Enlightenment thinkers who deferred to God, considered God to be the creator of the universe and the judge of the end of time. That is a much reduced God. As science explained origins, the God of the Gaps further shrank.
Henry II did not have to do a public penance, he chose to do that. He was not threatened with excommunication as far as I know, but he was slowly losing his supporters after the murder of Thomas Becket, even his wife and sons had deserted him. The Church was certainly unhappy with him. It was Henry himself who chose the penance option, and in this way, he saved his kingdom. I think he was much more concerned with losing his physical kingship and all that entailed more than the was afraid of losing his connection to God. However, his penance did involve God, or at least the members of the church as part of his penance, and it's said that he felt that God accepted his penance and helped right the problems in his kingdom, such as an invasion from a rival Scottish king.
Henry II was no forced to do penance by the church (at least overtly) but circumstances forced it on him. Perhaps he could have found another way to recover his ebbing power, but that one worked for him. But his story tells of a very complex relationship between church and king.
The High Sparrow is an interesting character, and I am sure his influence does come from several aspects of history.
He causes me to think of reformers like Savonarola, who decried greed and corruption, destroyed secular art, and spoke for the position and rights of the poor. And there are many other church reformers who have aspects of the High Sparrow. But it is different when he is in power. There are also resemblances to a Che Guevarra or Fidel Castro, who were culturally very conservative, who ruthlessly rooted out corruption, and who spoke for the position of the poor, and who (at least for a time) lived disciplined and austere lives. There were similar characters in roughly the same time period (who lacked the austerity but had somewhat similar politics) like Huey Long or William Jennings Bryan. But I'm still looking for someone who had power in the church but the same reformist politics and austere life -- I'm thinking there was a pope but can't quite get there
Yes, Mel definitely has visions and they show her things that she couldn't see through normal means. She is bad at interpreting them. But I'm not sure they are the future. Daggers around Jon described his position at the time, with people plotting around him. Mel saw BR and Bran (I think). I think most of the visions people see are of event that have already happened or are currently happening. The vision of Renly's armor defeating Stannis may prove me wrong in this, but even there, it didn't give her useful information because she didn't know how to interpret it. Or maybe foreknowledge doesn't give useful information to someone who wants to change it because the future is fixed?
And it's not just Mel that has dreams that could touch on the future. Bran might, the Ghost of High Heart certainly seems to, and Dany and Aeron both seem to have visions of the future enhanced by Shade of the Evening.
Most of the visions that have enough specificity to point to a particular event are usually of past or current events, the Red Wedding being the most notable. Most of the visions we think show the future are so vague or subject to interpretation that the foreknowledge claim is dubious. Even if there is some prophecy, I think it is a trap.
I was intrigued by the radical theologians of the 1960's who spoke of the God of the Gaps. In effect, God (or the gods) was responsible for everything we cannot explain. But the progress of science has caused those gaps to shrink. The ancient gods were responsible for weather, plague, stars, because there was no other explanation. Now we don't so much look to God for those explanations. Enlightenment thinkers who deferred to God, considered God to be the creator of the universe and the judge of the end of time. That is a much reduced God. As science explained origins, the God of the Gaps further shrank.
I do see this perspective, but our universe is so vast, it almost defines explanation, scientific or theological, no matter what we learn. But perhaps GRRM is using some of this in his story, with the knowledge and scientific perspective of the maesters and the Citadel, versus the religions of the world. Although GRRM seems to be using "magic" in his story as a way to circumvent all of these possible arguments. All he has to say is, "it's magic, because I said so..." and in a way, magic is a very God-like power!
Henry II was no forced to do penance by the church (at least overtly) but circumstances forced it on him. Perhaps he could have found another way to recover his ebbing power, but that one worked for him. But his story tells of a very complex relationship between church and king.
I guess inspiration would be an important part of Henry II's actions and I haven't dived that deep. Was he personally inspired to do this, did he have council that said this would be a good thing to do? He did put himself in the power of the men of the church who whipped him? Did he believe God was watching and pleased or did he just want to please the "church", an organization of men in power? How did that all play into the defeat of his rival Scottish king? Yes, it's complex certainly. I would imagine even in the history of the world we have lost, there has almost always been a tug of war between state and religion, and probably always will be, although the world seems to be growing more secular every day.
He causes me to think of reformers like Savonarola, who decried greed and corruption, destroyed secular art, and spoke for the position and rights of the poor. And there are many other church reformers who have aspects of the High Sparrow. But it is different when he is in power. There are also resemblances to a Che Guevarra or Fidel Castro, who were culturally very conservative, who ruthlessly rooted out corruption, and who spoke for the position of the poor, and who (at least for a time) lived disciplined and austere lives. There were similar characters in roughly the same time period (who lacked the austerity but had somewhat similar politics) like Huey Long or William Jennings Bryan. But I'm still looking for someone who had power in the church but the same reformist politics and austere life -- I'm thinking there was a pope but can't quite get there
In the end, the High Sparrow might be seeking power for power itself, and that would change some of the influences we possibly see. As far as reformers that lead revolts, Martin Luther could fit part of this. He was directly a part of the church, a monk and an ordained priest. And he was excommunicated and seen as an outlaw, although he never backed a physical or war-like revolution, he certainly changed Christianity. And he went a head and married a former nun, and she had to sneak out of a convent in the back of a wagon in the middle of the night. Rather reminiscent of people leaving cults. I know Luther doesn't exactly fit the bill of the reformist that you want, but he certainly lies within the church's banner, until he continually spoke against them. But a clear difference is that the High Sparrow so far has gained power "within" the trappings of the Faith (but Luther did in his early career, as well), although we might yet see a great schism coming in the Faith of the Seven. In many ways, the High Sparrow and his followers are as dangerous as what they are trying to change, so your association to Che Guevara is interesting. His revolution was more political than religious, and in the end, he caused a revolution in Cuba and then eventually lost all power of what was happening in that country based on his own visions of the world. His need for "revolution" led him to a different country, more revolution attempts, and eventual execution. He is both loved and hated, and that might be the eventual case for the High Sparrow, as well. As to Savonarola, hopefully the High Sparrow does not met that same fate.
Yes, Mel definitely has visions and they show her things that she couldn't see through normal means. She is bad at interpreting them. But I'm not sure they are the future. Daggers around Jon described his position at the time, with people plotting around him. Mel saw BR and Bran (I think). I think most of the visions people see are of event that have already happened or are currently happening. The vision of Renly's armor defeating Stannis may prove me wrong in this, but even there, it didn't give her useful information because she didn't know how to interpret it. Or maybe foreknowledge doesn't give useful information to someone who wants to change it because the future is fixed?
I see interpretation as separate from the art of having visions. Yes, Mel is poor at interpretation, but that doesn't change the fact that she see's something, and I think it's the future. The whole business with Renly seems to be a hint at that. She saw a man in his armor defeating Stannis in battle long before it ever happened. The Ghost of High Heart also seems to see the Red Wedding and it's blood bath, and she also seem's to see the death of Balon Greyjoy (although it's possible that already happened and she dreamed it in real time) but the GoHH also hints at Sansa's role in the Purple Wedding, which has certainly not occurred. That is why I am thinking these women have some way of peering into the future. Even Maggy the Frog seemed aware that Melara Heatherspoon's death was near at hand.
Mel see's Jon surrounded by enemies, daggers and skulls. That seems pretty specific, and dagger's drawn indicates he is in a vulnerable position which could hint to enemies, but why the skulls? Hinting at death, I suppose, which is how most people interpret that. She also see's him as a man then a wolf then a man again, and while that could be his warging activities, it might also be hints of the future. Of course, we know that interpretation is the place where human fallibility mucks up a good vision! Yet it's human nature to interpret, and it might even be human nature to try to make things happen, or to make things not happen, depending on what your goals would be. A catch 22 of a sort!
Most of the visions that have enough specificity to point to a particular event are usually of past or current events, the Red Wedding being the most notable. Most of the visions we think show the future are so vague or subject to interpretation that the foreknowledge claim is dubious. Even if there is some prophecy, I think it is a trap.
It's hard to say if all of the visions connect to the same episode, but we have the Ghost of High Heart seemingly seeing the Red Wedding, and perhaps Melisandre say it as well. We have Dany's dream quest in the House of the Undying seeing something "red wedding like" a whole book before Robb goes to the Twins, and we also have what is going on with both Theon and Jon's dreams that involve a feast of the dead. These are all slightly different in details but the overall theme is quite similar. Are they all the same, or are these completely different?
And these visions might certainly be a trap, depending on who or what is sending them. There might be some hope from the sender that the incentive of a vision will cause the human to act in way that make the situation even worse than if they had left it alone to start with.
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
All he has to say is, "it's magic, because I said so..." and in a way, magic is a very God-like power!
In world, some magic seems to be attributed to gods, but much is an alternate set of rules or an alternate technology. And the writer is a god of his world in a sense, maybe a deistic watchmaker god, unseen by the characters in that world, but an intervening god nevertheless, so maybe not so deistic. Maybe more of a panentheistic god, inhabiting everything and every action in the world but not clearly apparent in any of it.
I guess inspiration would be an important part of Henry II's actions and I haven't dived that deep. Was he personally inspired to do this, did he have council that said this would be a good thing to do? He did put himself in the power of the men of the church who whipped him? Did he believe God was watching and pleased or did he just want to please the "church", an organization of men in power? How did that all play into the defeat of his rival Scottish king?
I always took his actions as insincere in the sense of wanting to placate God. On his own initiative or with the push of advisors, I think he did his penance because he wanted to preserve his power. Then, when he could say that God was on his side, he took the opportunity to make that claim. But I am definitely not a student of Henry II or of his era. His actions may have been entirely motivated by concern for his standing with God, and I may be reading his actions from the perspective of a 20th century sceptic
In the end, the High Sparrow might be seeking power for power itself, and that would change some of the influences we possibly see.
I usually see the High Sparrow as a true believer. I think his intention is to serve the will of the Seven. But some of his actions do seem to be calculated to serve some political end, and it is possible that it is all a show for the masses.
In many ways, the High Sparrow and his followers are as dangerous as what they are trying to change, so your association to Che Guevara is interesting. His revolution was more political than religious, and in the end, he caused a revolution in Cuba and then eventually lost all power of what was happening in that country based on his own visions of the world. His need for "revolution" led him to a different country, more revolution attempts, and eventual execution. He is both loved and hated, and that might be the eventual case for the High Sparrow, as well.
In a sense, I would describe Che as a religious figure, although it was a godless religion. But he had in common with the High Sparrow, a sympathy for the poor, a powerful charisma, personal asceticism, and a strong streak of sadism.
She also see's him as a man then a wolf then a man again, and while that could be his warging activities, it might also be hints of the future.
For some reason, theories about Jon being resurrected in Ghost haven't captured by imagination. I'm not saying they are wrong. I just haven't been interested enough to pay attention.
Yet it's human nature to interpret, and it might even be human nature to try to make things happen, or to make things not happen, depending on what your goals would be. A catch 22 of a sort!
Optical illusions are simple illustrations of our flawed interpretive nature. Our information is always incomplete, but we fit it into our systems. That's what this board is about So far, GRRM hasn't gotten directly into the destiny trap (as far as I can see) but it's hovering in the background. If Oedipus' parents hadn't known of the prophecy, would he have killed his father and married his mother? or would it have happened by differently? was he destined to do it exactly as he did? In Twelve Monkeys, the protagonists actions are largely irrelevant to the destiny they are trying to prevent, but very relevant to a personal destiny; could anything have been changed?
And these visions might certainly be a trap, depending on who or what is sending them. There might be some hope from the sender that the incentive of a vision will cause the human to act in way that make the situation even worse than if they had left it alone to start with.
In ASOIAF, I think the trap is not so much the trap of a fixed destiny but a trap laid by whoever is sending the visions. Whether they are true foreknowledge or not, I think they are selective and likely deceptively so. In LotR, I was always intrigued by the fate of Denethor. He used a Palantir to spy on Sauron's forces, but Sauron selected what he could see and lead him to a false conclusion that all was without hope. I think we may be getting something similar, with visions that are mostly (or entirely) accurate but leading to false conclusions.
In world, some magic seems to be attributed to gods, but much is an alternate set of rules or an alternate technology. And the writer is a god of his world in a sense, maybe a deistic watchmaker god, unseen by the characters in that world, but an intervening god nevertheless, so maybe not so deistic. Maybe more of a panentheistic god, inhabiting everything and every action in the world but not clearly apparent in any of it.
I believe that GRRM has stated that he wants to leave it up to the reader to determine if there are gods or not in this story. I suppose that ends up coming down to a person's personal believe system but he seems to want to leave that open for his readers to decide. Vague, like most everything else!
I always took his actions as insincere in the sense of wanting to placate God. On his own initiative or with the push of advisors, I think he did his penance because he wanted to preserve his power. Then, when he could say that God was on his side, he took the opportunity to make that claim. But I am definitely not a student of Henry II or of his era. His actions may have been entirely motivated by concern for his standing with God, and I may be reading his actions from the perspective of a 20th century sceptic
We will probably never have these answers about Henry II. It's hard enough to determine motivation in people who we live with in this day and age, let alone someone who has been dead and gone for hundreds of years. I suppose this comes down to a person's own beliefs and experience. As a nurse, I see both the best and worst of people, and I always feel people out to decide if their story fits one way or the other. Most people are a combination of things. You are an attorney, so maybe have a more cynical perspective than someone else might. I would imagine it's a combination of things for Henry II, concern about his state/kingship power, concern about his soul, concern about his legacy with his sons, since they are his heirs and heirs meant everything to a medieval ruler. A person might not really worry about the church's influence on your life, but physically allowing yourself to be beaten after having walked miles barefoot is certainly showing supplication. A hit to his kingly pride, I would think, no matter his intention. I cannot imagine that every king is capable of this kind of supplication, even if it's not sincere.
I usually see the High Sparrow as a true believer. I think his intention is to serve the will of the Seven. But some of his actions do seem to be calculated to serve some political end, and it is possible that it is all a show for the masses.
Maybe he is an example of someone with good intentions who is already being corrupted by the power that he has gained? I think there is a bit of darkness to him, although I love how he turns the table on Cersei!
For some reason, theories about Jon being resurrected in Ghost haven't captured by imagination. I'm not saying they are wrong. I just haven't been interested enough to pay attention.
I am not really triggered by those idea's either. I personally am still on the "Jon ain't dead" train, and I will be until something, like a new book, proves this one way or another. If you are not dead, you don't need to be raised from the dead. And the man to wolf to man vision of Mel's could just indicate Jon's warg ability. I know that many people connect Ghost's name to something in Jon's future, but it might also be about his entire being. The "ghost" of the mother he has never known is my gut instinct, but it could also be the "ghost" of a father or father figure. Ghost could also be a play on what lives in the weirnet, which is kind of how I see the Ghost of High Heart's role.
I do think Jon could perhaps end up in some kind of coma, much like Bran did, and need to rely on the spirit of his warg animal to maintain him, but that would not hit at being a ghost. If those suspicions about Bran being physically in a coma while his psyche was inside of Summer is correct, then Summer's name has nothing to do with that experience. It is something different. And that would mean that Ghost's name has a different meaning as well.
Optical illusions are simple illustrations of our flawed interpretive nature. Our information is always incomplete, but we fit it into our systems. That's what this board is about So far, GRRM hasn't gotten directly into the destiny trap (as far as I can see) but it's hovering in the background. If Oedipus' parents hadn't known of the prophecy, would he have killed his father and married his mother? or would it have happened by differently? was he destined to do it exactly as he did? In Twelve Monkeys, the protagonists actions are largely irrelevant to the destiny they are trying to prevent, but very relevant to a personal destiny; could anything have been changed?
Yes, GRRM is certainly toying with the idea of self-fulfilling prophecy. He does it with Mel and he does it with Cersei. Even to some extent, he does it with Catelyn, who predicts that the direwolf with the stag antler in it provides a hint of a future falling out with houses Stark and Baratheon, and then she pretty much fooks up several things, until this happens, even though she is truly messing with House Lannister with her actions towards Tyrion. Yet Tyrion is a member of the royal family based on his sister's marriage to the king, a stag king. And when Cat is faced with the incest rumors about Jaime and Cersei in the second book, after she has already mucked up Robert and Ned's lives, it's only then that she see's that the Baratheon's were never the enemy, just the weapon used against the Starks.
In ASOIAF, I think the trap is not so much the trap of a fixed destiny but a trap laid by whoever is sending the visions. Whether they are true foreknowledge or not, I think they are selective and likely deceptively so. In LotR, I was always intrigued by the fate of Denethor. He used a Palantir to spy on Sauron's forces, but Sauron selected what he could see and lead him to a false conclusion that all was without hope. I think we may be getting something similar, with visions that are mostly (or entirely) accurate but leading to false conclusions.
Well, this is certainly possible, and would also be an homage to LotR. I wonder if Euron is trying to skirt this possibility by trying to see more and more visions, even using his brother to see visions, because he is trying to confirm something about the future. As if he doesn't trust, so he wants more and more and more information. But if someone is controlling what people are allowed to see, then none of it matters anyway, because you get what you get and what you get is what someone wants you to get!
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
You are an attorney, so maybe have a more cynical perspective than someone else might.
I'm not cynical because I'm an attorney. I'm an attorney because I'm cynical and, as a young man, enjoyed the notion of Machiavellian(ish) manipulation. But I have seen the very caring side of some people who have done terrible things and have seen people who seemed beyond any human goodness turn into decent people. But my cynicism has grown with respect to the corrosive effects of power, seeing very well-meaning people cause great harm by trying to control things that were beyond their control.
A person might not really worry about the church's influence on your life, but physically allowing yourself to be beaten after having walked miles barefoot is certainly showing supplication. A hit to his kingly pride, I would think, no matter his intention. I cannot imagine that every king is capable of this kind of supplication, even if it's not sincere.
That's a really good point. A person with a strong will can endure a lot of pain and discomfort, but to bear that level of humiliation does seem to reflect a depth of character
Maybe he is an example of someone with good intentions who is already being corrupted by the power that he has gained? I think there is a bit of darkness to him, although I love how he turns the table on Cersei!
Oh, I definitely think there is darkness there. True believers, meaning to do great good, can bring terrible destruction. And even those who bring great healing still trample some flowers along the way
I am not really triggered by those idea's either. I personally am still on the "Jon ain't dead" train, and I will be until something, like a new book, proves this one way or another.
We may never get an answer to that. Was Davos resurrected? Was Dany? I say 'yes' to Davos and 'no' to Dany, but it's really not answerable in either case and maybe not an important question in either case.
I do think Jon could perhaps end up in some kind of coma, much like Bran did, and need to rely on the spirit of his warg animal to maintain him, but that would not hit at being a ghost.
If he is in a coma and his consciousness is active elsewhere, that seems ghostly to me. I thought the shadowbaby could be described as a ghost of Stannis (although I don't think anyone ever used that word to describe it)
Well, this is certainly possible, and would also be an homage to LotR. I wonder if Euron is trying to skirt this possibility by trying to see more and more visions, even using his brother to see visions, because he is trying to confirm something about the future. As if he doesn't trust, so he wants more and more and more information. But if someone is controlling what people are allowed to see, then none of it matters anyway, because you get what you get and what you get is what someone wants you to get!
I wonder if, in trying to gain power and control, Euron is putting himself in the power and control of someone else. He keeps trying to get more visions, but, if those visions are controlled by a single source, he may be putting himself deeper into the trap. Forcing visions on his brother, I have wondered if he is controlling those visions, but it may be a way of checking whether the visions remain the same. He could be forcing Aeron to check his observations, in effect.