Bran I, Trudging through the Snow
Ben
Dragons_
Since we didn’t have any takers for this, admittedly brief and not
terribly interesting chapter, I’ll take it to move things along
This is the first Bran Chapter.
This is the first chapter not originally posted online at GRRM's site
(not including the Prologue), so the first one with all original
content.
We open with Bran silently whining “Are we there yet” while riding in
a wicker basket on Hodor’s back. He thinks that the trip from
Winterfell to the Wall was made more interesting by talking and
telling tales, but north of the Wall it’s just silent misery. He
reminds us who Coldhands is and that he rides an elk, and we are also
reminded that they are travelling with Meera and Jojen Reed, the
latter of which seems to have lost all the vitality he had in the
previous books. Meera is trying to shelter him from the cold, but he
clearly is suffering. Summer , Bran’s direwolf, is limping along still
nursing the arrow wound he received at Queenscrown.
Bran has been spending more time in Summer’s skin than his own, with
occasional ventures into Hodor as well. This is a bit disturbing, as
it obviously pains Hodor which doesn’t seem to bother Bran anymore.
The boy seems to be developing some of the callousness that Varamyr
Sixskins had in spades.
Coldhands communes with the ravens and reports that they are being
followed by men who are their enemies. He states he will deal with
them, directing the Reeds and Bran/Hodor to hole up in a fishing
village near a frozen lake nearby. Meera seems displeased, but Jojen
tells her to let him go and she obeys. Meera then objects to Coldhands
after he leaves, stating that he is taking them in circles and that
they don’t know who he is or what he is. He doesn’t eat or drink or
appear to feel the cold, his hands are black and he doesn’t show his
face. Bran notes that he did save them from the wights, but secretly
notes to himself that Old Nan mentioned monsters beyond the Wall, and
this might just be one.
They travel through the bitter cold but can’t find the village until
Bran possesses Summer, who can smell an old fire. The village is
buried in the snow, empty and abandoned, but it at least serves as
shelter. They smash some acorns into paste for dinner, but the weak
and starving Jojen will not eat them, preferring his dreams, which are
all he has. He points out that he will not die yet because it isn’t
time.
Bran possesses Summer while he hunts, but all he finds are wolves,
Varamyr’s pack from the prologue, an old male with one blind eye, a
younger male, and a she-wolf chewing on a leg with a boot still on it.
The remains they are eating appear to be Varamyr’s “friend” Thistle
and some Night’s Watchmen. Though Summer is twice his size, the old
wolf recognizes him as a warg and they fight until Summer subdues him,
taking over the pack as his own. He sets to eating the dead men as
well.
Bran returns to his body to find meat cooking. Coldhands apparently
has found a sow and Meera is cooking it. Coldhands has dealt with the
threat, which Bran assumes are the men he found, Night’s watch, which
he accuses Coldhands and his ravens of killing. He asks for an
explanation of the black hands, which the ranger responds are the
result when the heart stops beating, the blood collects in the
extremities and the rest of the body turns white.
Bran accuses him of being a monster and a dead thing, neither of which
the ranger denies, though he will not reveal his face. Meera asks him
who the three-eyed crow is, which Coldhands replies “the last
greenseer”. Bran again calls him a monster, to which the ranger
disturbingly replies “Yours” and the raven agrees. Jojen finally makes
the call that they must follow Bran’s monster as they will never
survive a return to the Wall.
=========
The chapter does give us an idea what has been going on with Bran
during the last book and since Stannis relieved the siege of the Wall.
Overall I wasn’t terribly enthused about it, particularly as they just
trudged through the snow and didn’t really resolve anything about
Coldhands or anything else, yet.
The wolves eating entrails and the condition of the corpses are
somewhat gruesome as the wolves are actively dining on them.
No sex at all, but even HBO isn’t going to find anything titillating
in the Bran chapters for a while.
No laughs either, a completely humorless piece of the story.
Questions from the chapter: Is Coldhands Benjen Stark? I will be
surprised if he is not, since the mystery of who he is seems an
important one. Maybe he is another Targaryen heir?
Did Coldhands kill the Night’s Watch that the wolves were eating? It
seems so, but this scene seems a little disjointed to me. He didn’t
kill Thistle, did he? Am I missing something with this?
Hopefully we can get another volunteer for the next Tyrion. Vree?
Ben
John Vreeland
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>This is a Chapter of the Week for George R. R. Martin's, _A Dance With
>Dragons_
>
>Since we didn’t have any takers for this, admittedly brief and not
>terribly interesting chapter, I’ll take it to move things along
>
>This is the first Bran Chapter.
>
>This is the first chapter not originally posted online at GRRM's site
>(not including the Prologue), so the first one with all original
>content.
>
>We open with Bran silently whining “Are we there yet” while riding in
>a wicker basket on Hodor’s back. He thinks that the trip from
>Winterfell to the Wall was made more interesting by talking and
>telling tales, but north of the Wall it’s just silent misery. He
>reminds us who Coldhands is and that he rides an elk, and we are also
>reminded that they are travelling with Meera and Jojen Reed, the
>latter of which seems to have lost all the vitality he had in the
>previous books. Meera is trying to shelter him from the cold, but he
>clearly is suffering. Summer , Bran’s direwolf, is limping along still
>nursing the arrow wound he received at Queenscrown.
Jojen almost seems opressed by his knowledge. Is it that he is
walking towards his death? This seems to be Martin's intimation, but
Jojen has been wrong before. Whenever Martin begins to hint something
you should look for something else.
>Bran has been spending more time in Summer’s skin than his own, with
>occasional ventures into Hodor as well. This is a bit disturbing, as
>it obviously pains Hodor which doesn’t seem to bother Bran anymore.
>The boy seems to be developing some of the callousness that Varamyr
>Sixskins had in spades.
Abomination, as Varamyr's teacher said it. And no one seems to have
noticed that Bran is doing it.
>Coldhands communes with the ravens and reports that they are being
>followed by men who are their enemies. He states he will deal with
>them, directing the Reeds and Bran/Hodor to hole up in a fishing
>village near a frozen lake nearby. Meera seems displeased, but Jojen
>tells her to let him go and she obeys. Meera then objects to Coldhands
>after he leaves, stating that he is taking them in circles and that
>they don’t know who he is or what he is. He doesn’t eat or drink or
>appear to feel the cold, his hands are black and he doesn’t show his
>face. Bran notes that he did save them from the wights, but secretly
>notes to himself that Old Nan mentioned monsters beyond the Wall, and
>this might just be one.
He is obviously a wight himself. My question is to whether he being
controlled like a puppet or somehow remains what he was. And if so,
who was he in life? Bran does nor recognize him so I doubt it is his
uncle.
>They travel through the bitter cold but can’t find the village until
>Bran possesses Summer, who can smell an old fire. The village is
>buried in the snow, empty and abandoned, but it at least serves as
>shelter. They smash some acorns into paste for dinner, but the weak
>and starving Jojen will not eat them, preferring his dreams, which are
>all he has. He points out that he will not die yet because it isn’t
>time.
>Bran possesses Summer while he hunts, but all he finds are wolves,
>Varamyr’s pack from the prologue, an old male with one blind eye, a
>younger male, and a she-wolf chewing on a leg with a boot still on it.
>The remains they are eating appear to be Varamyr’s “friend” Thistle
>and some Night’s Watchmen. Though Summer is twice his size, the old
>wolf recognizes him as a warg and they fight until Summer subdues him,
>taking over the pack as his own. He sets to eating the dead men as
>well.
So the only food available out here is frozen wight. At least the
cold preserves the meat. Varamyr joining Bran's pack is an ominous
development.
>Bran returns to his body to find meat cooking. Coldhands apparently
>has found a sow and Meera is cooking it. Coldhands has dealt with the
>threat, which Bran assumes are the men he found, Night’s watch, which
>he accuses Coldhands and his ravens of killing. He asks for an
>explanation of the black hands, which the ranger responds are the
>result when the heart stops beating, the blood collects in the
>extremities and the rest of the body turns white.
>Bran accuses him of being a monster and a dead thing, neither of which
>the ranger denies, though he will not reveal his face.
They mentioned he was wearing a heavy scarf. Could it be Benjen Stark
underneath? Again Martin hints. It will be harder to hide it in the
dramatization.
>Meera asks him
>who the three-eyed crow is, which Coldhands replies “the last
>greenseer”. Bran again calls him a monster, to which the ranger
>disturbingly replies “Yours” and the raven agrees. Jojen finally makes
>the call that they must follow Bran’s monster as they will never
>survive a return to the Wall.
>=========
>
>The chapter does give us an idea what has been going on with Bran
>during the last book and since Stannis relieved the siege of the Wall.
>Overall I wasn’t terribly enthused about it, particularly as they just
>trudged through the snow and didn’t really resolve anything about
>Coldhands or anything else, yet.
>
>The wolves eating entrails and the condition of the corpses are
>somewhat gruesome as the wolves are actively dining on them.
>
>No sex at all, but even HBO isn’t going to find anything titillating
>in the Bran chapters for a while.
I predict a scene between Meera and a Bran-possessed Hodor in a season
or two. I am completely serious.
>No laughs either, a completely humorless piece of the story.
>
>Questions from the chapter: Is Coldhands Benjen Stark? I will be
>surprised if he is not, since the mystery of who he is seems an
>important one. Maybe he is another Targaryen heir?
Could be. We don't have enough Targaryen heirs lying about: it begs
credibility.
>Did Coldhands kill the Night’s Watch that the wolves were eating? It
>seems so, but this scene seems a little disjointed to me. He didn’t
>kill Thistle, did he? Am I missing something with this?
>Hopefully we can get another volunteer for the next Tyrion. Vree?
No, Varamyr killed Thistle and saw her walking with a company of
wights at the end of the prologue, many of them undoubtedly brothers
of the Night's Watch. There are no living rangers anywhere near here.
Apparently wights are quite edible, if alarmngly mobile. Again, at
least the cold preserves it from decay. I would surely cook mine
before I ate it, though---if I found a wight horse, for example, or a
bear. We have seen those. I suppose there is little need for wight
sows and wight deer.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
Ben
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:48:35 -0700 (PDT), Ben
>
>
> walking towards his death? This seems to be Martin's intimation, but
> Jojen has been wrong before. Whenever Martin begins to hint something
> you should look for something else.
>
left in the tank in the later Bran chapters. I would be surprised if
he is walking around much longer. He might have options in regard to
greenseer, spirit of the forest, etc. But his practical life as a boy
walking about seems to be over.
> >Bran has been spending more time in Summer’s skin than his own, with
> >occasional ventures into Hodor as well. This is a bit disturbing, as
> >it obviously pains Hodor which doesn’t seem to bother Bran anymore.
> >The boy seems to be developing some of the callousness that Varamyr
> >Sixskins had in spades.
>
> Abomination, as Varamyr's teacher said it. And no one seems to have
> noticed that Bran is doing it.
>
And that was what the Wildings considered it. The seemingly more
civilized and honorable Starks would undoubtedly condemn it. It seems
particularly cold-blooded considering that Hodor is feeble-minded and
unable to complain.
>
> He is obviously a wight himself. My question is to whether he being
> controlled like a puppet or somehow remains what he was. And if so,
> who was he in life? Bran does nor recognize him so I doubt it is his
> uncle.
>
But he does point out that he can't see his face and that his skin is
colored strangely. It isn't likely that he would be able to recognize
his uncle and I don't think that Bran has had any opportunity to
recognize anything about him. I'm not saying that it is Benjen, but I
think it certainly could be, based on the fact that Bran specifically
states he cannot tell anything distinguishable about him.
>
> So the only food available out here is frozen wight. At least the
> cold preserves the meat. Varamyr joining Bran's pack is an ominous
> development.
>
Assuming that Varamyr has any meaningful part of himself left. I kind
of got the impression that he would be a shell at best. But it would
be interesting to have some sort of struggle between the two wargs
(not the wolves, which Summer obviously won already) as Varamyr seemed
to be the most skilled of the skinchangers.
> >Bran accuses him of being a monster and a dead thing, neither of which
> >the ranger denies, though he will not reveal his face.
>
> They mentioned he was wearing a heavy scarf. Could it be Benjen Stark
> underneath? Again Martin hints. It will be harder to hide it in the
> dramatization.
>
Not necessarily, if he is heavily cowled. But I do agree that his
voice and mannerisms could be matched up if it is the same actor,
though we didn't see very much of Benjen to make such an observation
in the series.
>
> >=========
>
>
> >No sex at all, but even HBO isn’t going to find anything titillating
> >in the Bran chapters for a while.
>
> I predict a scene between Meera and a Bran-possessed Hodor in a season
> or two. I am completely serious.
>
That's a stretch, but I guess it's possible. Then again if they run
these chapters anything like the book we will have just had our fill
of Dany so they can give us a sex-free episode... Nah maybe not.
> >Questions from the chapter: Is Coldhands Benjen Stark? I will be
> >surprised if he is not, since the mystery of who he is seems an
> >important one. Maybe he is another Targaryen heir?
>
> Could be. We don't have enough Targaryen heirs lying about: it begs
> credibility.
>
It's an answer that we shouldn't have to wait another book to have.
> >Did Coldhands kill the Night’s Watch that the wolves were eating? It
> >seems so, but this scene seems a little disjointed to me. He didn’t
> >kill Thistle, did he? Am I missing something with this?
> >Hopefully we can get another volunteer for the next Tyrion. Vree?
>
> No, Varamyr killed Thistle and saw her walking with a company of
> wights at the end of the prologue, many of them undoubtedly brothers
> of the Night's Watch. There are no living rangers anywhere near here.
>
But Coldhands said they were not wights, they were men, when they
asked who was following them. But Thistle was walking with the wights,
and one of the bodies (the one with the eyes ripped out) was pretty
clearly her. Either I misread this (twice, as I reread it before doing
the CHOW) or there is some sort of disjunction here.
> Apparently wights are quite edible, if alarmngly mobile. Again, at
> least the cold preserves it from decay. I would surely cook mine
> before I ate it, though---if I found a wight horse, for example, or a
> bear. We have seen those. I suppose there is little need for wight
> sows and wight deer.
>
Yeah, Ghost was chewing on a wight hand back at the Wall a book or two
ago, wasn't he? Didn't they have a wight mammoth too? Presumably
whatever they want to animate they can, giving them an awful lot of
troops in their attack on the Wall.
>
Thanks for responding Vree. Glad to see my negativity didn't prevent
it.
Ben
John Vreeland
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Aug 17, 2:09 pm, John Vreeland <john.vreel...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:48:35 -0700 (PDT), Ben
>>
>>
>> Jojen almost seems opressed by his knowledge. Is it that he is
>> walking towards his death? This seems to be Martin's intimation, but
>> Jojen has been wrong before. Whenever Martin begins to hint something
>> you should look for something else.
>>
>I don't want to spoil, but it sure seems that Jojen doesn't have much
>left in the tank in the later Bran chapters. I would be surprised if
>he is walking around much longer. He might have options in regard to
>greenseer, spirit of the forest, etc. But his practical life as a boy
>walking about seems to be over.
Yes, but... in one scene he is physically tired. Why would that be?
He's not eating enough. And why is that? Because he believes he is
about to die. Or so we are meant to assume. I think Martin has
wonderfully telegraphed a blow that might not even be coming. We know
that Jojen has seen his own death--or what he thinks is his own
death--and so we ar emeant to assume that he sees his death fast
approaching, even though he has said nothing of the kind. So there
are possibly two levels of misdirection and subterfuge here: we
anticipate something dreadful for Jojen, and Jojen anticipates
something dreadful.
Or perhaps, given that Jojen has not related his death dream, it is
something very horrible which the others must not know about until it
comes to pass. I think it is ominous that Jojen refers to "Bran's
monster" so matter-of-factly. As if he knows all about the monsters to
come, and it is not the wight walkers which fill him with dread.
>> >Bran has been spending more time in Summer’s skin than his own, with
>> >occasional ventures into Hodor as well. This is a bit disturbing, as
>> >it obviously pains Hodor which doesn’t seem to bother Bran anymore.
>> >The boy seems to be developing some of the callousness that Varamyr
>> >Sixskins had in spades.
>>
>> Abomination, as Varamyr's teacher said it. And no one seems to have
>> noticed that Bran is doing it.
>>
>And that was what the Wildings considered it. The seemingly more
>civilized and honorable Starks would undoubtedly condemn it. It seems
>particularly cold-blooded considering that Hodor is feeble-minded and
>unable to complain.
The kneelers feared and dreaded wargs and skin changers. I am not
sure the analogy is appropriate. Only the wildlings actually have a
code of conduct for them.
Also, to Bran's credit, Hodor seems to be unharmed by the possession.
Bran tries to reassure Hodor when it happens but the giant just seems
to flee from all communication. Also, Hodor is in many ways little
different from an animal. Though he understands simple instructions
his ability to speak is little more sophisticated than a dog's. He
seems to live very much in the present, often forgetting that he is
carrying Bran on his back. Still, some of the imagery used later is
alarming. "Like a whipped dog" is used at one point. This is clearly
a gray area.
>> He is obviously a wight himself. My question is to whether he being
>> controlled like a puppet or somehow remains what he was. And if so,
>> who was he in life? Bran does nor recognize him so I doubt it is his
>> uncle.
>>
>But he does point out that he can't see his face and that his skin is
>colored strangely. It isn't likely that he would be able to recognize
>his uncle and I don't think that Bran has had any opportunity to
>recognize anything about him. I'm not saying that it is Benjen, but I
>think it certainly could be, based on the fact that Bran specifically
>states he cannot tell anything distinguishable about him.
>
>>
>> So the only food available out here is frozen wight. At least the
>> cold preserves the meat. Varamyr joining Bran's pack is an ominous
>> development.
>>
>Assuming that Varamyr has any meaningful part of himself left. I kind
>of got the impression that he would be a shell at best. But it would
>be interesting to have some sort of struggle between the two wargs
>(not the wolves, which Summer obviously won already) as Varamyr seemed
>to be the most skilled of the skinchangers.
I have to assume that this was the reason Varamyr was used. I asked
in the prologue if skin-changers in their second life had any ability
to move to another animal. Varamyr is someone to watch. But Bran is
a greenseer, so I doubt Varamyr will be able to do anything so direct.
More likely Varamyr will have some subtle, corrosive influence on
Bran.
>> >Bran accuses him of being a monster and a dead thing, neither of which
>> >the ranger denies, though he will not reveal his face.
>>
>> They mentioned he was wearing a heavy scarf. Could it be Benjen Stark
>> underneath? Again Martin hints. It will be harder to hide it in the
>> dramatization.
>>
>Not necessarily, if he is heavily cowled. But I do agree that his
>voice and mannerisms could be matched up if it is the same actor,
>though we didn't see very much of Benjen to make such an observation
>in the series.
I would recognize him easily. He had at least one great scene with
Tyrion and Yorren before he went under the Wall. If it _is_ him, they
will probably show that scene in the reviews before he appears.
>> >=========
>>
>>
>> >No sex at all, but even HBO isn’t going to find anything titillating
>> >in the Bran chapters for a while.
>>
>> I predict a scene between Meera and a Bran-possessed Hodor in a season
>> or two. I am completely serious.
>>
>That's a stretch, but I guess it's possible. Then again if they run
>these chapters anything like the book we will have just had our fill
>of Dany so they can give us a sex-free episode... Nah maybe not.
I didn't mean they would actually consummate anything, I was just
about T&A. Depends on the actress for Meera, I suppose.
>> >Questions from the chapter: Is Coldhands Benjen Stark? I will be
>> >surprised if he is not, since the mystery of who he is seems an
>> >important one. Maybe he is another Targaryen heir?
>>
>> Could be. We don't have enough Targaryen heirs lying about: it begs
>> credibility.
>It's an answer that we shouldn't have to wait another book to have.
>
>> >Did Coldhands kill the Night’s Watch that the wolves were eating? It
>> >seems so, but this scene seems a little disjointed to me. He didn’t
>> >kill Thistle, did he? Am I missing something with this?
>> >Hopefully we can get another volunteer for the next Tyrion. Vree?
>>
>> No, Varamyr killed Thistle and saw her walking with a company of
>> wights at the end of the prologue, many of them undoubtedly brothers
>> of the Night's Watch. There are no living rangers anywhere near here.
>>
>But Coldhands said they were not wights, they were men, when they
>asked who was following them. But Thistle was walking with the wights,
>and one of the bodies (the one with the eyes ripped out) was pretty
>clearly her. Either I misread this (twice, as I reread it before doing
>the CHOW) or there is some sort of disjunction here.
Maybe it wasn't Thistle. But who in the Night's Watch is this far
north (and not a wight)? Curious that Benjen Wight insists they are
men, though. And if it is Benjen, and he retains all that he was, why
would he be in such a hurry to murder brothers of the Night's Watch?
>> Apparently wights are quite edible, if alarmngly mobile. Again, at
>> least the cold preserves it from decay. I would surely cook mine
>> before I ate it, though---if I found a wight horse, for example, or a
>> bear. We have seen those. I suppose there is little need for wight
>> sows and wight deer.
>>
>Yeah, Ghost was chewing on a wight hand back at the Wall a book or two
>ago, wasn't he? Didn't they have a wight mammoth too? Presumably
>whatever they want to animate they can, giving them an awful lot of
>troops in their attack on the Wall.
I don't remember a wight mammoth, though I don't see why there
couldn't be any given that they had those enormous cave bears. I
think ghost was just carrying the hand around; I doubt he was hungry
enough to eat it.
>Thanks for responding Vree. Glad to see my negativity didn't prevent
>it.
>
>Ben
Ben
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:03:19 -0700 (PDT), Ben
>
> >On Aug 17, 2:09 pm, John Vreeland <john.vreel...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:48:35 -0700 (PDT), Ben
>
>
> >left in the tank in the later Bran chapters. I would be surprised if
> >he is walking around much longer. He might have options in regard to
> >greenseer, spirit of the forest, etc. But his practical life as a boy
> >walking about seems to be over.
>
> Yes, but... in one scene he is physically tired. Why would that be?
> He's not eating enough. And why is that? Because he believes he is
> about to die. Or so we are meant to assume. I think Martin has
> wonderfully telegraphed a blow that might not even be coming. We know
> that Jojen has seen his own death--or what he thinks is his own
> death--and so we ar emeant to assume that he sees his death fast
> approaching, even though he has said nothing of the kind. So there
> are possibly two levels of misdirection and subterfuge here: we
> anticipate something dreadful for Jojen, and Jojen anticipates
> something dreadful.
>
is very much Martin to throw a huge misdirection our way. In this case
I think it is what it is, but I truly hope you are right.
> Or perhaps, given that Jojen has not related his death dream, it is
> something very horrible which the others must not know about until it
> comes to pass. I think it is ominous that Jojen refers to "Bran's
> monster" so matter-of-factly. As if he knows all about the monsters to
> come, and it is not the wight walkers which fill him with dread.
>
I think and hope this is quite likely. Jojen should stick around long
enough to give us some more cryptic remarks for us to ponder. But it
is undoubtedly true that there is some horror to come in the realm of
the Little Northern men.
>
> >And that was what the Wildings considered it. The seemingly more
> >civilized and honorable Starks would undoubtedly condemn it. It seems
> >particularly cold-blooded considering that Hodor is feeble-minded and
> >unable to complain.
>
> The kneelers feared and dreaded wargs and skin changers. I am not
> sure the analogy is appropriate. Only the wildlings actually have a
> code of conduct for them.
>
Sure, because they are the only ones to accept that they really exist
as other than fairy tales. But surely the Starks have had to deal with
them before, and based on how they deal with everything, my guess is
that they deal with them harshly.
> Also, to Bran's credit, Hodor seems to be unharmed by the possession.
> Bran tries to reassure Hodor when it happens but the giant just seems
> to flee from all communication. Also, Hodor is in many ways little
> different from an animal. Though he understands simple instructions
> his ability to speak is little more sophisticated than a dog's. He
> seems to live very much in the present, often forgetting that he is
> carrying Bran on his back. Still, some of the imagery used later is
> alarming. "Like a whipped dog" is used at one point. This is clearly
> a gray area.
>
I think given the context of the previous Varamyr chapter we can
safely assume that what Bran is doing to Hodor is at the very least
morally questionable. That Hodor cannot effectively communicate his
own suffering makes it all the worse. His retardation does not make
him any less a man.
>
>
> >Assuming that Varamyr has any meaningful part of himself left. I kind
> >of got the impression that he would be a shell at best. But it would
> >be interesting to have some sort of struggle between the two wargs
> >(not the wolves, which Summer obviously won already) as Varamyr seemed
> >to be the most skilled of the skinchangers.
>
> I have to assume that this was the reason Varamyr was used. I asked
> in the prologue if skin-changers in their second life had any ability
> to move to another animal. Varamyr is someone to watch. But Bran is
> a greenseer, so I doubt Varamyr will be able to do anything so direct.
> More likely Varamyr will have some subtle, corrosive influence on
> Bran.
>
Interesting thought, and it certainly would work. We have already seen
a bit of dark side in Bran, and to be pushed down that road might not
take too much effort, and certainly would please what is left of
Varamyr.
>
> >Not necessarily, if he is heavily cowled. But I do agree that his
> >voice and mannerisms could be matched up if it is the same actor,
> >though we didn't see very much of Benjen to make such an observation
> >in the series.
>
> I would recognize him easily. He had at least one great scene with
> Tyrion and Yorren before he went under the Wall. If it _is_ him, they
> will probably show that scene in the reviews before he appears.
>
They could muffle his voice quite a bit and change his movements, but
I do agree that visually making him indiscernable would be much more
difficult than doing it textually.
>
> >That's a stretch, but I guess it's possible. Then again if they run
> >these chapters anything like the book we will have just had our fill
> >of Dany so they can give us a sex-free episode... Nah maybe not.
>
> I didn't mean they would actually consummate anything, I was just
> about T&A. Depends on the actress for Meera, I suppose.
>
My guess is that she will be fey, but sexily so. They even made Osha
curiously attractive. HBO has a gift for that.
>
> >> No, Varamyr killed Thistle and saw her walking with a company of
> >> wights at the end of the prologue, many of them undoubtedly brothers
> >> of the Night's Watch. There are no living rangers anywhere near here.
>
> >But Coldhands said they were not wights, they were men, when they
> >asked who was following them. But Thistle was walking with the wights,
> >and one of the bodies (the one with the eyes ripped out) was pretty
> >clearly her. Either I misread this (twice, as I reread it before doing
> >the CHOW) or there is some sort of disjunction here.
>
> Maybe it wasn't Thistle. But who in the Night's Watch is this far
> north (and not a wight)? Curious that Benjen Wight insists they are
> men, though. And if it is Benjen, and he retains all that he was, why
> would he be in such a hurry to murder brothers of the Night's Watch?
>
He certainly doesn't retain all that he was, no matter who he was. But
it would seem to be difficult to believe he would want to take out
Night's Watch. Given every other context other than Coldhands direct
statement, it would seem that these were wights.
>
> >Yeah, Ghost was chewing on a wight hand back at the Wall a book or two
> >ago, wasn't he? Didn't they have a wight mammoth too? Presumably
> >whatever they want to animate they can, giving them an awful lot of
> >troops in their attack on the Wall.
>
> I don't remember a wight mammoth, though I don't see why there
> couldn't be any given that they had those enormous cave bears. I
> think ghost was just carrying the hand around; I doubt he was hungry
> enough to eat it.
>
True, he hasn't had any problems with food so far. It was the wight
cave bears I remembered, not the mammoth. But I do remember a hand
wriggling about by itself, don't remember which chapter or even which
book.
Ben
Taemon
> The kneelers feared and dreaded wargs and skin changers.
Why do you call them kneelers? I always thought that was an unfair labeling
technique.
> Also, to Bran's credit, Hodor seems to be unharmed by the possession.
> Bran tries to reassure Hodor when it happens but the giant just seems
> to flee from all communication. Also, Hodor is in many ways little
> different from an animal.
I wonder why the animals don't seem to mind being possessed. I don't see why
that would be less unpleasant to them than to a human. Bran can make Summer
do things. I'm not sure why Summer lets him.
> Though he understands simple instructions
> his ability to speak is little more sophisticated than a dog's.
Rather less, even.
>>> He is obviously a wight himself. My question is to whether he being
>>> controlled like a puppet or somehow remains what he was. And if so,
>>> who was he in life? Bran does nor recognize him so I doubt it is his
>>> uncle.
It's a delicious mystery. Why is he sentient?
T.
Ben
> John Vreeland wrote:
> > The kneelers feared and dreaded wargs and skin changers.
>
> Why do you call them kneelers? I always thought that was an unfair labeling
> technique.
>
Southerners are required to kneel, even the proud Starks. This is a
fairly pivotal difference between the two cultures.
> > Also, to Bran's credit, Hodor seems to be unharmed by the possession.
> > Bran tries to reassure Hodor when it happens but the giant just seems
> > to flee from all communication. Also, Hodor is in many ways little
> > different from an animal.
>
> I wonder why the animals don't seem to mind being possessed. I don't see why
> that would be less unpleasant to them than to a human. Bran can make Summer
> do things. I'm not sure why Summer lets him.
>
I wondered this as well. Animals have stronger senses of self-
preservation than humans do (just watch an episode of Jackass and my
point is proven) so you would assume they would put up a fight. In the
case of the direwolves it certainly seems they are/were so close to
the Stark children (possibly excepting Lady because Sansa is retarded)
that they would do anything for them. Also that they seem to have been
sent by the Old Gods to protect them, if possession is part of that
then so be it.
I am not sure that the other animals don't resist being possessed, but
perhaps their mental ability to do so is insufficient to the task. It
certainly seems that the less mental faculty the easier the control,
witness Hodor
> > Though he understands simple instructions
> > his ability to speak is little more sophisticated than a dog's.
>
> Rather less, even.
>
Well, excepting that dogs can't talk... at all.
> >>> He is obviously a wight himself. My question is to whether he being
> >>> controlled like a puppet or somehow remains what he was. And if so,
> >>> who was he in life? Bran does nor recognize him so I doubt it is his
> >>> uncle.
>
> It's a delicious mystery. Why is he sentient?
>
And if he is, are their others? Are ALL the wights sentient? The
zombies no, clearly, but their masters? They certainly seem to have
some sort of malicious intelligence beyond simply "destroy everything
alive" Perhaps they are not all universally dedicated to taking over
the world? It would be a fascinating twist if some other Others
retained some part of their former lives, wills, etc.
Ben
Taemon
> On Aug 19, 3:06 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> John Vreeland wrote:
>>> The kneelers feared and dreaded wargs and skin changers.
>> Why do you call them kneelers? I always thought that was an unfair
>> labeling technique.
> Because the Wildlings kneel to no man, not even Mance Ryder. The
> Southerners are required to kneel, even the proud Starks. This is a
> fairly pivotal difference between the two cultures.
Yes, but the Wildlings starve, and get eaten by wights. We don't call them
"The starvers that get eaten by wights". I don't think the kneeling bit is
the most interesting part about Southerners. We could call them "the
organised", or something.
>> I wonder why the animals don't seem to mind being possessed. I don't
>> see why that would be less unpleasant to them than to a human. Bran
>> can make Summer do things. I'm not sure why Summer lets him.
> I wondered this as well. Animals have stronger senses of self-
> preservation than humans do (just watch an episode of Jackass and my
> point is proven) so you would assume they would put up a fight.
I don't agree... but that discussion is not in any way relevant :-)
> In the case of the direwolves it certainly seems they are/were so close to
> the Stark children (possibly excepting Lady because Sansa is retarded)
True, Lady was in bad luck.
> that they would do anything for them. Also that they seem to have been
> sent by the Old Gods to protect them, if possession is part of that
> then so be it.
> I am not sure that the other animals don't resist being possessed, but
> perhaps their mental ability to do so is insufficient to the task. It
> certainly seems that the less mental faculty the easier the control,
> witness Hodor
Further in the book... can we do that, "further in the book"? I don't know
the mores of this group, and its CHOW. So. Further on there's a rather
strange scene with Bran and a raven. Maybe we should wait until we get
there?
>>> Though he understands simple instructions
>>> his ability to speak is little more sophisticated than a dog's.
>> Rather less, even.
> Well, excepting that dogs can't talk... at all.
Not in words, but neither does Hodor. He has only one, and that one
nonsensical. Dogs are rather more able to communicate than Hodor, wouldn't
you say?
>> It's a delicious mystery. Why is he sentient?
> And if he is, are their others? Are ALL the wights sentient? The
> zombies no, clearly, but their masters?
And why do some dead turn into zombies and some into wights?
T.
John Vreeland
>Ben wrote:
>
>> On Aug 19, 3:06 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>> John Vreeland wrote:
>>>> The kneelers feared and dreaded wargs and skin changers.
>>> Why do you call them kneelers? I always thought that was an unfair
>>> labeling technique.
>> Because the Wildlings kneel to no man, not even Mance Ryder. The
>> Southerners are required to kneel, even the proud Starks. This is a
>> fairly pivotal difference between the two cultures.
>
>Yes, but the Wildlings starve, and get eaten by wights. We don't call them
>"The starvers that get eaten by wights". I don't think the kneeling bit is
>the most interesting part about Southerners. We could call them "the
>organised", or something.
Most groups get named by their enemies. Wildlings call them kneelers.
No other term is used in the book. I used it because it was obviously
convenient. This is how groups get named. Use it enough and people
even forget what it literally means.
My mother is half Welsh. Welsh is an Old English word that means
"aliens" or "others."
>>> I wonder why the animals don't seem to mind being possessed. I don't
>>> see why that would be less unpleasant to them than to a human. Bran
>>> can make Summer do things. I'm not sure why Summer lets him.
>> I wondered this as well. Animals have stronger senses of self-
>> preservation than humans do (just watch an episode of Jackass and my
>> point is proven) so you would assume they would put up a fight.
>
>I don't agree... but that discussion is not in any way relevant :-)
Most easy possessions seem to be of animals which have already been
taken, but this is not always so. The dire wolves did not fight, and I
have the suspicion that some individual animals will not fight when
the right chemistry is there. Arya seems to do it in one case later
on in this book.
>> In the case of the direwolves it certainly seems they are/were so close to
>> the Stark children (possibly excepting Lady because Sansa is retarded)
>
>True, Lady was in bad luck.
>
>> that they would do anything for them. Also that they seem to have been
>> sent by the Old Gods to protect them, if possession is part of that
>> then so be it.
>
>> I am not sure that the other animals don't resist being possessed, but
>> perhaps their mental ability to do so is insufficient to the task. It
>> certainly seems that the less mental faculty the easier the control,
>> witness Hodor
>
>Further in the book... can we do that, "further in the book"? I don't know
>the mores of this group, and its CHOW. So. Further on there's a rather
>strange scene with Bran and a raven. Maybe we should wait until we get
>there?
Usually I will just mention that a later example exists. For we will
get there.
>>>> Though he understands simple instructions
>>>> his ability to speak is little more sophisticated than a dog's.
>>> Rather less, even.
>> Well, excepting that dogs can't talk... at all.
>
>Not in words, but neither does Hodor. He has only one, and that one
>nonsensical. Dogs are rather more able to communicate than Hodor, wouldn't
>you say?
What if Hodor just said "okay" all the time?
>>> It's a delicious mystery. Why is he sentient?
>> And if he is, are their others? Are ALL the wights sentient? The
>> zombies no, clearly, but their masters?
>
>And why do some dead turn into zombies and some into wights?
"Wight" in this context means "creature" though it originally meant
"human being." I am going to avoid it because it sounds too much like
"white" in "white walker" and will use the term "Other" for the things
that seem to be in command. The Others themselves do not seem to come
from dead bodies, though there is speculation that they come from the
bodies of living children, as from Craster's sons. Certainly infants
would make poor walkers.
--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.
Taemon
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:43:24 +0200, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> Ben wrote:
>>> On Aug 19, 3:06 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>> John Vreeland wrote:
>>>>> The kneelers feared and dreaded wargs and skin changers.
>>>> Why do you call them kneelers? I always thought that was an unfair
>>>> labeling technique.
>>> Because the Wildlings kneel to no man, not even Mance Ryder. The
>>> Southerners are required to kneel, even the proud Starks. This is a
>>> fairly pivotal difference between the two cultures.
>> Yes, but the Wildlings starve, and get eaten by wights. We don't
>> call them "The starvers that get eaten by wights". I don't think the
>> kneeling bit is the most interesting part about Southerners. We
>> could call them "the organised", or something.
> Most groups get named by their enemies. Wildlings call them kneelers.
> No other term is used in the book.
Well, you just called them "Southerners" ;-)
> I used it because it was obviously
> convenient. This is how groups get named. Use it enough and people
> even forget what it literally means.
Are we Wildlings, to call all the Westerosi kneelers? And everyone in the
rest of the world, at that? Don't forget, it's the Wildlings who are the big
losers here.
>>>> I wonder why the animals don't seem to mind being possessed. I
>>>> don't see why that would be less unpleasant to them than to a
>>>> human. Bran can make Summer do things. I'm not sure why Summer
>>>> lets him.
>>> I wondered this as well. Animals have stronger senses of self-
>>> preservation than humans do (just watch an episode of Jackass and my
>>> point is proven) so you would assume they would put up a fight.
>> I don't agree... but that discussion is not in any way relevant :-)
> Most easy possessions seem to be of animals which have already been
> taken, but this is not always so. The dire wolves did not fight, and I
> have the suspicion that some individual animals will not fight when
> the right chemistry is there. Arya seems to do it in one case later
> on in this book.
The direwolves of the Stark children are a special case. Hodor seems to have
resigned himself to it, too. Learned helplessness, I guess. But the part I
was disagreeing with was about the self-preservation - mainly because I
don't really see a difference between humans and other animals. But I'm not
sure if Martin does. One wonders if there are skinchanging animals.
>> Further in the book... can we do that, "further in the book"? I
>> don't know the mores of this group, and its CHOW. So. Further on
>> there's a rather strange scene with Bran and a raven. Maybe we
>> should wait until we get there?
> Usually I will just mention that a later example exists. For we will
> get there.
Okay.
>>>>> Though he understands simple instructions
>>>>> his ability to speak is little more sophisticated than a dog's.
>>>> Rather less, even.
>>> Well, excepting that dogs can't talk... at all.
>> Not in words, but neither does Hodor. He has only one, and that one
>> nonsensical. Dogs are rather more able to communicate than Hodor,
>> wouldn't you say?
> What if Hodor just said "okay" all the time?
It would be a nonsense word just the same. He may understand words of
others, unlike dogs. But he can't express himself as well.
>>>> It's a delicious mystery. Why is he sentient?
>>> And if he is, are their others? Are ALL the wights sentient? The
>>> zombies no, clearly, but their masters?
>> And why do some dead turn into zombies and some into wights?
> "Wight" in this context means "creature" though it originally meant
> "human being." I am going to avoid it because it sounds too much like
> "white" in "white walker" and will use the term "Other" for the things
> that seem to be in command.
Doesn't the Nightwatch call all of them Others? I'm not sure. I'm trying a
reread of the series (those measly 1000 pages wet the appetite) and I hope
to notice stuff I didn't at the first (or second) reading.
T.
Will in New Haven
You certainly are an _obsessive_ little fuck. Westeros is full of
kneelers and the Wildlings are right to call them that. It is very
possible that _everyone_ is going to lose and largely because the
fucking Night Watch is obsessed with the Wildings as the real enemy.
Now go kneel somewhere.
He doesn't understand commands any better than most dogs. He may or
may not understand casual remarks as well as most dogs but that
doesn't matter. I say most dogs because our Samantha only understands,
only really _hears_ "cookie" and "dinner."
>
> >>>> It's a delicious mystery. Why is he sentient?
> >>> And if he is, are their others? Are ALL the wights sentient? The
> >>> zombies no, clearly, but their masters?
> >> And why do some dead turn into zombies and some into wights?
> > "Wight" in this context means "creature" though it originally meant
> > "human being." I am going to avoid it because it sounds too much like
> > "white" in "white walker" and will use the term "Other" for the things
> > that seem to be in command.
>
> Doesn't the Nightwatch call all of them Others? I'm not sure. I'm trying a
> reread of the series (those measly 1000 pages wet the appetite) and I hope
> to notice stuff I didn't at the first (or second) reading.
The Nighwatch doesn't seem to have a standard nomenclature.
--
Will in New Haven
Penelope Periwinkle
<john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:43:24 +0200, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>>Ben wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 19, 3:06 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>> John Vreeland wrote:
>>>>> The kneelers feared and dreaded wargs and skin changers.
>>>> Why do you call them kneelers? I always thought that was an unfair
>>>> labeling technique.
>>> Because the Wildlings kneel to no man, not even Mance Ryder. The
>>> Southerners are required to kneel, even the proud Starks. This is a
>>> fairly pivotal difference between the two cultures.
>>
>>Yes, but the Wildlings starve, and get eaten by wights. We don't call them
>>"The starvers that get eaten by wights". I don't think the kneeling bit is
>>the most interesting part about Southerners. We could call them "the
>>organised", or something.
>
>Most groups get named by their enemies. Wildlings call them kneelers.
>No other term is used in the book. I used it because it was obviously
>convenient. This is how groups get named. Use it enough and people
>even forget what it literally means.
>
>My mother is half Welsh. Welsh is an Old English word that means
>"aliens" or "others.
Wildlings don't take oaths to a lord, they have no ties that
bind, as it were. They call themselves "The Free Folk". Those
south of the Wall, however, those who do not approve of their way
of living, see them as wild, not free; hence the more derogatory
"Wildlings".
The Westrosi south of the Wall kneel to swear their oaths. they
see themselves as leal lords or sworn men, both honorable labels.
The Free Folk see them as a people who subjugate themselves, who
voluntarily give up their freedom. Hence, they refer to them
derogatorily as "kneelers"
It's all a matter of perspective.
>>>> I wonder why the animals don't seem to mind being possessed. I don't
>>>> see why that would be less unpleasant to them than to a human. Bran
>>>> can make Summer do things. I'm not sure why Summer lets him.
>>> I wondered this as well. Animals have stronger senses of self-
>>> preservation than humans do (just watch an episode of Jackass and my
>>> point is proven) so you would assume they would put up a fight.
>>
>>I don't agree... but that discussion is not in any way relevant :-)
>
>Most easy possessions seem to be of animals which have already been
>taken, but this is not always so. The dire wolves did not fight, and I
>have the suspicion that some individual animals will not fight when
>the right chemistry is there. Arya seems to do it in one case later
>on in this book.
I think possession is the wrong word. It doesn't really describe
what happens with the animals. I train my dog to do lots of
things, and she does most of them happily. She hates baths,
though, and only submits to them because I insist. Our bond is
shaped by both of our personalities, by the time we spend doing
things together, and by our respective abilities.
I think the bond the skinchangers form is similar. Look at Robb
and Grey Wind, look how well they worked together. It seems to me
that John has never fully embraced or exploited that
relationship.
>>> In the case of the direwolves it certainly seems they are/were so close to
>>> the Stark children (possibly excepting Lady because Sansa is retarded)
>>
>>True, Lady was in bad luck.
Nonsense, Lady and Sansa were well bonded. She, like Sansa, was
the best behaved of her siblings. Even Eddard noted how well
named she was. And it was Cersei, Joff, and Robert who saw her
condemned to die, not Sansa. As Sansa tearfully pointed out,
Lady had done nothing wrong, why should she have to die? She was
one more victim of the Lannisters's cruelty and Robert's
weakness.
>>> that they would do anything for them. Also that they seem to have been
>>> sent by the Old Gods to protect them, if possession is part of that
>>> then so be it.
>>
>>> I am not sure that the other animals don't resist being possessed, but
>>> perhaps their mental ability to do so is insufficient to the task. It
>>> certainly seems that the less mental faculty the easier the control,
>>> witness Hodor
Warging into other humans was possible, otherwise it wouldn't be
forbidden or considered an abomination.
>>>>> Though he understands simple instructions
>>>>> his ability to speak is little more sophisticated than a dog's.
>>>> Rather less, even.
>>> Well, excepting that dogs can't talk... at all.
>>
>>Not in words, but neither does Hodor. He has only one, and that one
>>nonsensical. Dogs are rather more able to communicate than Hodor, wouldn't
>>you say?
No, I don't. Even in his limited capacity, Hodor comprehends more
than a dog. When Bran goes into Summer, he doesn't have to push
Summer aside, they...blend. Jojen wanted Bran to take more
control on their trip to the three-eyed crow, but Bran would let
Summer's instincts rule them. He controls Summer better now, but
they still seem to blend. With Hodor, Bran has to push him aside,
and Hodor is aware and frightened.
Penelope
Ben
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:43:24 +0200, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >Ben wrote:
>
> >Yes, but the Wildlings starve, and get eaten by wights. We don't call them
> >"The starvers that get eaten by wights". I don't think the kneeling bit is
> >the most interesting part about Southerners. We could call them "the
> >organised", or something.
>
> Most groups get named by their enemies. Wildlings call them kneelers.
> No other term is used in the book. I used it because it was obviously
> convenient. This is how groups get named. Use it enough and people
> even forget what it literally means.
>
a valid term for them. Perhaps the Wildlings might, but probably not.
It's a fairly simple term and comprehensible at its basic form, unlike
many derogatory terms in our modern world.
> My mother is half Welsh. Welsh is an Old English word that means
> "aliens" or "others."
>
I have always found the tribal differentiation in Britain fascinating.
The Welsh differentiation is particularly interesting. I have a few
English friends and they still see the Welsh as a separate group from
the rest of the "United" Kingdom, and the Welsh apparently are quite
pleased to keep it that way.
>
> >I don't agree... but that discussion is not in any way relevant :-)
>
> Most easy possessions seem to be of animals which have already been
> taken, but this is not always so. The dire wolves did not fight, and I
> have the suspicion that some individual animals will not fight when
> the right chemistry is there. Arya seems to do it in one case later
> on in this book.
>
Agreed completely. It seems that some animals and skinchangers are
quite attuned, while others have a more general ability to inhabit
many types, like Varamyr, and apparently Bran.
>
> >And why do some dead turn into zombies and some into wights?
>
> "Wight" in this context means "creature" though it originally meant
> "human being." I am going to avoid it because it sounds too much like
> "white" in "white walker" and will use the term "Other" for the things
> that seem to be in command. The Others themselves do not seem to come
> from dead bodies, though there is speculation that they come from the
> bodies of living children, as from Craster's sons. Certainly infants
> would make poor walkers.
>
Interesting, I had not read that. It would make sense given their
apparent fascination with Craster's male infants. But we don't have
anything to back that up yet, do we?
Ben
Ben
> "The starvers that get eaten by wights". I don't think the kneeling bit is
> the most interesting part about Southerners. We could call them "the
> organised", or something.
>
were coming from. In fact for the most part we as a group haven't
called them "kneelers" very often at all. I think the original posting
was referencing a vital difference between the two. Kneeling is
certainly a vital difference between the two. In fact we do broadly
call those North of the Wall "Wildlings" because we as readers are
indoctrinated to have the perspective of those South of the Wall. They
certainly don't call themselves that, rather they refer to themselves
as "Free Folk" as referenced in another response.
But the objection to what we as a group call them is an invalid point.
We don't as a group call them anything. In fact there is almost
nothing that more than two members of this group agree about, so the
point is quite moot.
> >> I wonder why the animals don't seem to mind being possessed. I don't
> >> see why that would be less unpleasant to them than to a human. Bran
> >> can make Summer do things. I'm not sure why Summer lets him.
> > I wondered this as well. Animals have stronger senses of self-
> > preservation than humans do (just watch an episode of Jackass and my
> > point is proven) so you would assume they would put up a fight.
>
> I don't agree... but that discussion is not in any way relevant :-)
>
Agreed with the relevance, but nearly no animals are suicidal, and
very few risk their lives for foolish gains. A substantial portion of
humanity does, which was my point.
> > I am not sure that the other animals don't resist being possessed, but
> > perhaps their mental ability to do so is insufficient to the task. It
> > certainly seems that the less mental faculty the easier the control,
> > witness Hodor
>
> Further in the book... can we do that, "further in the book"? I don't know
> the mores of this group, and its CHOW. So. Further on there's a rather
> strange scene with Bran and a raven. Maybe we should wait until we get
> there?
>
As Vree pointed out, we usually just leave the reference open, but
since I do believe that everyone participating in the CHOWs has read
the whole book, it can't hurt much.
> >>> Though he understands simple instructions
> >>> his ability to speak is little more sophisticated than a dog's.
> >> Rather less, even.
> > Well, excepting that dogs can't talk... at all.
>
> Not in words, but neither does Hodor. He has only one, and that one
> nonsensical. Dogs are rather more able to communicate than Hodor, wouldn't
> you say?
>
No, I would not. Hodor can agree with something or disagree with it.
He is unable to converse in other words but is able to utilize
inflections in the word he does use that those close to him appear to
understand. This seems better than a dog's very basic ability to
communicate its desires or interests. My point, with my dull sense of
humor apparently remaining intact, was that Hodor has the one word.
Dogs have no words at all, thus their ability to speak is certainly
not more sophisticated.
> >> It's a delicious mystery. Why is he sentient?
> > And if he is, are their others? Are ALL the wights sentient? The
> > zombies no, clearly, but their masters?
>
> And why do some dead turn into zombies and some into wights?
>
I don't think that the dead turn into wights as it were. The wights
seem to be the Others properly, as in the sentient beings directing
the action. The dead simply seem to follow very simple instructions.
Coldhands seems to be a unique case, but perhaps there are other
Wights that were once living men. I am not entirely certain that
Coldhands is a wight. He may just be a zombie that somehow or other
has retained sentience.
Ben
Ben
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 6:04 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>
> > Are we Wildlings, to call all the Westerosi kneelers? And everyone in the
> > rest of the world, at that? Don't forget, it's the Wildlings who are the big
> > losers here.
>
> You certainly are an _obsessive_ little fuck. Westeros is full of
> kneelers and the Wildlings are right to call them that. It is very
> possible that _everyone_ is going to lose and largely because the
> fucking Night Watch is obsessed with the Wildings as the real enemy.
> Now go kneel somewhere.
>
retired, but here's a proper welcome from the group. Be glad you got
it so early and hopefully move on. Don't take it personally.
Ben
Ben
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:34:25 -0400, John Vreeland
>
>
> what happens with the animals. I train my dog to do lots of
> things, and she does most of them happily. She hates baths,
> though, and only submits to them because I insist. Our bond is
> shaped by both of our personalities, by the time we spend doing
> things together, and by our respective abilities.
>
> I think the bond the skinchangers form is similar. Look at Robb
> and Grey Wind, look how well they worked together. It seems to me
> that John has never fully embraced or exploited that
> relationship.
>
inhabited Grey Wind like Bran does with Summer, or even like Jon has
with Ghost. I think that actually inhabiting the body of another
creature is different than having an emotional bond that any loving
pet owner can create. It seems that Bran particularly, and certainly
Varamyr, went beyond this into actual possession, as they could
control the actions of the creatures they inhabited. Jon has
definitely not done that, but that would seem to be more accurately
"possession".
> >>> In the case of the direwolves it certainly seems they are/were so close to
> >>> the Stark children (possibly excepting Lady because Sansa is retarded)
>
> >>True, Lady was in bad luck.
>
> Nonsense, Lady and Sansa were well bonded. She, like Sansa, was
> the best behaved of her siblings. Even Eddard noted how well
> named she was. And it was Cersei, Joff, and Robert who saw her
> condemned to die, not Sansa. As Sansa tearfully pointed out,
> Lady had done nothing wrong, why should she have to die? She was
> one more victim of the Lannisters's cruelty and Robert's
> weakness.
>
I absolutely agree that Lady and Sansa were well bonded. And it is
certainly true that Sansa did not actively cause her death.
Nonetheless her deception regarding Joffrey and Arya cannot be
forgotten, and would have saved Lady's life had she been truthful when
directed by her father and sister to do so. I admit she was in a
difficult situation, but Lady perished because Sansa proved she no
longer deserved her protection by being disloyal to the Starks.
> >>> I am not sure that the other animals don't resist being possessed, but
> >>> perhaps their mental ability to do so is insufficient to the task. It
> >>> certainly seems that the less mental faculty the easier the control,
> >>> witness Hodor
>
> Warging into other humans was possible, otherwise it wouldn't be
> forbidden or considered an abomination.
>
Of course, but it certainly seems easier if the human is mentally
retarded. We won't know that for sure until Bran tries to possess
another human, but we do know that Varamyr couldn't do it with
Thistle, who certainly had a normal Wildling sense of self-
preservation.
>
> >>Not in words, but neither does Hodor. He has only one, and that one
> >>nonsensical. Dogs are rather more able to communicate than Hodor, wouldn't
> >>you say?
>
> No, I don't. Even in his limited capacity, Hodor comprehends more
> than a dog. When Bran goes into Summer, he doesn't have to push
> Summer aside, they...blend. Jojen wanted Bran to take more
> control on their trip to the three-eyed crow, but Bran would let
> Summer's instincts rule them. He controls Summer better now, but
> they still seem to blend. With Hodor, Bran has to push him aside,
> and Hodor is aware and frightened.
>
And thus the very obvious and apparent moral quandry. Summer certainly
seems to have no active objection to being inhabited by Bran, but
Hodor clearly is pained by it and does not like it, but he submits
because he cannot or will not object. The important thing is that
Hodor understands what is happening to him, but cannot communicate to
the others what is being done to him. This to me is mental rape. I am
not saying that Bran understands this fully, but he should understand
on some basic level that it is absolutely wrong, rather than seeming
to get more and more comfortable with it.
Ben
Ben
> John Vreeland wrote:
> > Most groups get named by their enemies. Wildlings call them kneelers.
> > No other term is used in the book.
>
> Well, you just called them "Southerners" ;-)
>
which you would probably like better than the relatively tame
"kneelers". They certainly don't have a name for themselves because
they are so disunited. It is impossible to believe that a Dornishman
and an Iron Islander would agree on any nomenclature fitting both of
them, other than perhaps something really generic like "human".
The point here being beaten to death is that the Wildlings call them
that, and thus it is as appropriate a name as any for the whole lot of
them, and in fact from our outside perspective is quite valid. They
all are require to kneel, thus they are "kneelers".
> > I used it because it was obviously
> > convenient. This is how groups get named. Use it enough and people
> > even forget what it literally means.
>
> Are we Wildlings, to call all the Westerosi kneelers? And everyone in the
> rest of the world, at that? Don't forget, it's the Wildlings who are the big
> losers here.
>
Interesting thing to obsess about. I see you are going to fit in very
well in this group. Note that the "kneelers" are not "everyone in the
rest of the world". The Wildlings probably have no concept of it, but
a significant portion of the world is not Westerosi, and thus the term
does not necessarily apply to them.
> > Most easy possessions seem to be of animals which have already been
> > taken, but this is not always so. The dire wolves did not fight, and I
> > have the suspicion that some individual animals will not fight when
> > the right chemistry is there. Arya seems to do it in one case later
> > on in this book.
>
> The direwolves of the Stark children are a special case. Hodor seems to have
> resigned himself to it, too. Learned helplessness, I guess. But the part I
> was disagreeing with was about the self-preservation - mainly because I
> don't really see a difference between humans and other animals. But I'm not
> sure if Martin does. One wonders if there are skinchanging animals.
>
Almost certainly not. See my earlier post about the differences in
self-preservation. The point is that humans take risks with their
lives, for noble causes or for stupid ones. Animals will very rarely
sacrifice themselves for any reason.
> > "Wight" in this context means "creature" though it originally meant
> > "human being." I am going to avoid it because it sounds too much like
> > "white" in "white walker" and will use the term "Other" for the things
> > that seem to be in command.
>
> Doesn't the Nightwatch call all of them Others? I'm not sure. I'm trying a
> reread of the series (those measly 1000 pages wet the appetite) and I hope
> to notice stuff I didn't at the first (or second) reading.
>
I think that the Nightwatch is the only group that does differentiate,
calling them "wights", "white walkers", etc. But all of this
terminology doesn't seem to have survived intact into the modern
Westerosi world due to the Long Summer, and the last real Other attack
being so long ago (1000 years? something like that). But I do believe
that the distinction for the Others is that they are sentient. I do
not believe that the zombies are Others, just their monsters.
Ben
Will in New Haven
And "kneelers" is convenient because it refers to _all_ Westerosi
south of the Wall. And, because the Wildlings don't seem to much care
about anyone across the seas, it refers to no one else. Even the term
"southerner" might be used by someone from the North to refer to,
well, southerners, so it isn't as precise.
It is also good _because_ it is derogatory. The Seven Kingdoms have
arranged their affairs, even their incstuous ones, in such a way that
tragedy is almost inevitable. I mean, it will be staved off, but it
SEEMS inevitable.
> >>>> I wonder why the animals don't seem to mind being possessed. I don't
> >>>> see why that would be less unpleasant to them than to a human. Bran
> >>>> can make Summer do things. I'm not sure why Summer lets him.
> >>> I wondered this as well. Animals have stronger senses of self-
> >>> preservation than humans do (just watch an episode of Jackass and my
> >>> point is proven) so you would assume they would put up a fight.
>
> >>I don't agree... but that discussion is not in any way relevant :-)
>
> >Most easy possessions seem to be of animals which have already been
> >taken, but this is not always so. The dire wolves did not fight, and I
> >have the suspicion that some individual animals will not fight when
> >the right chemistry is there. Arya seems to do it in one case later
> >on in this book.
>
> I think possession is the wrong word. It doesn't really describe
> what happens with the animals. I train my dog to do lots of
> things, and she does most of them happily. She hates baths,
> though, and only submits to them because I insist. Our bond is
> shaped by both of our personalities, by the time we spend doing
> things together, and by our respective abilities.
> I think the bond the skinchangers form is similar. Look at Robb
> and Grey Wind, look how well they worked together. It seems to me
> that John has never fully embraced or exploited that
> relationship.
I think you are wrong in equating possession, which is the right word,
with the more ordinary human-dog bond. That shape-changer in the
prologue was controlling animals that no one could control without
something supernatural going on. The move to an animal after one dies
may be a very common thing south of the Mason-Dixon line but up here
it doesn't happen, or at least we don't admit it.
> >>> In the case of the direwolves it certainly seems they are/were so close to
> >>> the Stark children (possibly excepting Lady because Sansa is retarded)
>
> >>True, Lady was in bad luck.
>
> Nonsense, Lady and Sansa were well bonded. She, like Sansa, was
> the best behaved of her siblings. Even Eddard noted how well
> named she was. And it was Cersei, Joff, and Robert who saw her
> condemned to die, not Sansa. As Sansa tearfully pointed out,
> Lady had done nothing wrong, why should she have to die? She was
> one more victim of the Lannisters's cruelty and Robert's
> weakness.
Lady's personality may well have been shaped by Sansa's nature. Sansa,
at her best, is conciliatory and tries to see the good in people.
Since there are almost no good people, this proves to be a weakness.
To say that Lady was unlucky doesn't seem to be much of a stretch.
> >>> that they would do anything for them. Also that they seem to have been
> >>> sent by the Old Gods to protect them, if possession is part of that
> >>> then so be it.
>
> >>> I am not sure that the other animals don't resist being possessed, but
> >>> perhaps their mental ability to do so is insufficient to the task. It
> >>> certainly seems that the less mental faculty the easier the control,
> >>> witness Hodor
>
> Warging into other humans was possible, otherwise it wouldn't be
> forbidden or considered an abomination.
That is certainly true. As the Marquis de Sade pointed out, ear-
fucking is never forbidden because it cannot be _done_
--
Will in New Haven
> >>>>> Though he understands simple instructions
John Vreeland
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Aug 20, 3:04 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> John Vreeland wrote:
>> > Most groups get named by their enemies. Wildlings call them kneelers.
>> > No other term is used in the book.
>>
>> Well, you just called them "Southerners" ;-)
No, as that would intuitively exclude Northmen, who are all kneelers.
A mother may fight so closely to the death that it becomes
indistinguishable from sacrifice, but yes, a mother animal will not
consciously decide to commit suicide for her offspring. It is an
interesting distinction.
>> > "Wight" in this context means "creature" though it originally meant
>> > "human being." I am going to avoid it because it sounds too much like
>> > "white" in "white walker" and will use the term "Other" for the things
>> > that seem to be in command.
>>
>> Doesn't the Nightwatch call all of them Others? I'm not sure. I'm trying a
>> reread of the series (those measly 1000 pages wet the appetite) and I hope
>> to notice stuff I didn't at the first (or second) reading.
>>
>I think that the Nightwatch is the only group that does differentiate,
>calling them "wights", "white walkers", etc. But all of this
>terminology doesn't seem to have survived intact into the modern
>Westerosi world due to the Long Summer, and the last real Other attack
>being so long ago (1000 years? something like that). But I do believe
>that the distinction for the Others is that they are sentient. I do
>not believe that the zombies are Others, just their monsters.
>
The Night's Watch had trouble learning the distinction themselves. Sam
was the first to meet (and slay) an Other, recall. I am going to
avoid the use of the word "wight" until it is less ambiguous, and
shall stay with Others and walkers. Actually it was the screenplay
that started using "wight walkers." I don't think the term "Other"
showed up in the first season. Perhaps they are retaining them for a
surprise.
Will in New Haven
Try to keep your attributions straight. Obviously, you aren't
welcoming ME to the group but someone who wasn't paying too much
attention might have taken this wrong. Simply putting whatsisname's
name in your post would have made it clearer.
--
Will in New Haven
"The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants, and
it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a
good conscience"
Albert Camus
John Vreeland
Thought of that, yes, but the control is in only one direction. It is
an abomination to suppress the will and personality of another
sentient being. I think Hodor understand more words than a dog, or
else he would make a terrible stableboy, but much of his personality
never existed. Still, in Hodor's case it is clearly a form of
possession, as Hodor is completely deprived of the use of his own
body.
>>>> In the case of the direwolves it certainly seems they are/were so close to
>>>> the Stark children (possibly excepting Lady because Sansa is retarded)
>>>
>>>True, Lady was in bad luck.
>
>
>Nonsense, Lady and Sansa were well bonded. She, like Sansa, was
>the best behaved of her siblings. Even Eddard noted how well
>named she was. And it was Cersei, Joff, and Robert who saw her
>condemned to die, not Sansa. As Sansa tearfully pointed out,
>Lady had done nothing wrong, why should she have to die? She was
>one more victim of the Lannisters's cruelty and Robert's
>weakness.
>>>> that they would do anything for them. Also that they seem to have been
>>>> sent by the Old Gods to protect them, if possession is part of that
>>>> then so be it.
So it seems. Animals make no plans and have no aspirations. They
live completely in the "now". Borrowing their bodies for a moment or
two seems to deprive them of nothing. Perhaps as far as they are
concerned nothing unusual has happened. The remember lessons learned:
"fire hurts," but they don't share anecdotes about it. That is what
language is for and Hodor is notably deficient. As I said once before
Hodor seems to live only in the "now" as well. Once the possession is
over he does not fret over it. He might be frightened when it happens
but he does not avoid Bran.
>>>> I am not sure that the other animals don't resist being possessed, but
>>>> perhaps their mental ability to do so is insufficient to the task. It
>>>> certainly seems that the less mental faculty the easier the control,
>>>> witness Hodor
>
>Warging into other humans was possible, otherwise it wouldn't be
>forbidden or considered an abomination.
I recently had an argument with someone who claimed that atheists did
not exist in ancient times and even referenced an ancient law
criminalizing atheism to make her point. I directed her to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, a legal code for US Military members
which we were all taught in Boot Camp, which criminalizes most
foreplay between married servicemembers and anyone else, including
their spouses.
>>>>>> Though he understands simple instructions
>>>>>> his ability to speak is little more sophisticated than a dog's.
>>>>> Rather less, even.
>>>> Well, excepting that dogs can't talk... at all.
>>>
>>>Not in words, but neither does Hodor. He has only one, and that one
>>>nonsensical. Dogs are rather more able to communicate than Hodor, wouldn't
>>>you say?
>
>No, I don't. Even in his limited capacity, Hodor comprehends more
>than a dog. When Bran goes into Summer, he doesn't have to push
>Summer aside, they...blend. Jojen wanted Bran to take more
>control on their trip to the three-eyed crow, but Bran would let
>Summer's instincts rule them. He controls Summer better now, but
>they still seem to blend. With Hodor, Bran has to push him aside,
>and Hodor is aware and frightened.
John Vreeland
No, and on second thought Craster was giving them sheep at the end, as
we can assume they had begun coming back for offerings more often. I
don't think sheep would make a good Other. At least human babies
could be assumed to have souls or something that might prove useful to
such creatures.
John Vreeland
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Aug 19, 9:43 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> Ben wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but the Wildlings starve, and get eaten by wights. We don't call them
>> "The starvers that get eaten by wights". I don't think the kneeling bit is
>> the most interesting part about Southerners. We could call them "the
>> organised", or something.
>>
>The point here is that the perspective of the Wildlings is where we
>were coming from. In fact for the most part we as a group haven't
>called them "kneelers" very often at all. I think the original posting
>was referencing a vital difference between the two. Kneeling is
>certainly a vital difference between the two. In fact we do broadly
>call those North of the Wall "Wildlings" because we as readers are
>indoctrinated to have the perspective of those South of the Wall. They
>certainly don't call themselves that, rather they refer to themselves
>as "Free Folk" as referenced in another response.
>
>But the objection to what we as a group call them is an invalid point.
>We don't as a group call them anything. In fact there is almost
>nothing that more than two members of this group agree about, so the
>point is quite moot.
I could be really annoying and point out that the Thenns are
technically "kneelers" of a sort and not "free folk" in the way they
mean it, but with regard to the other wildlings they play live and let
live, so there. Also saying "the peoples who have traditionally lived
south of the Wall" is cumbersome.
>> >> I wonder why the animals don't seem to mind being possessed. I don't
>> >> see why that would be less unpleasant to them than to a human. Bran
>> >> can make Summer do things. I'm not sure why Summer lets him.
>> > I wondered this as well. Animals have stronger senses of self-
>> > preservation than humans do (just watch an episode of Jackass and my
>> > point is proven) so you would assume they would put up a fight.
>>
>> I don't agree... but that discussion is not in any way relevant :-)
>>
>Agreed with the relevance, but nearly no animals are suicidal, and
>very few risk their lives for foolish gains. A substantial portion of
>humanity does, which was my point.
[snip]
>No, I would not. Hodor can agree with something or disagree with it.
>He is unable to converse in other words but is able to utilize
>inflections in the word he does use that those close to him appear to
>understand. This seems better than a dog's very basic ability to
>communicate its desires or interests. My point, with my dull sense of
>humor apparently remaining intact, was that Hodor has the one word.
>Dogs have no words at all, thus their ability to speak is certainly
>not more sophisticated.
When I read the book I imagined him without inflections, just saying
"hodor" the way a dog would bark. But in the screenplay they give him
inflections.
>> >> It's a delicious mystery. Why is he sentient?
>> > And if he is, are their others? Are ALL the wights sentient? The
>> > zombies no, clearly, but their masters?
>>
>> And why do some dead turn into zombies and some into wights?
>>
>I don't think that the dead turn into wights as it were. The wights
>seem to be the Others properly, as in the sentient beings directing
>the action. The dead simply seem to follow very simple instructions.
>Coldhands seems to be a unique case, but perhaps there are other
>Wights that were once living men. I am not entirely certain that
>Coldhands is a wight. He may just be a zombie that somehow or other
>has retained sentience.
And who has made him that way? Was his condition intentional? Or did
he break free of the control that raised him?
Ben
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 6:05 am, Ben <frodolives11...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Ah, you didn't get the Chucky Welcome Dance, which apparently he has
> > retired, but here's a proper welcome from the group. Be glad you got
> > it so early and hopefully move on. Don't take it personally.
>
> Try to keep your attributions straight. Obviously, you aren't
> welcoming ME to the group but someone who wasn't paying too much
> attention might have taken this wrong. Simply putting whatsisname's
> name in your post would have made it clearer.
>
YOUR (Will's) welcome to our new member, Taemon, in the manner which
all new members are welcomed at one point or another.
Ben
Ben
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 02:43:57 -0700 (PDT), Ben
>
>
> technically "kneelers" of a sort and not "free folk" in the way they
> mean it, but with regard to the other wildlings they play live and let
> live, so there. Also saying "the peoples who have traditionally lived
> south of the Wall" is cumbersome.
>
south of the Wall. I guess they are still "free folk" in the sense
that they presumably are allowed to depart for another tribe if they
wish, but we don't have a Magnarr POV yet to tell for sure. I think
"kneelers" as a term of general condemnation for everyone south of the
Wall works just fine.
>
> When I read the book I imagined him without inflections, just saying
> "hodor" the way a dog would bark. But in the screenplay they give him
> inflections.
>
I kind of always got that impression in the text as well. It seems
that Old Nan and several others in Winterfell understand him well
enough.
>
> >I don't think that the dead turn into wights as it were. The wights
> >seem to be the Others properly, as in the sentient beings directing
> >the action. The dead simply seem to follow very simple instructions.
> >Coldhands seems to be a unique case, but perhaps there are other
> >Wights that were once living men. I am not entirely certain that
> >Coldhands is a wight. He may just be a zombie that somehow or other
> >has retained sentience.
>
> And who has made him that way? Was his condition intentional? Or did
> he break free of the control that raised him?
>
That is the question of the moment in this chapter, and yet another
issue not resolved in this book. I would imagine that Coldhands is a
unique creature, and his creation or preservation will be a fairly
important story.
Ben
Ben
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:48:39 -0400, Penelope Periwinkle
>
>
> an abomination to suppress the will and personality of another
> sentient being. I think Hodor understand more words than a dog, or
> else he would make a terrible stableboy, but much of his personality
> never existed. Still, in Hodor's case it is clearly a form of
> possession, as Hodor is completely deprived of the use of his own
> body.
>
with the animals, though we don't have their perspectives to know it
for sure.
>
>
> So it seems. Animals make no plans and have no aspirations. They
> live completely in the "now". Borrowing their bodies for a moment or
> two seems to deprive them of nothing. Perhaps as far as they are
> concerned nothing unusual has happened. The remember lessons learned:
> "fire hurts," but they don't share anecdotes about it. That is what
> language is for and Hodor is notably deficient. As I said once before
> Hodor seems to live only in the "now" as well. Once the possession is
> over he does not fret over it. He might be frightened when it happens
> but he does not avoid Bran.
>
say, a dog. He seems to be aware of what is happening and conceive of
what will happen, judging by his misery regarding the trip and
appearing to anxiously wait for it to be over. But this is inference
at best. He certainly does not seem to have anything close to the
conceptions of a normal man. I would judge something in between an
animal and a man somewhere near the middle.
>
> >Warging into other humans was possible, otherwise it wouldn't be
> >forbidden or considered an abomination.
>
> I recently had an argument with someone who claimed that atheists did
> not exist in ancient times and even referenced an ancient law
> criminalizing atheism to make her point. I directed her to the
> Uniform Code of Military Justice, a legal code for US Military members
> which we were all taught in Boot Camp, which criminalizes most
> foreplay between married servicemembers and anyone else, including
> their spouses.
>
In fact by the very definition of something being outlawed means that
it has happened, does happen, and almost certainly will happen again.
Else why outlaw it? I think it is 100% safe to say that if something
is illegal, it happens.
Ben
Taemon
> Wildlings don't take oaths to a lord, they have no ties that
> bind, as it were. They call themselves "The Free Folk". Those
> south of the Wall, however, those who do not approve of their way
> of living, see them as wild, not free; hence the more derogatory
> "Wildlings".
Hm, you're right, I call them Wildlings too. I never thought of that as
derogatory, but I see your point how it's meant that way.
>>>> In the case of the direwolves it certainly seems they are/were so
>>>> close to the Stark children (possibly excepting Lady because Sansa
>>>> is retarded)
>>> True, Lady was in bad luck.
> Nonsense, Lady and Sansa were well bonded.
Yes, but about Sansa being retarded. Well, she isn't retarderd but she IS
vapid. On the other hand, that isn't her fault, nor Lady's, and I would have
loved to see more from Lady. I was quite shocked when she died. That was the
first sign for me that these books were... different :-)
>>>>>> Though he understands simple instructions
>>>>>> his ability to speak is little more sophisticated than a dog's.
>>>>> Rather less, even.
>>>> Well, excepting that dogs can't talk... at all.
>>> Not in words, but neither does Hodor. He has only one, and that one
>>> nonsensical. Dogs are rather more able to communicate than Hodor,
>>> wouldn't you say?
> No, I don't. Even in his limited capacity, Hodor comprehends more
> than a dog.
I agree, but I meant expression. I'm sure Hodor understood more language
than a dog but a dog can express itself more clearly.
> When Bran goes into Summer, he doesn't have to push
> Summer aside, they...blend. Jojen wanted Bran to take more
> control on their trip to the three-eyed crow, but Bran would let
> Summer's instincts rule them.
Didn't he also simply forget himself?
T.
Taemon
> On Aug 19, 9:43 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> Ben wrote:
>> Yes, but the Wildlings starve, and get eaten by wights. We don't
>> call them "The starvers that get eaten by wights". I don't think the
>> kneeling bit is the most interesting part about Southerners. We
>> could call them "the organised", or something.
> The point here is that the perspective of the Wildlings is where we
> were coming from.
Were we? I thought we (you, I came in later) were discussing the various
people's perspective on wargs. I was just surprised to see an enemy's label
used on a group under discussion.
>>>> I wonder why the animals don't seem to mind being possessed. I
>>>> don't see why that would be less unpleasant to them than to a
>>>> human. Bran can make Summer do things. I'm not sure why Summer
>>>> lets him.
>>> I wondered this as well. Animals have stronger senses of self-
>>> preservation than humans do (just watch an episode of Jackass and my
>>> point is proven) so you would assume they would put up a fight.
>> I don't agree... but that discussion is not in any way relevant :-)
> Agreed with the relevance, but nearly no animals are suicidal, and
> very few risk their lives for foolish gains. A substantial portion of
> humanity does, which was my point.
I disagree. But, as I said, that's because I don't see a distinction between
humans and other animals. Sacrificing yourself for your children or the
group is as common with animals as with us - as for foolish gains, it's
usually the terrain of young males to take stupid risks, one sees that
everywhere :-) Apes. Dolphins. Wolves. Young males are dangerous and
stupid, but sometimes it pays of.
>> Further in the book... can we do that, "further in the book"? I
>> don't know the mores of this group, and its CHOW. So. Further on
>> there's a rather strange scene with Bran and a raven. Maybe we
>> should wait until we get there?
> As Vree pointed out, we usually just leave the reference open, but
> since I do believe that everyone participating in the CHOWs has read
> the whole book, it can't hurt much.
I'll wait.
>>>>> Though he understands simple instructions
>>>>> his ability to speak is little more sophisticated than a dog's.
>>>> Rather less, even.
>>> Well, excepting that dogs can't talk... at all.
>> Not in words, but neither does Hodor. He has only one, and that one
>> nonsensical. Dogs are rather more able to communicate than Hodor,
>> wouldn't you say?
> No, I would not. Hodor can agree with something or disagree with it.
> He is unable to converse in other words but is able to utilize
> inflections in the word he does use that those close to him appear to
> understand. This seems better than a dog's very basic ability to
> communicate its desires or interests. My point, with my dull sense of
> humor apparently remaining intact, was that Hodor has the one word.
> Dogs have no words at all, thus their ability to speak is certainly
> not more sophisticated.
Haw :-) Granted, I meant "communication of intention", not "linguistic
expression".
>>>> It's a delicious mystery. Why is he sentient?
>>> And if he is, are their others? Are ALL the wights sentient? The
>>> zombies no, clearly, but their masters?
>> And why do some dead turn into zombies and some into wights?
> I don't think that the dead turn into wights as it were. The wights
> seem to be the Others properly, as in the sentient beings directing
> the action. The dead simply seem to follow very simple instructions.
Ah, I think you're right.
T.
Taemon
> On Aug 20, 3:04 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> Are we Wildlings, to call all the Westerosi kneelers? And everyone
>> in the rest of the world, at that? Don't forget, it's the Wildlings
>> who are the big losers here.
> Interesting thing to obsess about. I see you are going to fit in very
> well in this group.
It's called "discussing". I am not obsessing. You shouldn't... snrk... you
shouldn't believe... gnni... you shouldn't believe everything you read! Haw
haw haw!
T.
Taemon
> Ah, you didn't get the Chucky Welcome Dance, which apparently he has
> retired, but here's a proper welcome from the group. Be glad you got
> it so early and hopefully move on. Don't take it personally.
Bah, that's okay. Although I admit this one came as a surprise.
T.
Jenny Chase
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:03:19 -0700 (PDT), Ben
>
> <frodolives11...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 17, 2:09 pm, John Vreeland <john.vreel...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:48:35 -0700 (PDT), Ben
>
> >> Jojen almost seems opressed by his knowledge. Is it that he is
> >> walking towards his death? This seems to be Martin's intimation, but
> >> Jojen has been wrong before. Whenever Martin begins to hint something
> >> you should look for something else.
>
> >I don't want to spoil, but it sure seems that Jojen doesn't have much
> >left in the tank in the later Bran chapters. I would be surprised if
> >he is walking around much longer. He might have options in regard to
> >greenseer, spirit of the forest, etc. But his practical life as a boy
> >walking about seems to be over.
>
> Yes, but... in one scene he is physically tired. Why would that be?
> He's not eating enough. And why is that? Because he believes he is
> about to die. Or so we are meant to assume. I think Martin has
> wonderfully telegraphed a blow that might not even be coming. We know
> that Jojen has seen his own death--or what he thinks is his own
> death--and so we ar emeant to assume that he sees his death fast
> approaching, even though he has said nothing of the kind. So there
> are possibly two levels of misdirection and subterfuge here: we
> anticipate something dreadful for Jojen, and Jojen anticipates
> something dreadful.
He's served his purpose from a plot point of view - like the elk they
ate. Nobody seems to expect him to get better, and I honestly expected
a chapter to begin with them burning his body one morning. Maybe
later.
Poor Meera would then be stranded up north with little visible plot
purpose except to tie Bran to humanity.
>
> Or perhaps, given that Jojen has not related his death dream, it is
> something very horrible which the others must not know about until it
> comes to pass. I think it is ominous that Jojen refers to "Bran's
> monster" so matter-of-factly. As if he knows all about the monsters to
> come, and it is not the wight walkers which fill him with dread.
I thought that was just a parallel with Cersei's monster, Daenerys'
monsters, and Tyrion offering to be someone's monster (Dany's, I
think. She has a lot of would-be monsters - I seem to recall Daario
being referred to thus, and Victarion is clearly offering). Roose has
his own monster too, although it would be a bit obvious to refer to
Ramsay thus. This book is setting a lot of people up with their own
monsters; good for the showdown I guess.
>
>
> >> No, Varamyr killed Thistle and saw her walking with a company of
> >> wights at the end of the prologue, many of them undoubtedly brothers
> >> of the Night's Watch. There are no living rangers anywhere near here.
>
> >But Coldhands said they were not wights, they were men, when they
> >asked who was following them. But Thistle was walking with the wights,
> >and one of the bodies (the one with the eyes ripped out) was pretty
> >clearly her. Either I misread this (twice, as I reread it before doing
> >the CHOW) or there is some sort of disjunction here.
>
> Maybe it wasn't Thistle. But who in the Night's Watch is this far
> north (and not a wight)? Curious that Benjen Wight insists they are
> men, though. And if it is Benjen, and he retains all that he was, why
> would he be in such a hurry to murder brothers of the Night's Watch?
There were a bunch of mutineers from the NW left at Craster's Keep,
and un-wighted when we left them. Iirc some of them were later seen as
wights (Small Paul, notably) but could some survivors still be around,
and thus both dressed in NW gear and considered enemies by Coldhands?
Or maybe the children of the forest lot would prefer there wasn't a
big magical wall keeping them penned in the freezing north with the
Others. Coldhands appears to be sentient; this doesn't necessarily
mean he and Mr 3-eyed Crow retain the affiliation they had when they
were alive.
Also, if Coldhands is entirely controlled by the greenseers and/or the
three-eyed crow, it doesn't really matter who he used to be. Although
he appears to have an independent personality, at least he is given to
making extremely alarming statements in a very deadpan way.
-- Jenny
John Vreeland
Small Paul died right next to Sam. They both attacked the same Other.
But is is possible that a few others remained and survived. I just
cannot see them plotting their way out of a paper bag. Then again,
Martin went through some trouble to name and describe all the
mutineers back on the fist, so maybe some of them stayed at Craster's.
I had given the lot up for dead.
>Or maybe the children of the forest lot would prefer there wasn't a
>big magical wall keeping them penned in the freezing north with the
>Others. Coldhands appears to be sentient; this doesn't necessarily
>mean he and Mr 3-eyed Crow retain the affiliation they had when they
>were alive.
The wall protects the children of the forest from the realm of men.
>Also, if Coldhands is entirely controlled by the greenseers and/or the
>three-eyed crow, it doesn't really matter who he used to be. Although
>he appears to have an independent personality, at least he is given to
>making extremely alarming statements in a very deadpan way.
Or he could just be very grim.
One thing I have been wondering about. The dead don't seem to need to
have an Other walk up to them and say the magic words to animate them,
it just happens if it is cold enough and perhaps some other condition
is met. How much control do the Others exert over the walkers? It
seems that they are given simple goals and are then left to pursue
them themselves. Perhaps they seem to have so little free will
because they obviously cannot be trusted to act on their own. Whoever
animated Coldhands knew he could be trusted, and so his will is not
suppressed.
Just a guess.
John Vreeland
I mentioned in another thread that the walkers seem dull-witted
because they cannot be trusted by their masters, and so are mentally
crippled. Coldhands was probalby animated by the greenseer, and since
their goals were similar Coldhands was allowed to retain more of his
former self.
Ben
> On Aug 18, 5:25 pm, John Vreeland <john.vreel...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but... in one scene he is physically tired. Why would that be?
> > He's not eating enough. And why is that? Because he believes he is
> > about to die. Or so we are meant to assume. I think Martin has
> > wonderfully telegraphed a blow that might not even be coming. We know
> > that Jojen has seen his own death--or what he thinks is his own
> > death--and so we ar emeant to assume that he sees his death fast
> > approaching, even though he has said nothing of the kind. So there
> > are possibly two levels of misdirection and subterfuge here: we
> > anticipate something dreadful for Jojen, and Jojen anticipates
> > something dreadful.
>
> He's served his purpose from a plot point of view - like the elk they
> ate. Nobody seems to expect him to get better, and I honestly expected
> a chapter to begin with them burning his body one morning. Maybe
> later.
I am curious as to what is left for him. He knows when he will die,
and seems to indicate that he has a purpose, but I think everybody
assumed that was to get Bran to the greenseers, which he has done. I
don't think he will just die, though. His visions of his death would
indicate that he comes to some sort of end other than a peaceful one.
> Poor Meera would then be stranded up north with little visible plot
> purpose except to tie Bran to humanity.
>
And to draw someone back to her father, who is the only one left who
knows what happened with Lyanna and Rhaegar. I was really hoping we
would get a little bit more along this thread. Though some other
threads rambled on, this plotline actually made solid progress, but we
only got a couple of chapters for them. I assume things will continue
to move on in this plotline in the next book.
>
>
> > Or perhaps, given that Jojen has not related his death dream, it is
> > something very horrible which the others must not know about until it
> > comes to pass. I think it is ominous that Jojen refers to "Bran's
> > monster" so matter-of-factly. As if he knows all about the monsters to
> > come, and it is not the wight walkers which fill him with dread.
>
> I thought that was just a parallel with Cersei's monster, Daenerys'
> monsters, and Tyrion offering to be someone's monster (Dany's, I
> think. She has a lot of would-be monsters - I seem to recall Daario
> being referred to thus, and Victarion is clearly offering). Roose has
> his own monster too, although it would be a bit obvious to refer to
> Ramsay thus. This book is setting a lot of people up with their own
> monsters; good for the showdown I guess.
>
I didn't read the monster reference as deeply as this, and I think
your though may very well have merit. The usage of monsters among
"civilized" folk might actually be just as prevalent as the Others.
>
> > Maybe it wasn't Thistle. But who in the Night's Watch is this far
> > north (and not a wight)? Curious that Benjen Wight insists they are
> > men, though. And if it is Benjen, and he retains all that he was, why
> > would he be in such a hurry to murder brothers of the Night's Watch?
>
> There were a bunch of mutineers from the NW left at Craster's Keep,
> and un-wighted when we left them. Iirc some of them were later seen as
> wights (Small Paul, notably) but could some survivors still be around,
> and thus both dressed in NW gear and considered enemies by Coldhands?
Small Paul was just a zombie, wasn't he? I wasn't thinking about these
guys, thought they had all perished after their mutiny. My issue was
that one of the dead had their eyes ripped out, which seems to
parralel Thistle pretty closely. The more I think about this it seems
that maybe I am reading too deep into Coldhands calling them men, not
Others. They wouldn't necessarily have to be living men. They could be
dead men, from the ranger's view they could have been animated dead
Watch (and others, like Thistle) and still be men, not the Others, who
are a different thing entirely.
> Or maybe the children of the forest lot would prefer there wasn't a
> big magical wall keeping them penned in the freezing north with the
> Others. Coldhands appears to be sentient; this doesn't necessarily
> mean he and Mr 3-eyed Crow retain the affiliation they had when they
> were alive.
I agree with the earlier response that the Children of the Forest were
safer North than they were South of the Wall, where it is pointed out
specifically that men nearly wiped them out. This is another
dysjunction, as the Starks have running things in the North for
thousands of years, stated since when the Children were quite active.
But yet the men in the North wiped the Children out. Were these men
under Stark control? I suppose we can blame Boltons and Karstarks, but
it would seem methodical extermination either would have had to be
condemned or condoned by the Starks. They seem to be on the fence
about this quite a bit.
> Also, if Coldhands is entirely controlled by the greenseers and/or the
> three-eyed crow, it doesn't really matter who he used to be. Although
> he appears to have an independent personality, at least he is given to
> making extremely alarming statements in a very deadpan way.
>
Coldhands does not seem entirely controlled by anybody other than
himself. He certainlyl seems self-willed. He surely is guided by the
greenseer(s?) but doesn't come off as controlled.
Ben
Ben
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 03:50:19 -0700 (PDT), Jenny Chase
>
>
> >and un-wighted when we left them. Iirc some of them were later seen as
> >wights (Small Paul, notably) but could some survivors still be around,
> >and thus both dressed in NW gear and considered enemies by Coldhands?
>
> Small Paul died right next to Sam. They both attacked the same Other.
> But is is possible that a few others remained and survived. I just
> cannot see them plotting their way out of a paper bag. Then again,
> Martin went through some trouble to name and describe all the
> mutineers back on the fist, so maybe some of them stayed at Craster's.
> I had given the lot up for dead.
>
animated. Having zombie characters that we know does make them more
creepy, though I have to admit that this group deserves anything that
happened to them. I do not believe we have seen the last of the
mutineers, though I do believe they will be (un)dead when we do see
them again.
> >Or maybe the children of the forest lot would prefer there wasn't a
> >big magical wall keeping them penned in the freezing north with the
> >Others. Coldhands appears to be sentient; this doesn't necessarily
> >mean he and Mr 3-eyed Crow retain the affiliation they had when they
> >were alive.
>
> The wall protects the children of the forest from the realm of men.
>
Agreed completely, and I certainly think that the Children assisted in
its creation. Which bears thinking about. When the last of them is
gone, will the Wall endure? I can't imagine they planned for this,
being seemingly immortal.
> >Also, if Coldhands is entirely controlled by the greenseers and/or the
> >three-eyed crow, it doesn't really matter who he used to be. Although
> >he appears to have an independent personality, at least he is given to
> >making extremely alarming statements in a very deadpan way.
>
> Or he could just be very grim.
>
He is that, most certainly, whether self-willed or not.
> One thing I have been wondering about. The dead don't seem to need to
> have an Other walk up to them and say the magic words to animate them,
> it just happens if it is cold enough and perhaps some other condition
> is met. How much control do the Others exert over the walkers? It
> seems that they are given simple goals and are then left to pursue
> them themselves. Perhaps they seem to have so little free will
> because they obviously cannot be trusted to act on their own. Whoever
> animated Coldhands knew he could be trusted, and so his will is not
> suppressed.
>
I think they DO need an Other to animate them, else we would have one
helluva lot more zombies wandering around. The mortality rate for the
Wildlings seems quite high and they do not always burn their dead it
appears (based on Mance going through hundreds of graves looking for
the Horn of Winter). I think the Others do animate the dead and then
give them simple instructions, perhaps because they seem to be rather
simple malevolent beings themselves. But we do have the dead Ranger
that sought out the Old Bear, remembering where he was and able to
avoid any guards. Stealth doesn't seem very zombie-like to me. Was he
given more complex instructions or just dumbly lucky? I think the
former is more likely.
I am very interested in your perspective on Coldhands being trusted
and allowed to keep his will. I do not think that the Others have the
ability or desire to do this. Since Coldhands is working against their
purposes (seemingly at least) they do not seem to be the guiding hand
here. It would seem that the greenseers/Children of the Forest have
some of the same abilities as the Others. Interestingly, they do not
seem actively hostile to each other, or else they respect each other
enough to avoid each other.
Ben
John Vreeland
The Children have been here forever, so they have seen the Others
conquer the continent before and have survived. As have the giants.
Perhaps they have seen other conquests by the Others? The last one
occurred during the age of heroes, but seems to have ended at the last
moment for reasons which were never adequately explained. Is it
simply that the weather turned against them? If so then perhaps this
has happened before, ten thousand years before the First Men arrived
in Westeros, and ten thousand before that. The Children have been
here for many tens of thousands of years.
Taemon
> I think they DO need an Other to animate them, else we would have one
> helluva lot more zombies wandering around. The mortality rate for the
> Wildlings seems quite high and they do not always burn their dead it
> appears (based on Mance going through hundreds of graves looking for
> the Horn of Winter).
I don't think so. A Wildling told Jon about his son who one night just died,
and they only noticed when he came shambling at them with black hands and
blue eyes. Maybe, as Vree says, it has to be cold enough. As for
instructions... they mainly seem to shamble around and try to kill the
living. Maybe it's a like a virus that thrives with certain temperatures,
not unlike... greyscale... hm.
Although the one that tried to attack the Old Bear in book one seemed to
have picked his target.
T.
John Vreeland
Recall from the Prologue to book one: Wil waited until all the Others
had left and been gone a good long while before climbing down from the
tree. It wasn't until then that his dead officer seemed to get up.
Also, he didn't notice that the Others had done anything in particular
outside of showing up his swordsmanship.
When Small Paul came back from the dead he seemed even more stupid
than in life. The girl (what's-her'name) said the zombies were
attracted to the infant's rosy glow of life, and for a while the
zombies all just stood around, watching the baby.
So apparently some vague and nebulous force reanimates them
automatically, leaving them to fend for themselves unless they are
given special instructions or possessed, somehow.
They might also be given a general order along the lines of "produce
more zombie candidates." I think that would be a good one.
Perhaps their dullness comes from the general nature of their
reanimation. Perhaps a specific act can produce a better one.
Or maybe Coldhands was possessed by the greenseer.
Chucky & Janica
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>Since we didn’t have any takers for this, admittedly brief and not
>terribly interesting chapter, I’ll take it to move things along
Good stuff.
>Bran possesses Summer while he hunts, but all he finds are wolves,
>Varamyr’s pack from the prologue, an old male with one blind eye, a
>younger male, and a she-wolf chewing on a leg with a boot still on it.
>The remains they are eating appear to be Varamyr’s “friend” Thistle
>and some Night’s Watchmen. Though Summer is twice his size, the old
>wolf recognizes him as a warg and they fight until Summer subdues him,
>taking over the pack as his own. He sets to eating the dead men as
>well.
This bit was kinda funny. Made me chuckle.
>The chapter does give us an idea what has been going on with Bran
>during the last book and since Stannis relieved the siege of the Wall.
>Overall I wasn’t terribly enthused about it, particularly as they just
>trudged through the snow and didn’t really resolve anything about
>Coldhands or anything else, yet.
Got steadily closer, though.
>Questions from the chapter: Is Coldhands Benjen Stark? I will be
>surprised if he is not, since the mystery of who he is seems an
>important one. Maybe he is another Targaryen heir?
Yeah, if he's not Benjen then the Benjen-disappearing plot thread
needs resolution as well as the who-is-Coldhands one. I'm all for the
unexpected plot twist and am against the so-called law of conservation
of characters, but I would be surprised if this wasn't Benjen (or was
him at some point, and is now something else using his body) and am a
bit surprised it hasn't been cleared up before now just to get it out
of the way.
>Did Coldhands kill the Night’s Watch that the wolves were eating? It
>seems so, but this scene seems a little disjointed to me. He didn’t
>kill Thistle, did he? Am I missing something with this?
I was pretty sure Thistle was dying already in the prologue, and it
was Others and wights who killed the rest, whether they were
crow-wights or free-folk-wights. I don't see a problem with Benjen
killing either "good guys" or "bad guys", since he is at this stage
sort of neither, or both, himself.
It does seem a bit of a mess if this was Thistle. Would One-Eye's wolf
pack still be at the same bodies?
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>True, he hasn't had any problems with food so far. It was the wight
>cave bears I remembered, not the mammoth. But I do remember a hand
>wriggling about by itself, don't remember which chapter or even which
>book.
After the first wight attack, they send it south in a jar to show what
they're up against and to call for men. But the hand sort of fell
apart after a bit and everybody just laughed it off. Typically.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
>Are we Wildlings, to call all the Westerosi kneelers? And everyone in the
>rest of the world, at that? Don't forget, it's the Wildlings who are the big
>losers here.
Are we Westerosi, to call the free folk "wildlings"? I think it's just
a convenient way to distinguish the two groups, by what they call each
other. "Wildling" isn't exactly complimentary either.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ah, you didn't get the Chucky Welcome Dance, which apparently he has
>retired, but here's a proper welcome from the group. Be glad you got
>it so early and hopefully move on. Don't take it personally.
I'm not retired! Just hospitalised.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>Yes indeed, didn't see that in context. Of course I was pointing out
>YOUR (Will's) welcome to our new member, Taemon, in the manner which
>all new members are welcomed at one point or another.
I call it the Cantankerous Old Cunt Dance.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:
>The Night's Watch had trouble learning the distinction themselves. Sam
>was the first to meet (and slay) an Other, recall. I am going to
>avoid the use of the word "wight" until it is less ambiguous, and
>shall stay with Others and walkers. Actually it was the screenplay
>that started using "wight walkers." I don't think the term "Other"
>showed up in the first season. Perhaps they are retaining them for a
>surprise.
Hold on, what? Are you sure it was "wight walkers"? I guess you saw
this written down somewhere?
I just assumed that White Walkers were Others. The wights are the
blue-eyed zombies they make of the dead. What's so confusing? I think
if you use the term "walkers" to mean the wights/zombies, that's just
going to make things worse. The Others are the walkers.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
>Nonsense, Lady and Sansa were well bonded. She, like Sansa, was
>the best behaved of her siblings. Even Eddard noted how well
>named she was. And it was Cersei, Joff, and Robert who saw her
>condemned to die, not Sansa. As Sansa tearfully pointed out,
>Lady had done nothing wrong, why should she have to die? She was
>one more victim of the Lannisters's cruelty and Robert's
>weakness.
I still can't believe they allowed that to happen. Why didn't they
kill Joffrey's horse, or one of the sheep in the fodder train? That
had as much to do with anything as Lady.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>I have always found the tribal differentiation in Britain fascinating.
>The Welsh differentiation is particularly interesting. I have a few
>English friends and they still see the Welsh as a separate group from
>the rest of the "United" Kingdom, and the Welsh apparently are quite
>pleased to keep it that way.
I have a British friend who is convinced Wales is a separate country
from the rest of Britain.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>I don't think that the dead turn into wights as it were. The wights
>seem to be the Others properly, as in the sentient beings directing
>the action. The dead simply seem to follow very simple instructions.
This is bizarre. I always assumed the wights were the blue-eyed,
black-handed zombies that the Others, the white walkers, created when
they killed a person.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:
>I mentioned in another thread that the walkers seem dull-witted
>because they cannot be trusted by their masters, and so are mentally
>crippled. Coldhands was probalby animated by the greenseer, and since
>their goals were similar Coldhands was allowed to retain more of his
>former self.
Oooh, good point. Haven't thought much yet on the greenseer abilities,
I've only just read up to the bit where they meet him for the first
time.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>Or maybe the children of the forest lot would prefer there wasn't a
>>big magical wall keeping them penned in the freezing north with the
>>Others. Coldhands appears to be sentient; this doesn't necessarily
>>mean he and Mr 3-eyed Crow retain the affiliation they had when they
>>were alive.
>
>The wall protects the children of the forest from the realm of men.
Explains why the castles are on the south side.
C&J
John Vreeland
I mis-spoke. Er, what'er. in the video it was "white walkers," not
"wight" walkers. The word "wight" has been repurposed by modern
fantasy and so I tend to avoid it. In the middle ages it meant
something very different from a corpse.
John Vreeland
It is, but they established a pattern of very lax immigration rules
and let any Englishman in. Technically, the English and Scots are only
visitors to Great Britain who have overstayed their welcome by
12-1600 years.
John Vreeland
I like this idea because it means everyone is using the same
rules--it's just that the Others are never going to find any humans
they can trust.
It also seems to me that the walkers behave as if they are being
shouted orders by a distant commander who may not even be certain they
are there. Simple commands, like "make more corpses," work well. Also,
"attack the men on the hill."
The case of Jorah Mormont is interesting because there is no way they
could have expected to be able to pull off that attack, so there was
some kind of improvisation.
John Vreeland
This is why I am avoiding that word.
John Vreeland
Not that way, silly. It marks the boundary where it becomes unsafe
for civilized men to live. The CotF might be able to deal with
hunter-gatherer humans, but if there was a real kingdom of men up
there? No, they would be long gone.
John Vreeland
<janica...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:48:35 -0700 (PDT), Ben
><frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Since we didn’t have any takers for this, admittedly brief and not
>>terribly interesting chapter, I’ll take it to move things along
>
>Good stuff.
>
>>Bran possesses Summer while he hunts, but all he finds are wolves,
>>Varamyr’s pack from the prologue, an old male with one blind eye, a
>>younger male, and a she-wolf chewing on a leg with a boot still on it.
>>The remains they are eating appear to be Varamyr’s “friend” Thistle
>>and some Night’s Watchmen. Though Summer is twice his size, the old
>>wolf recognizes him as a warg and they fight until Summer subdues him,
>>taking over the pack as his own. He sets to eating the dead men as
>>well.
>
>This bit was kinda funny. Made me chuckle.
>
>>The chapter does give us an idea what has been going on with Bran
>>during the last book and since Stannis relieved the siege of the Wall.
>>Overall I wasn’t terribly enthused about it, particularly as they just
>>trudged through the snow and didn’t really resolve anything about
>>Coldhands or anything else, yet.
>
>Got steadily closer, though.
When has Martin ever revealed anything in a hurry? It isnt until this
book that he reveals the existence of a character that other major
players have been waiting for since the very beginning.
>>Questions from the chapter: Is Coldhands Benjen Stark? I will be
>>surprised if he is not, since the mystery of who he is seems an
>>important one. Maybe he is another Targaryen heir?
>
>Yeah, if he's not Benjen then the Benjen-disappearing plot thread
>needs resolution as well as the who-is-Coldhands one. I'm all for the
>unexpected plot twist and am against the so-called law of conservation
>of characters, but I would be surprised if this wasn't Benjen (or was
>him at some point, and is now something else using his body) and am a
>bit surprised it hasn't been cleared up before now just to get it out
>of the way.
It may be that Coldhand-being-ex-Benjen is too simplistic. Though I
cannot imagine how.
>>Did Coldhands kill the Night’s Watch that the wolves were eating? It
>>seems so, but this scene seems a little disjointed to me. He didn’t
>>kill Thistle, did he? Am I missing something with this?
>I was pretty sure Thistle was dying already in the prologue, and it
>was Others and wights who killed the rest, whether they were
>crow-wights or free-folk-wights. I don't see a problem with Benjen
>killing either "good guys" or "bad guys", since he is at this stage
>sort of neither, or both, himself.
>
>It does seem a bit of a mess if this was Thistle. Would One-Eye's wolf
>pack still be at the same bodies?
No, they killed what looked like a small family group in the prologue.
And yes, at the enf of the prolog Thistle is a walker. Varamyr sees
her through One-Eye's eye.
I would say their identity was irrelevant except that Coldhands went
out of his way not to identify them.
Ben
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 16:40:06 +0200, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >Ben wrote:
> >Although the one that tried to attack the Old Bear in book one seemed to
> >have picked his target.
>
> Recall from the Prologue to book one: Wil waited until all the Others
> had left and been gone a good long while before climbing down from the
> tree. It wasn't until then that his dead officer seemed to get up.
> Also, he didn't notice that the Others had done anything in particular
> outside of showing up his swordsmanship.
>
But at this point the Others had not revealed themselves. In the HBO
series it seems pretty clear that an Other is directing this action.
Remember that Martin is on set for these so we can presume that in
most cases the series is getting it right from his POV. It is entirely
possible that an Other re-animated this dude and left him there to
deal with the tree-climber (who it is very likely was not as well
hidden as he thought). Or else it just takes a while for them to
reanimate. We had different perspectives on this depending on the
corpse. It seems very unlikely to me that this is just random rising
and causing destruction.
> When Small Paul came back from the dead he seemed even more stupid
> than in life. The girl (what's-her'name) said the zombies were
> attracted to the infant's rosy glow of life, and for a while the
> zombies all just stood around, watching the baby.
>
Well I can't imagine that being killed is great for the brain
activity. I don't think any reanimated dead have shown any real
cleverness. Even the one that attacked the Old Bear was almost
certainly more lucky than clever.
> So apparently some vague and nebulous force reanimates them
> automatically, leaving them to fend for themselves unless they are
> given special instructions or possessed, somehow.
>
Nah, I don't think so. It seems they animate those they choose to.
Either that or just their presence makes the corpses animate, which
they take advantage of (which seems a little strange). It is certainly
true that ALL dead north of the wall do not animate, else there
literally would be hundreds of thousands of zombies roaming about all
the time.
> They might also be given a general order along the lines of "produce
> more zombie candidates." I think that would be a good one.
>
"Kill, kill, kill" seems a simple enough instruction.
> Perhaps their dullness comes from the general nature of their
> reanimation. Perhaps a specific act can produce a better one.
>
> Or maybe Coldhands was possessed by the greenseer.
>
I think Coldhands is unique as was posted by somebody else. Either he
was created differently or he had unique abilities prior to death. Not
sure which.
Ben
Ben
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:48:35 -0700 (PDT), Ben
>
> Yeah, if he's not Benjen then the Benjen-disappearing plot thread
> needs resolution as well as the who-is-Coldhands one. I'm all for the
> unexpected plot twist and am against the so-called law of conservation
> of characters, but I would be surprised if this wasn't Benjen (or was
> him at some point, and is now something else using his body) and am a
> bit surprised it hasn't been cleared up before now just to get it out
> of the way.
>
We could stand for a lot of "clear it up to get it out of the way" at
this point. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
> >Did Coldhands kill the Night’s Watch that the wolves were eating? It
> >seems so, but this scene seems a little disjointed to me. He didn’t
> >kill Thistle, did he? Am I missing something with this?
>
> I was pretty sure Thistle was dying already in the prologue, and it
> was Others and wights who killed the rest, whether they were
> crow-wights or free-folk-wights. I don't see a problem with Benjen
> killing either "good guys" or "bad guys", since he is at this stage
> sort of neither, or both, himself.
>
Sure, I don't have a problem with that. I just wonder where the heck
these guys came from and what were they doing there, if indeed they
were not dead already (which I think we can't be sure of).
> It does seem a bit of a mess if this was Thistle. Would One-Eye's wolf
> pack still be at the same bodies?
>
Not much to eat, maybe this was the only food around?
Ben
Ben
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:48:39 -0400, Penelope Periwinkle
>
type of story, but at this point I thought this surprising and rather
nonsensical. However a lot of shit that happens in life is just that,
so I don't have too much of a problem with it. The fact was that Ned
knew that Robert needed a sacrifice to appease Cersei, and in his
typical narrow-minded focus he didn't place much value on Lady. I
still think in the cosmic scheme of things this led to Ned's death,
contributed to quite pertinently by Sansa.
Ben
Chucky & Janica
<john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>Hold on, what? Are you sure it was "wight walkers"? I guess you saw
>>this written down somewhere?
>>
>>I just assumed that White Walkers were Others. The wights are the
>>blue-eyed zombies they make of the dead. What's so confusing? I think
>>if you use the term "walkers" to mean the wights/zombies, that's just
>>going to make things worse. The Others are the walkers.
>
>I mis-spoke. Er, what'er. in the video it was "white walkers," not
>"wight" walkers. The word "wight" has been repurposed by modern
>fantasy and so I tend to avoid it.
This attitude is not going to help when we're talking about creatures
in a modern fantasy book. It's just going to make everyone confused.
>In the middle ages it meant
>something very different from a corpse.
Sure. And when we get to the Middle Ages, you'll be vindicated.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >Nonsense, Lady and Sansa were well bonded. She, like Sansa, was
>> >the best behaved of her siblings. Even Eddard noted how well
>> >named she was. And it was Cersei, Joff, and Robert who saw her
>> >condemned to die, not Sansa. As Sansa tearfully pointed out,
>> >Lady had done nothing wrong, why should she have to die? She was
>> >one more victim of the Lannisters's cruelty and Robert's
>> >weakness.
>>
>> I still can't believe they allowed that to happen. Why didn't they
>> kill Joffrey's horse, or one of the sheep in the fodder train? That
>> had as much to do with anything as Lady.
>
>This was certainly when I realized that this was going to be a new
>type of story, but at this point I thought this surprising and rather
>nonsensical. However a lot of shit that happens in life is just that,
>so I don't have too much of a problem with it. The fact was that Ned
>knew that Robert needed a sacrifice to appease Cersei, and in his
>typical narrow-minded focus he didn't place much value on Lady. I
>still think in the cosmic scheme of things this led to Ned's death,
>contributed to quite pertinently by Sansa.
Agreed. Excellent point. More of that (self-)destructive Stark honour
you were talking about earlier re: Jon. It might be *right*, but if
it's going to get a bunch of innocent people killed, maybe wrong is
better.
Hmm.
Put that thought back, it's not done yet. But it smells interesting.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>I have always found the tribal differentiation in Britain fascinating.
>>>The Welsh differentiation is particularly interesting. I have a few
>>>English friends and they still see the Welsh as a separate group from
>>>the rest of the "United" Kingdom, and the Welsh apparently are quite
>>>pleased to keep it that way.
>>
>>I have a British friend who is convinced Wales is a separate country
>>from the rest of Britain.
>
>It is, but they established a pattern of very lax immigration rules
>and let any Englishman in. Technically, the English and Scots are only
>visitors to Great Britain who have overstayed their welcome by
>12-1600 years.
*snicker*
Partial credit. Janica has a Welsh friend who would dearly love it
Wales really was a distinct country.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>I don't think that the dead turn into wights as it were. The wights
>>>seem to be the Others properly, as in the sentient beings directing
>>>the action. The dead simply seem to follow very simple instructions.
>>
>>This is bizarre. I always assumed the wights were the blue-eyed,
>>black-handed zombies that the Others, the white walkers, created when
>>they killed a person.
>
>This is why I am avoiding that word.
As long as we can avoid *mis*-using it, in the context of the books, I
still don't see what's so difficult here.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>The chapter does give us an idea what has been going on with Bran
>>>during the last book and since Stannis relieved the siege of the Wall.
>>>Overall I wasn�t terribly enthused about it, particularly as they just
>>>trudged through the snow and didn�t really resolve anything about
>>>Coldhands or anything else, yet.
>>
>>Got steadily closer, though.
>
>When has Martin ever revealed anything in a hurry? It isnt until this
>book that he reveals the existence of a character that other major
>players have been waiting for since the very beginning.
True enough.
>>>Questions from the chapter: Is Coldhands Benjen Stark? I will be
>>>surprised if he is not, since the mystery of who he is seems an
>>>important one. Maybe he is another Targaryen heir?
>>
>>Yeah, if he's not Benjen then the Benjen-disappearing plot thread
>>needs resolution as well as the who-is-Coldhands one. I'm all for the
>>unexpected plot twist and am against the so-called law of conservation
>>of characters, but I would be surprised if this wasn't Benjen (or was
>>him at some point, and is now something else using his body) and am a
>>bit surprised it hasn't been cleared up before now just to get it out
>>of the way.
>
>It may be that Coldhand-being-ex-Benjen is too simplistic. Though I
>cannot imagine how.
It would be quite Martin to just leave it with Benjen vanishing,
presumed dead, and Coldhands being something else entirely and Benjen
never being found. But then again, with his penchant for having
characters reappear, maybe it wouldn't be like him at all.
>>>Did Coldhands kill the Night�s Watch that the wolves were eating? It
>>>seems so, but this scene seems a little disjointed to me. He didn�t
>>>kill Thistle, did he? Am I missing something with this?
>
>>I was pretty sure Thistle was dying already in the prologue, and it
>>was Others and wights who killed the rest, whether they were
>>crow-wights or free-folk-wights. I don't see a problem with Benjen
>>killing either "good guys" or "bad guys", since he is at this stage
>>sort of neither, or both, himself.
>>
>>It does seem a bit of a mess if this was Thistle. Would One-Eye's wolf
>>pack still be at the same bodies?
>
>No, they killed what looked like a small family group in the prologue.
No, I mean at the end when Six-Skins tried to take Thistle and failed,
then went to One-Eye. Presumably the wolves were close by.
>And yes, at the enf of the prolog Thistle is a walker. Varamyr sees
>her through One-Eye's eye.
So my question was, would they still be hanging out together by Bran
I?
>I would say their identity was irrelevant except that Coldhands went
>out of his way not to identify them.
*nod*
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I was pretty sure Thistle was dying already in the prologue, and it
>> was Others and wights who killed the rest, whether they were
>> crow-wights or free-folk-wights. I don't see a problem with Benjen
>> killing either "good guys" or "bad guys", since he is at this stage
>> sort of neither, or both, himself.
>
>Sure, I don't have a problem with that. I just wonder where the heck
>these guys came from and what were they doing there, if indeed they
>were not dead already (which I think we can't be sure of).
Not to be pointlessly philosophical, but Above the Wall is a big
place. They had to be somewhere.
Although, as you say, maybe the explanation is quite simple. We see
later that Summer and the pack go where the meat is, whether it's
alive or undead. So maybe their being nearby is no coincidence - it
actually makes more sense than meat being in one place and carnivores
being somewhere else entirely, starving.
C&J
John Vreeland
Anyway... it is not clear what a "wight" is in these books. Is it
even used? And if so, do the people using them even know the
difference?
John Vreeland
Probably the best explanation for what happened, but it was poorly
presented in the book. What helped make it clearer was when Jaime
reported that Cersei wanted _Arya_ as the sacrifice.
John Vreeland
My mother is part Welsh, perhaps a quarter or so. hard to say. She
is from the marches in Hereford. Also ancestors from the Isle of
Wight, which has nothing to do with my preoccupation with the word.
John Vreeland
<frodoli...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Aug 28, 6:57�pm, John Vreeland <john.vreel...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 16:40:06 +0200, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> >Ben wrote:
>
>> >Although the one that tried to attack the Old Bear in book one seemed to
>> >have picked his target.
>>
>> Recall from the Prologue to book one: Wil waited until all the Others
>> had left and been gone a good long while before climbing down from the
>> tree. It wasn't until then that his dead officer seemed to get up.
>> Also, he didn't notice that the Others had done anything in particular
>> outside of showing up his swordsmanship.
>>
>But at this point the Others had not revealed themselves. In the HBO
>series it seems pretty clear that an Other is directing this action.
>Remember that Martin is on set for these so we can presume that in
>most cases the series is getting it right from his POV. It is entirely
>possible that an Other re-animated this dude and left him there to
>deal with the tree-climber (who it is very likely was not as well
>hidden as he thought). Or else it just takes a while for them to
>reanimate. We had different perspectives on this depending on the
>corpse. It seems very unlikely to me that this is just random rising
>and causing destruction.
In any event, it couldn't be random, simply because in life he knew
Wil was up the tree. So it proves nothing either way. He might have
just coincicentally risen at that very moment, or he might have been
waiting for him to climb down. Either could have occured without any
direct action on the part of the Others.
Still, the crazy ritualistic slaughterfest presentation from the
screenplay suggests that something specific was done to raise them.
>> When Small Paul came back from the dead he seemed even more stupid
>> than in life. �The girl (what's-her'name) said the zombies were
>> attracted to the infant's rosy glow of life, and for a while the
>> zombies all just stood around, watching the baby.
>>
>Well I can't imagine that being killed is great for the brain
>activity. I don't think any reanimated dead have shown any real
>cleverness. Even the one that attacked the Old Bear was almost
>certainly more lucky than clever.
But he seemed to know where the Lord Commander was and was
specifically targeting him. That point was done to death.
>> So apparently some vague and nebulous force reanimates them
>> automatically, leaving them to fend for themselves unless they are
>> given special instructions or possessed, somehow.
>>
>Nah, I don't think so. It seems they animate those they choose to.
>Either that or just their presence makes the corpses animate, which
>they take advantage of (which seems a little strange). It is certainly
>true that ALL dead north of the wall do not animate, else there
>literally would be hundreds of thousands of zombies roaming about all
>the time.
Have we ever seen any dead bodies that they did NOT animate? Nor have
we ever seen them mutter any magic words over a corpse. We have never
seen them do anything which suggetss that they must take direct,
individual action to raise a corpse. Even Thistle got up with no
obvious input from an Other and started marching with the pack.
>> They might also be given a general order along the lines of "produce
>> more zombie candidates." I think that would be a good one.
>>
>"Kill, kill, kill" seems a simple enough instruction.
>
>> Perhaps their dullness comes from the general nature of their
>> reanimation. �Perhaps a specific act can produce a better one.
>>
>> Or maybe Coldhands was possessed by the greenseer.
By a specific act.
>I think Coldhands is unique as was posted by somebody else. Either he
>was created differently or he had unique abilities prior to death. Not
>sure which.
>
>Ben
Taemon
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:04:21 +0200, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> Are we Wildlings, to call all the Westerosi kneelers? And everyone
>> in the rest of the world, at that? Don't forget, it's the Wildlings
>> who are the big losers here.
> Are we Westerosi, to call the free folk "wildlings"? I think it's just
> a convenient way to distinguish the two groups, by what they call each
> other. "Wildling" isn't exactly complimentary either.
Yeah, I didn't think of it that way, since I didn't take "Wildling" as a bad
thing. But you're right. I'll call them Free Folk from now on.
T.
Taemon
I started rereading the series and it struck me as odd that Ned went through
with that. It was so obviously an act of spite. Must be his honour, since
the king ordered it? But I didn't understand why Robert went through with
it, either. I guess it was set up that way to show us a bit of the truth
about Joffrey and Cercei.
It didn't stop Sansa from confiding into Cercei later, when Ned wanted to
sent his daughters back to Winterfell. Thereby betraying them all. Poor
stupid Sansa.
T.
John Vreeland
I went through the same thought process. Which is why I think it must
be something even more complex that we haven't thought of.
Martin has taught me a lot about spoiling and upsetting expectations.
Many, many years ago at a convention some people got into an argument
about the "Jon Targaryen" thing, and Martin's significant Other
pointed out that it was foolish to expect anything quite that simple
from Martin. And here we are...
>>>>Did Coldhands kill the Night’s Watch that the wolves were eating? It
>>>>seems so, but this scene seems a little disjointed to me. He didn’t
>>>>kill Thistle, did he? Am I missing something with this?
>>
>>>I was pretty sure Thistle was dying already in the prologue, and it
>>>was Others and wights who killed the rest, whether they were
>>>crow-wights or free-folk-wights. I don't see a problem with Benjen
>>>killing either "good guys" or "bad guys", since he is at this stage
>>>sort of neither, or both, himself.
>>>
>>>It does seem a bit of a mess if this was Thistle. Would One-Eye's wolf
>>>pack still be at the same bodies?
>>
>>No, they killed what looked like a small family group in the prologue.
>
>No, I mean at the end when Six-Skins tried to take Thistle and failed,
>then went to One-Eye. Presumably the wolves were close by.
>
>>And yes, at the enf of the prolog Thistle is a walker. Varamyr sees
>>her through One-Eye's eye.
>
>So my question was, would they still be hanging out together by Bran
>I?
>
>>I would say their identity was irrelevant except that Coldhands went
>>out of his way not to identify them.
>
>*nod*
I think that Bran & co. actually stayed at the village where Varamyr
and Thistle died.
John Vreeland
I still find it amusing that "undeath" does not spoil the meat. It
is, after all, frozen almost immediately.
Scott Wood
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:48:39 -0400, Penelope Periwinkle
><penp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>the best behaved of her siblings. Even Eddard noted how well
>>named she was. And it was Cersei, Joff, and Robert who saw her
>>Lady had done nothing wrong, why should she have to die? She was
>>one more victim of the Lannisters's cruelty and Robert's
>>weakness.
>
> I still can't believe they allowed that to happen. Why didn't they
> kill Joffrey's horse, or one of the sheep in the fodder train? That
> had as much to do with anything as Lady.
The wolves have often made people nervous (even Ned was probably not
thrilled with the situation), and the incident with Joffrey (as the story
was told -- even Ned didn't have the information that we have about what
actually happened) certainly didn't help with that. The message sent (or
rather reinforced) wasn't "Nymeria is dangerous", it was "direwolves are
dangerous, and the children cannot control them". Just as breeds of dogs
that are perceived as unusually dangerous get banned, no matter how well
trained/behaved certain individuals are.
They had an excuse to get rid of what they believed to be a threat, and did
so -- at the same time appeasing the Lannister's need to see *something*
done.
-Scott
John Vreeland
They will be so pleased.
Ben
>
> > On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:48:39 -0400, Penelope Periwinkle
> ><penpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Nonsense, Lady and Sansa were well bonded. She, like Sansa, was
> >>the best behaved of her siblings. Even Eddard noted how well
> >>named she was. And it was Cersei, Joff, and Robert who saw her
> >>condemned to die, not Sansa. As Sansa tearfully pointed out,
> >>Lady had done nothing wrong, why should she have to die? She was
> >>one more victim of the Lannisters's cruelty and Robert's
> >>weakness.
>
Joffrey. She chose to side with the Lannisters against the Starks, and
so lost Lady. She didn't cut her throat, but proved unworthy of her
and thus Lady had no further purpose in the story.
> > I still can't believe they allowed that to happen. Why didn't they
> > kill Joffrey's horse, or one of the sheep in the fodder train? That
> > had as much to do with anything as Lady.
>
> The wolves have often made people nervous (even Ned was probably not
> thrilled with the situation), and the incident with Joffrey (as the story
> was told -- even Ned didn't have the information that we have about what
> actually happened) certainly didn't help with that. The message sent (or
> rather reinforced) wasn't "Nymeria is dangerous", it was "direwolves are
> dangerous, and the children cannot control them". Just as breeds of dogs
> that are perceived as unusually dangerous get banned, no matter how well
> trained/behaved certain individuals are.
>
response they created the most dangerous direwolf to humans perhaps in
Westerosi history. I believe Nymeria's pack has killed literally
hundreds of people and I think we will yet see her eat a couple of
ones that we know deserve it.
> They had an excuse to get rid of what they believed to be a threat, and did
> so -- at the same time appeasing the Lannister's need to see *something*
> done.
>
only wish that Nymeria could have ripped out Joffrey's throat, or at
least his body could have been tossed to her pack after the Queen of
Thornes choked the life out of him (still by far my favorite scene in
all the books so far).
Ben
Chucky & Janica
<john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:
>Anyway... it is not clear what a "wight" is in these books. Is it
>even used?
>And if so, do the people using them even know the
>difference?
C&J
Chucky & Janica
<john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>knew that Robert needed a sacrifice to appease Cersei, and in his
>>>typical narrow-minded focus he didn't place much value on Lady. I
>>>still think in the cosmic scheme of things this led to Ned's death,
>>>contributed to quite pertinently by Sansa.
>>
>>Agreed. Excellent point. More of that (self-)destructive Stark honour
>>you were talking about earlier re: Jon. It might be *right*, but if
>>it's going to get a bunch of innocent people killed, maybe wrong is
>>better.
>>
>>Hmm.
>>
>>Put that thought back, it's not done yet. But it smells interesting.
>
>Probably the best explanation for what happened, but it was poorly
>presented in the book. What helped make it clearer was when Jaime
>reported that Cersei wanted _Arya_ as the sacrifice.
C&J
John Vreeland
Proper. The screenplay uses "white walkers" but "white" and "wight"
have different derivations and different meanings.
"Wight" means a living being or creature in English (well, Middle
English. Chaucer used it a lot for "fellow",) but in all the germanic
languages its meaning seems to bounce around between "demon"
"creature" "thing" "person" and "child." How it got applied to
animated frozen corpses I cannot say.
John Vreeland
woman Cersei was, and in part to confess to the fact that killing Arya
had not bothered him that much at the time.
The not-caring-about-Arya bit seems to be part of the Jaime act,
though. That and pushing Bran out the window were things he had to do
play his role of someone who didn't care what everyone else though.
There is a scene in the screenplay where Tywin tells him the same
thing: it's just a performance.
Chucky & Janica
>>>Anyway... it is not clear what a "wight" is in these books. Is it
>>>even used?
>>
>>Yes. To refer to the animated zombies.
>>
>>>And if so, do the people using them even know the
>>>difference?
>>
>>They seem to, since they use it pretty consistently.
>
>I wasn't sure. Someone started using "wights" to refer to the Others
>Proper.
>The screenplay uses "white walkers" but "white" and "wight"
>have different derivations and different meanings.
>"Wight" means a living being or creature in English (well, Middle
>English. Chaucer used it a lot for "fellow",) but in all the germanic
>languages its meaning seems to bounce around between "demon"
>"creature" "thing" "person" and "child." How it got applied to
>animated frozen corpses I cannot say.
the word meant when he used it. Literally, a living thing from a
grave. Makes sense to me.
C&J
Chucky & Janica
>>>>>knew that Robert needed a sacrifice to appease Cersei, and in his
>>>>>typical narrow-minded focus he didn't place much value on Lady. I
>>>>>still think in the cosmic scheme of things this led to Ned's death,
>>>>>contributed to quite pertinently by Sansa.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed. Excellent point. More of that (self-)destructive Stark honour
>>>>you were talking about earlier re: Jon. It might be *right*, but if
>>>>it's going to get a bunch of innocent people killed, maybe wrong is
>>>>better.
>>>>
>>>>Hmm.
>>>>
>>>>Put that thought back, it's not done yet. But it smells interesting.
>>>
>>>Probably the best explanation for what happened, but it was poorly
>>>presented in the book. What helped make it clearer was when Jaime
>>>reported that Cersei wanted _Arya_ as the sacrifice.
>>
>>Didn't catch that bit. Or remember it.
>
>Jaime told Brienne about it, in part to remind himself of what kind of
>woman Cersei was, and in part to confess to the fact that killing Arya
>had not bothered him that much at the time.
>
>The not-caring-about-Arya bit seems to be part of the Jaime act,
>though. That and pushing Bran out the window were things he had to do
>play his role of someone who didn't care what everyone else though.
>There is a scene in the screenplay where Tywin tells him the same
>thing: it's just a performance.
C&J