CHOW: Jon III - Fear, Fire, Foes

[Taemon]

Warning in advance: I have a ridiculous, almost superstitious fear of giving
away spoilers. I am fully aware that everyone here has
read the book so there's nothing to spoil but I can't bring myself to openly
discuss things we aren't supposed to know yet at this
point. Expect convoluted sentences while I wrestle with my inner fool.


Summary:

The Free Folk has been beaten into submission and the point needs to be
driven home with all the cruelty we can expect from Martin and
his creations. "We all must choose" says Melisandre*, by which she means "my
way or the stake". She means to see the King-Beyond-The-
Wall burn and if she wills it, Stannis makes it happen. Jon, poor middle
manager that he is, tries to explain that having said King in
one's paws may be a good thing but nothing doing. Mance Rayder will burn and
a thousand Free Folk will watch him fall to pieces doing
it. "Wildlings, the Seven Kingdoms called them... They looked neither wild
nor free."

Since every hope of the "rescue at the last moment"-trope has been beaten
out of us with Eddard Stark losing his head, we can only sit
and read while Mance begs for mercy, renounces his kingship and his name and
altogether makes a completely understandable spectacle of
himself#. Over the ashes of the Horn of Joramun, for good measure.

Jon, not blind to the political implications of driving the lesson home to
the Free Folk, watches impassively. He remembers a song
about rape, watches Val watching her man burn and thinks "the women are the
strong ones". He then proceeds to have Mance put out of his
misery, to the dismay of Stannis, who hangs out with the wrong crowd$.
Melisande, having her thirst for burning flesh quenched for the
moment, does the magic trick with Lightbringer.

"Open the gates" yell Melisandre's men and all but a few of the Free Folk
come down, sacrificing their religion, dignity and freedom
for safety and food. And who can blame them? The first to kneel is
Rattleshirt, poor Rattleshirt, so misunderstood.

The other men of the Night Watch are not happy with this turn of events and
do not hesitate to tell Jon so. Jon sees no alternative but
to defend Stannis' decision. "We have seen the face of our real foe, a dead
white face with bright blue eyes. The free folk have seen
that face as well. Stannis is not wrong in this." He then refuses to seal
the gates for good measure, sowing some dark seeds of
discontent.

Lonely as ever he pines for his estranged friends and for Val, and makes do
with a cup of wine with Clydas, the new Aemon. Depressed,
he goes to bed. You just want to pat him on the shoulder, saying "there,
there".



Discussion points:

That trick with Mance was just too cruel for words. Who knew about it? Who
thought of it? Might it have been a good idea?

Lightbringer flared brighter than Jon has ever seen it doing. What's the
meaning of that? Did Stannis just get hot and steamy seeing
someone burn?

How many Horns of Joramun go around again?

Do the gods exist? Is R'hllor anything else but a ploy by some particularly
cruel people? Will the Free Folk regret the burning of

their weirwoods?

What would you do for a bowl of good onion soup?



Notes:

* Of all of Martin's creations, The Red Lady is the only one who truly
frightens me. Really. That woman gives me the shivers. I hope she dies.
# No, really. Scariest creature ever. I don't know how Stannis can stand to
be around her. It turns him into Joffrey.
$ Really.

[Butterbumps@Work]

On May 30, 9:34 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> Warning in advance: I have a ridiculous, almost superstitious fear of giving
> away spoilers. I am fully aware that everyone here has
> read the book so there's nothing to spoil but I can't bring myself to openly
> discuss things we aren't supposed to know yet at this
> point. Expect convoluted sentences while I wrestle with my inner fool.

I tend to do the same thing, based on the idea that we'll be doing
CHOWs of those bits later on so we want to leave the discussion for
the appropriate chapter otherwise there will be nothing to add.
There's a bit of overlap, but this seems right to me.

> Summary:
>
> The Free Folk has been beaten into submission and the point needs to be
> driven home with all the cruelty we can expect from Martin and
> his creations.

*snicker* Oh yes.

> "We all must choose" says Melisandre*, by which she means "my
> way or the stake".

But only for the good of the world!

http://tinyurl.com/cqmsfno

> She means to see the King-Beyond-The-
> Wall burn and if she wills it, Stannis makes it happen. Jon, poor middle
> manager that he is, tries to explain that having said King in
> one's paws may be a good thing but nothing doing. Mance Rayder will burn and
> a thousand Free Folk will watch him fall to pieces doing
> it. "Wildlings, the Seven Kingdoms called them... They looked neither wild
> nor free."

Yup.

> Since every hope of the "rescue at the last moment"-trope has been beaten
> out of us with Eddard Stark losing his head, we can only sit
> and read while Mance begs for mercy, renounces his kingship and his name and
> altogether makes a completely understandable spectacle of
> himself#. Over the ashes of the Horn of Joramun, for good measure.

Pretty nice work, I have to say, in this chapter. I really found
it ... well, horrible, but very well done.

> Jon, not blind to the political implications of driving the lesson home to
> the Free Folk, watches impassively. He remembers a song
> about rape, watches Val watching her man burn and thinks "the women are the
> strong ones". He then proceeds to have Mance put out of his
> misery, to the dismay of Stannis, who hangs out with the wrong crowd$.

Heh. Good times.

> Melisande, having her thirst for burning flesh quenched for the
> moment, does the magic trick with Lightbringer.

And there was much rejoicing.

> "Open the gates" yell Melisandre's men and all but a few of the Free Folk
> come down, sacrificing their religion, dignity and freedom
> for safety and food. And who can blame them? The first to kneel is
> Rattleshirt, poor Rattleshirt, so misunderstood.

Indeed.

> The other men of the Night Watch are not happy with this turn of events and
> do not hesitate to tell Jon so. Jon sees no alternative but
> to defend Stannis' decision. "We have seen the face of our real foe, a dead
> white face with bright blue eyes. The free folk have seen
> that face as well. Stannis is not wrong in this." He then refuses to seal
> the gates for good measure, sowing some dark seeds of
> discontent.

There's a bit too much Ned in him.

> Lonely as ever he pines for his estranged friends and for Val, and makes do
> with a cup of wine with Clydas, the new Aemon. Depressed,
> he goes to bed. You just want to pat him on the shoulder, saying "there,
> there".

It's a lot like Tyrion's time as Hand. He makes all the right
decisions, acts very cleverly and for the good of everyone, and he is
hated for it by fucking idiots.

As Homer Simpson said, "Risking my life to save people I hate for
reasons I don’t quite understand. Gotta go!"

> Discussion points:
>
> That trick with Mance was just too cruel for words. Who knew about it? Who
> thought of it? Might it have been a good idea?

Well, Martin's done switcheroos with Bran, Rickon, baby Mance Jr.,
Theon, Jeyne, Davos, possibly-baby-Aegon ... there are many more. So
why not another?

> Lightbringer flared brighter than Jon has ever seen it doing. What's the
> meaning of that? Did Stannis just get hot and steamy seeing
> someone burn?

Or is this just the magic in the world getting stronger and stronger
as time goes by and winter progresses?

> How many Horns of Joramun go around again?

I lost track. Was this a fake one or the real thing? I get it mixed up
a bit with the one that Victarion Greyjoy has, that burns your lungs
if you blow it.

> Do the gods exist? Is R'hllor anything else but a ploy by some particularly
> cruel people? Will the Free Folk regret the burning of their weirwoods?

I think this will probably go unanswered. In that there's magic, and
the "will of the Gods" is done by people operating this magic ...
sure, there's some higher power out there. But I wouldn't go so far as
to think it's a conscious, let alone anthropomorphic thing. The magic
goes in cycles, and we have the Great Other on one side, R'hllor on
the other, and the Seven in the middle.

> What would you do for a bowl of good onion soup?

I can realistically say I'd probably do 'most anything, if I was
hungry enough. Turning my coat and giving my loyalty to a new
government - an oppressive dictatorship by Wildling standards, no less
- would leave a bad taste in my mouth but a slong as it also left the
taste of food, and a reasonable shot at safety for me and my family,
I'd probably swallow that pill.

> Notes:
>
> * Of all of Martin's creations, The Red Lady is the only one who truly
> frightens me. Really. That woman gives me the shivers. I hope she dies.

I tend to think she will. You'd probably be amazed at the actual
length of the discussion we had about whether or not it was accurate
to say that Melisandre came close to "cartoon-super-villain evil",
among Martin's characters. Or maybe you were around to witness that
shit. I can't recall, sorry. But I hope I can count you among the
loyal and unshakable members of the United Melisandre Is Evil Lobby
(or UMIEL).

> # No, really. Scariest creature ever. I don't know how Stannis can stand to
> be around her. It turns him into Joffrey.

*nod*

> $ Really.

Stannis really doesn't deserve to win this. Will be interesting to see
what happens there. At this point it's really all down to Melisandre
and her weird agenda.

Cheers for the CHOW, nicely done.


B@w
--
If someone wants to jump in and give it a gore-o-meter, laff-o-meter
and sex-o-meter rating, feel free. I lack the energy right now.

[Taemon]

Butterbumps@Work wrote:

> On May 30, 9:34 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

>> "We all must choose" says Melisandre*, by which she means "my
>> way or the stake".
> But only for the good of the world!
> http://tinyurl.com/cqmsfno

Ah... of course.

>> Since every hope of the "rescue at the last moment"-trope has been
>> beaten out of us with Eddard Stark losing his head, we can only sit
>> and read while Mance begs for mercy, renounces his kingship and his
>> name and altogether makes a completely understandable spectacle of
>> himself#. Over the ashes of the Horn of Joramun, for good measure.
> Pretty nice work, I have to say, in this chapter. I really found
> it ... well, horrible, but very well done.

Yeah, that was some old-fashioned shivering.

>> The other men of the Night Watch are not happy with this turn of
>> events and do not hesitate to tell Jon so. Jon sees no alternative
>> but to defend Stannis' decision. "We have seen the face of our real foe,
>> a dead white face with bright blue eyes. The free folk have seen
>> that face as well. Stannis is not wrong in this." He then refuses to
>> seal the gates for good measure, sowing some dark seeds of
>> discontent.
> There's a bit too much Ned in him.

True, too much honour... but I don't see how he had much choice.

>> That trick with Mance was just too cruel for words. Who knew about
>> it? Who thought of it? Might it have been a good idea?
> Well, Martin's done switcheroos with Bran, Rickon, baby Mance Jr.,
> Theon, Jeyne, Davos, possibly-baby-Aegon ... there are many more. So
> why not another?

Sure, but... having someone burned for a trick? Not cool.

>> Lightbringer flared brighter than Jon has ever seen it doing. What's
>> the meaning of that? Did Stannis just get hot and steamy seeing
>> someone burn?
> Or is this just the magic in the world getting stronger and stronger
> as time goes by and winter progresses?

Ooooh. Because the dragons have returned! Like that alchemist said to Tyrion
about the wildfire!

>> How many Horns of Joramun go around again?
> I lost track. Was this a fake one or the real thing? I get it mixed up
> a bit with the one that Victarion Greyjoy has, that burns your lungs
> if you blow it.

Heh. I think this one was a fake.

>> Do the gods exist? Is R'hllor anything else but a ploy by some
>> particularly cruel people? Will the Free Folk regret the burning of
>> their weirwoods?
> I think this will probably go unanswered. In that there's magic, and
> the "will of the Gods" is done by people operating this magic ...
> sure, there's some higher power out there. But I wouldn't go so far as
> to think it's a conscious, let alone anthropomorphic thing. The magic
> goes in cycles, and we have the Great Other on one side, R'hllor on
> the other, and the Seven in the middle.

If the dragons continue to get more powerful (instead of being locked up)
maybe the the Seven and the others will get to have something to say too.

>> What would you do for a bowl of good onion soup?
> I can realistically say I'd probably do 'most anything, if I was
> hungry enough. Turning my coat and giving my loyalty to a new
> government - an oppressive dictatorship by Wildling standards, no less
> - would leave a bad taste in my mouth but a slong as it also left the
> taste of food, and a reasonable shot at safety for me and my family,
> I'd probably swallow that pill.

Yeah. Still, to run away from Melisande sounds very attractive too. I think
I fear her more than the Walkers.

>> * Of all of Martin's creations, The Red Lady is the only one who
>> truly frightens me. Really. That woman gives me the shivers. I hope
>> she dies.
> I tend to think she will. You'd probably be amazed at the actual
> length of the discussion we had about whether or not it was accurate
> to say that Melisandre came close to "cartoon-super-villain evil",
> among Martin's characters. Or maybe you were around to witness that
> shit. I can't recall, sorry. But I hope I can count you among the
> loyal and unshakable members of the United Melisandre Is Evil Lobby
> (or UMIEL).

Yeah, I'll take the chair. I skimmed the discussion in the link you sent...
I agree. And I was reminded that Lightbringer was tempered by the blood of
the wife of Azor Ahai... I bet that Melisandre will die by (the real)
Lightbringer through her heart.

> Cheers for the CHOW, nicely done.

Thanks. Last time I did a CHOW was for The Hobbit in the Tolkien newsgroup,
years and years ago. I will do more.

> If someone wants to jump in and give it a gore-o-meter, laff-o-meter
> and sex-o-meter rating, feel free. I lack the energy right now.

Meh. Gorey, alright. But only one person died really horribly. Three and a
half flayed limbs out of five.

T.

[Butterbumps@Work]

On May 31, 10:13 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> > There's a bit too much Ned in him.
>
> True, too much honour... but I don't see how he had much choice.

No indeed, he did pretty much the best he could do, I think.

> >> That trick with Mance was just too cruel for words. Who knew about
> >> it? Who thought of it? Might it have been a good idea?
> >
> > Well, Martin's done switcheroos with Bran, Rickon, baby Mance Jr.,
> > Theon, Jeyne, Davos, possibly-baby-Aegon ... there are many more. So
> > why not another?
>
> Sure, but... having someone burned for a trick? Not cool.

Very much not cool, but by the time it became obvious that Melisandre
was going to burn *someone*, I guess he decided it might as well be a
bad person - or, since Mance is also pretty bad, then a *worse*
person.

Otherwise, it would be the baby. Or Jon himself.

Or Stannis.

Here's a wacky idea. If Stannis really believed he was doing what he
was doing for the good of the world, why wouldn't he let Melisandre
sacrifice him? Surely his kingly blood would give her massive magic
and she could use it to save everyone.

Do you think there was a noticeable difference in the effect when a
normal person was executed in Mance's place? As I think Will said, the
blood of a king in Westeros is a pretty dubious and diluted thing.
Surely it wouldn't have that much symbolic power. But Stannis believes
it, and Melisandre might even believe it too.

> >> Lightbringer flared brighter than Jon has ever seen it doing. What's
> >> the meaning of that? Did Stannis just get hot and steamy seeing
> >> someone burn?
> >
> > Or is this just the magic in the world getting stronger and stronger
> > as time goes by and winter progresses?
>
> Ooooh. Because the dragons have returned! Like that alchemist said to Tyrion
> about the wildfire!

Exactly.

> >> Do the gods exist? Is R'hllor anything else but a ploy by some
> >> particularly cruel people? Will the Free Folk regret the burning of
> >> their weirwoods?
> >
> > I think this will probably go unanswered. In that there's magic, and
> > the "will of the Gods" is done by people operating this magic ...
> > sure, there's some higher power out there. But I wouldn't go so far as
> > to think it's a conscious, let alone anthropomorphic thing. The magic
> > goes in cycles, and we have the Great Other on one side, R'hllor on
> > the other, and the Seven in the middle.
>
> If the dragons continue to get more powerful (instead of being locked up)
> maybe the the Seven and the others will get to have something to say too.

It can only be hoped. The septons'/septas' religion doesn't seem to
have much magical hocus-pocus to it, so we're not seeing much. But
then, if you look at some of the details, like various characters
praying to their patron aspect (be it the Maiden, or the Warrior, or
the Stranger), maybe they are arguably being looked after by that
aspect, or at least being guided along a narrative path based on that
aspect.

> >> What would you do for a bowl of good onion soup?
> >
> > I can realistically say I'd probably do 'most anything, if I was
> > hungry enough. Turning my coat and giving my loyalty to a new
> > government - an oppressive dictatorship by Wildling standards, no less
> > - would leave a bad taste in my mouth but a slong as it also left the
> > taste of food, and a reasonable shot at safety for me and my family,
> > I'd probably swallow that pill.
>
> Yeah. Still, to run away from Melisande sounds very attractive too. I think
> I fear her more than the Walkers.

True enough. Mind you, I guess the Wildlings didn't know all that much
about Melisandre and the burning heart and the Red God and stuff. They
weren't given the details, just "do what we say and you eat."

> >> * Of all of Martin's creations, The Red Lady is the only one who
> >> truly frightens me. Really. That woman gives me the shivers. I hope
> >> she dies.
> >
> > I tend to think she will. You'd probably be amazed at the actual
> > length of the discussion we had about whether or not it was accurate
> > to say that Melisandre came close to "cartoon-super-villain evil",
> > among Martin's characters. Or maybe you were around to witness that
> > shit. I can't recall, sorry. But I hope I can count you among the
> > loyal and unshakable members of the United Melisandre Is Evil Lobby
> > (or UMIEL).
>
> Yeah, I'll take the chair. I skimmed the discussion in the link you sent...

Wow, you're a brave one. Hats off.

> I agree. And I was reminded that Lightbringer was tempered by the blood of
> the wife of Azor Ahai... I bet that Melisandre will die by (the real)
> Lightbringer through her heart.

That would actually be pretty cool. Might even give me pause. I mean,
my original conclusion was that she is consciously, unapologetically
pursuing this burning-and-sacrifice thing, and while that's not
exactly mitigated by the possibility that she really *believes* she's
doing what she must, maybe there is something in the idea that "being
an evil person and damning herself is the sacrifice she has chosen to
make for the good of the world".

If she sacrifices herself (as I was earlier suggesting Stannis might),
that would go a long way towards proving she believed in what she was
doing.

Still evil, though.

> > Cheers for the CHOW, nicely done.
>
> Thanks. Last time I did a CHOW was for The Hobbit in the Tolkien newsgroup,
> years and years ago. I will do more.

Grand!

> > If someone wants to jump in and give it a gore-o-meter, laff-o-meter
> > and sex-o-meter rating, feel free. I lack the energy right now.
>
> Meh. Gorey, alright. But only one person died really horribly. Three and a
> half flayed limbs out of five.

Very nice. Sometimes it's the quality of the death, rather than the
quantity. Although I have fond memories of the Red Wedding.



B@w
--
Good times.

[John Vreeland]

She is a religious bigot. In my dictionary all religious bigots are
inherently evil. Some only appear good because they lack a proper
target in close enough proximity upon which to display their true
nature. We are fortunate that her cause here is not to enjoin a
religious pogrom but something tangential to the Lord of Light.

>>> # No, really. Scariest creature ever. I don't know how Stannis can stand to
>> be around her. It turns him into Joffrey.
>
>*nod*
>
>> $ Really.
>
>Stannis really doesn't deserve to win this. Will be interesting to see
>what happens there. At this point it's really all down to Melisandre
>and her weird agenda.
>
>Cheers for the CHOW, nicely done.
>
>
>B@w
--

Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.

[Taemon]

Butterbumps@Work wrote:

> On May 31, 10:13 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>> That trick with Mance was just too cruel for words. Who knew about
>>>> it? Who thought of it? Might it have been a good idea?
>>> Well, Martin's done switcheroos with Bran, Rickon, baby Mance Jr.,
>>> Theon, Jeyne, Davos, possibly-baby-Aegon ... there are many more. So
>>> why not another?
>> Sure, but... having someone burned for a trick? Not cool.
> Very much not cool, but by the time it became obvious that Melisandre
> was going to burn *someone*,

Gaaaah I hate her I hate her.

> I guess he decided it might as well be a bad person - or, since Mance is
> also pretty bad, then a *worse*
> person.
> Otherwise, it would be the baby. Or Jon himself.
> Or Stannis.

Oooh.

> Here's a wacky idea. If Stannis really believed he was doing what he
> was doing for the good of the world, why wouldn't he let Melisandre
> sacrifice him? Surely his kingly blood would give her massive magic
> and she could use it to save everyone.

Absolutely! A brilliant plan.

> Do you think there was a noticeable difference in the effect when a
> normal person was executed in Mance's place? As I think Will said, the
> blood of a king in Westeros is a pretty dubious and diluted thing.
> Surely it wouldn't have that much symbolic power. But Stannis believes
> it, and Melisandre might even believe it too.

I have no idea how to think about this whole sacrifice thing. As an atheist,
I don't think it does anything. I know magic exists in the world of Westeros
(and outside) but sacrifice is connected to religion, and that is something
else. Hence my earlier question about whether or not the gods really exists.
The Old Ones seem to make an appearance now and then. The Seven, not so
much. R'hllor, not at all. We have only seen Melisandre do her things.

But if this sacrificial thing does have any effect on magic, by way of
placebo-effects ("I think I will be able to work stronger magic due to this
awesome sacrifice I just made to God X") then it shouldn't matter who's the
victim, as long as the sacrificer thinks it's a worthy one. Of course, in
this case, Melisandre knew it wasn't really a worthy one. But the sword DID
flare brighter than before. But that was because of the dragons. Does
Melisandre know about the dragons?

>> If the dragons continue to get more powerful (instead of being
>> locked up) maybe the the Seven and the others will get to have
>> something to say too.
> It can only be hoped.

Bah, in the end, all gods are bastards.

>> Yeah. Still, to run away from Melisande sounds very attractive too.
>> I think I fear her more than the Walkers.
> True enough. Mind you, I guess the Wildlings didn't know all that much
> about Melisandre and the burning heart and the Red God and stuff. They
> weren't given the details, just "do what we say and you eat."

"after we burn your king and his horn".

>>> But I hope I can count you among the
>>> loyal and unshakable members of the United Melisandre Is Evil Lobby
>>> (or UMIEL).
>> Yeah, I'll take the chair. I skimmed the discussion in the link you
>> sent...
> Wow, you're a brave one. Hats off.

/me nods. After CHOWing that chapter, nothing else scares me anymore.

>> I agree. And I was reminded that Lightbringer was tempered by the
>> blood of the wife of Azor Ahai... I bet that Melisandre will die by
>> (the real) Lightbringer through her heart.
> That would actually be pretty cool. Might even give me pause. I mean,
> my original conclusion was that she is consciously, unapologetically
> pursuing this burning-and-sacrifice thing, and while that's not
> exactly mitigated by the possibility that she really *believes* she's
> doing what she must, maybe there is something in the idea that "being
> an evil person and damning herself is the sacrifice she has chosen to
> make for the good of the world".
>
> If she sacrifices herself (as I was earlier suggesting Stannis might),
> that would go a long way towards proving she believed in what she was
> doing.
>
> Still evil, though.

Yup. Well, they may sacrifice themselves together. To the benefit of Azor
Ahai Reborn, in the shape of... er... Tyrion? Daenerys? Ha. Fun.

>> Meh. Gorey, alright. But only one person died really horribly. Three
>> and a half flayed limbs out of five.
> Very nice. Sometimes it's the quality of the death, rather than the
> quantity. Although I have fond memories of the Red Wedding.

Last year, after reading Dance with Dragons, I tried rereading the series,
but I didn't get beyond book two. I just couldn't face the Red Wedding
again, I couldn't. No. Joffrey's wedding, that's the one for me :-)

T.

[Butterbumps@Work]

Taemon wrote:

> > Do you think there was a noticeable difference in the effect when a
> > normal person was executed in Mance's place? As I think Will said, the
> > blood of a king in Westeros is a pretty dubious and diluted thing.
> > Surely it wouldn't have that much symbolic power. But Stannis believes
> > it, and Melisandre might even believe it too.
>
> I have no idea how to think about this whole sacrifice thing. As an atheist,
> I don't think it does anything. I know magic exists in the world of Westeros
> (and outside) but sacrifice is connected to religion, and that is something
> else.

I don't know that this holds up, at least in Westeros. The Red God's
religion does seem to have some magic to it, same as the Old Gods (at
least as far as Bran and the Greenseer and the weirwoods are
concerned).

> Hence my earlier question about whether or not the gods really exists.
> The Old Ones seem to make an appearance now and then. The Seven, not so
> much. R'hllor, not at all. We have only seen Melisandre do her things.

Well, and Jaqen changing his shape (although that is more likely
connected to the Many Faced God or whoever is in charge of the
Faceless Men - Jaqen *does* refer to the Red God R'hllor as an article
of his faith, ie. the Red God demands a death for a death), and Thoros
the Red Priest raising the dead.

I think it's safe to say that magic and religion are interchangeable
in most cases in Westerworld, at least as far as the Fire Gods and the
Ice Gods are concerned.

> But if this sacrificial thing does have any effect on magic, by way of
> placebo-effects ("I think I will be able to work stronger magic due to this
> awesome sacrifice I just made to God X") then it shouldn't matter who's the
> victim, as long as the sacrificer thinks it's a worthy one.

Well, indeed. I never really bought the whole "it has to be a king's
blood" thing anyway, particularly once you get into the details of how
precisely the Baratheons became kings, and how *Mance* became a king.

> Of course, in
> this case, Melisandre knew it wasn't really a worthy one. But the sword DID
> flare brighter than before. But that was because of the dragons. Does
> Melisandre know about the dragons?

Melisandre seems to think her ultimate magic will wake dragons from
stone due to the sacrifice of a king. The prevailing opinion (at least
as far as I'm concerned) seems to be that she's gotten her prophecy-
wires crossed and seen Daenarys sacrificing Drogo, and waking her
dragons from their stone eggs.

Thus, Melisandre's dumb sacrifices aren't going to do doodly-squat,
because that prophecy has already been fulfilled. But there *is* still
some magic in her deeds. Fiery sword, vagina-shadow-demons, and so on.

As to whether the various magics are getting more powerful because of
the dragons, or the dragons were born because the background magic is
increasing ... well, that's not really something we can answer right
now.

> Bah, in the end, all gods are bastards.

An awful lot of people on this newsgroup have chips on their shoulders
and bugs up their arses about religion in general, but we soldier on
regardless. *grin*

> > Very nice. Sometimes it's the quality of the death, rather than the
> > quantity. Although I have fond memories of the Red Wedding.
>
> Last year, after reading Dance with Dragons, I tried rereading the series,
> but I didn't get beyond book two. I just couldn't face the Red Wedding
> again, I couldn't. No. Joffrey's wedding, that's the one for me :-)

It was a classic. I definitely found it harrowing to re-read the Red
Wedding when I CHOWed it.



B@w
--
But then fun. Because Catelyn just got better and better.

[Dana]

On Jun 4, 5:15 am, "Butterbumps@Work" <st.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, and Jaqen changing his shape (although that is more likely
> connected to the Many Faced God or whoever is in charge of the
> Faceless Men - Jaqen *does* refer to the Red God R'hllor as an article
> of his faith, ie. the Red God demands a death for a death), and Thoros
> the Red Priest raising the dead.

Jaqen affecting a glamour is more of a mummers trick, a skill used by
the Faceless men.
Arya is being taught this trick.

> Melisandre seems to think her ultimate magic will wake dragons from
> stone due to the sacrifice of a king. The prevailing opinion (at least
> as far as I'm concerned) seems to be that she's gotten her prophecy-
> wires crossed and seen Daenarys sacrificing Drogo, and waking her
> dragons from their stone eggs.

In The House of the Undying (book version, not HBO) Daenerys sees this
take place. I happen to think that at some point, a great magic will
affect the castle at Dragonstone and those towers that look like
dragons will actually come to life.

[Butterbumps@Work]

On Jun 5, 12:39 am, Dana <limod...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Well, and Jaqen changing his shape (although that is more likely
> > connected to the Many Faced God or whoever is in charge of the
> > Faceless Men - Jaqen *does* refer to the Red God R'hllor as an article
> > of his faith, ie. the Red God demands a death for a death), and Thoros
> > the Red Priest raising the dead.
>
> Jaqen affecting a glamour is more of a mummers trick, a skill used by
> the Faceless men.
> Arya is being taught this trick.

"More of", yes, but not "entirely". I think there's still magic
involved in the work the Faceless Men do, and particularly in the face-
changing glamour. Witness that Faceless Man in the attack in the
latest book, the shift there (like Jaqen's in his "final" scene) was
really more than just muscle-flexing and makeup. There was magic going
on there.

It's not an example of the Red God's religion having magic, no. But
the Many Faced God is another religion that seems to have some magical
elements or abilities for its followers or priesthood. And Melisandre
is by no means the only example of R'hllor's power. I was just
pointing out that it was a bit of a fallacy to say that Melisandre is
the only follower of R'hllor doing magic, or that R'hllor is bunk in
terms of magic while the Old Gods are more active. Whether or not the
*Gods* are actual entities, the magic involved in the respective
belief systems seems to be growing in power.

Heck, I have no trouble believing that the Faceless Men used to be
entirely about trickery and face-paint. But they're getting better at
magic too.

Does the increased potency of the wildfire they're brewing now mean
it's connected to magic or to a God? Or is it just an example of the
rise in magic also affecting the physical laws governing the chemical
reaction of wildfire combuation? Glayven.

> > Melisandre seems to think her ultimate magic will wake dragons from
> > stone due to the sacrifice of a king. The prevailing opinion (at least
> > as far as I'm concerned) seems to be that she's gotten her prophecy-
> > wires crossed and seen Daenarys sacrificing Drogo, and waking her
> > dragons from their stone eggs.
>
> In The House of the Undying (book version, not HBO) Daenerys sees this
> take place. I happen to think that at some point, a great magic will
> affect the castle at Dragonstone and those towers that look like
> dragons will actually come to life.

Looking forward to seeing that. But more than sceptical about it ever
happening. I think it's more likely that Daenerys was seeing a wacky
metaphorical recreation of the prophecy she had already brought about,
or at least kicked off.

But we'll see.


B@w
--
Maybe.

[Taemon]

Butterbumps@Work wrote:

>> Taemon wrote:

>>> Butterbumps@Work wrote:
>>> Do you think there was a noticeable difference in the effect when a
>>> normal person was executed in Mance's place? As I think Will said,
>>> the blood of a king in Westeros is a pretty dubious and diluted
>>> thing. Surely it wouldn't have that much symbolic power. But
>>> Stannis believes it, and Melisandre might even believe it too.
>> I have no idea how to think about this whole sacrifice thing. As an
>> atheist, I don't think it does anything. I know magic exists in the
>> world of Westeros (and outside) but sacrifice is connected to
>> religion, and that is something else.
> I don't know that this holds up, at least in Westeros. The Red God's
> religion does seem to have some magic to it, same as the Old Gods (at
> least as far as Bran and the Greenseer and the weirwoods are
> concerned).

Well, I vote for magic and no gods. Because I prefer it that way! And it
would explain the god-stuff, while having god-stuff wouldn't explain all of
the magic. So, Occam's Razor.

> I think it's safe to say that magic and religion are interchangeable
> in most cases in Westerworld, at least as far as the Fire Gods and the
> Ice Gods are concerned.

But would the gods exist without the believers doing their magic? Would the
magic exist without the gods? Have we seen magic from, er, atheists?

>> But if this sacrificial thing does have any effect on magic, by way
>> of placebo-effects ("I think I will be able to work stronger magic
>> due to this awesome sacrifice I just made to God X") then it
>> shouldn't matter who's the victim, as long as the sacrificer thinks
>> it's a worthy one.
> Well, indeed. I never really bought the whole "it has to be a king's
> blood" thing anyway, particularly once you get into the details of how
> precisely the Baratheons became kings, and how *Mance* became a king.

Well, yes, that was a good point. Baratheon basically bullied his way to the
top so I don't see how his blood is suddenly sacred, let alone that of his
stupid brothers. If it is, maybe one of his (blood-related) children will
come in later.

Kings galore in Westeros. Only the Targaryens can put a claim for the
"special blood"-thing because they're kinda special anyway. But they would
be, even without being monarchs.

>> Of course, in
>> this case, Melisandre knew it wasn't really a worthy one. But the
>> sword DID flare brighter than before. But that was because of the
>> dragons. Does Melisandre know about the dragons?
> Melisandre seems to think her ultimate magic will wake dragons from
> stone due to the sacrifice of a king. The prevailing opinion (at least
> as far as I'm concerned) seems to be that she's gotten her prophecy-
> wires crossed and seen Daenarys sacrificing Drogo, and waking her
> dragons from their stone eggs.

Hm.

> Thus, Melisandre's dumb sacrifices aren't going to do doodly-squat,
> because that prophecy has already been fulfilled. But there *is* still
> some magic in her deeds. Fiery sword, vagina-shadow-demons, and so on.

Heh. One of my co-workers is following the series, without knowing the
books. I don't follow the series. So I will say things like, "how's Jon Snow
doing?" and he'll go on a rant about who died horribly this week. This was
especially funny, in a very sad way, for the first few episodes. Ned Stark
this, Ned Stark that... Aha, aha, tell me more. Interesting!
"You could have told me his head would be chopped off!"
"..."
"No, no, you couldn't have."
"So, how's Melisandre doing?"
"..."

> As to whether the various magics are getting more powerful because of
> the dragons, or the dragons were born because the background magic is
> increasing ... well, that's not really something we can answer right
> now.

Oh, I'm convinced Daenarys made the dragons be born, unknowingly causing
magic to go on the rise. But, I didn't even think of the alternative. What
made you (anyone) think of that?

>> Bah, in the end, all gods are bastards.
> An awful lot of people on this newsgroup have chips on their shoulders
> and bugs up their arses about religion in general, but we soldier on
> regardless. *grin*

/me glowers

Wait. I'm not a native speaker, I don't actually know what you mean by that.
Doesn't "chips on their shoulders" mean being hypocritical about something?

>>> Very nice. Sometimes it's the quality of the death, rather than the
>>> quantity. Although I have fond memories of the Red Wedding.
>> Last year, after reading Dance with Dragons, I tried rereading the
>> series, but I didn't get beyond book two. I just couldn't face the
>> Red Wedding again, I couldn't. No. Joffrey's wedding, that's the one
>> for me :-)
> It was a classic. I definitely found it harrowing to re-read the Red
> Wedding when I CHOWed it.

So... you /don't/ have fond memories of it?

T.

[Butterbumps@Work]

On 5 kesä, 20:58, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> > I don't know that this holds up, at least in Westeros. The Red God's
> > religion does seem to have some magic to it, same as the Old Gods (at
> > least as far as Bran and the Greenseer and the weirwoods are
> > concerned).
>
> Well, I vote for magic and no gods. Because I prefer it that way! And it
> would explain the god-stuff, while having god-stuff wouldn't explain all of
> the magic. So, Occam's Razor.

Suits me.

> > I think it's safe to say that magic and religion are interchangeable
> > in most cases in Westerworld, at least as far as the Fire Gods and the
> > Ice Gods are concerned.
>
> But would the gods exist without the believers doing their magic? Would the
> magic exist without the gods? Have we seen magic from, er, atheists?

Well, as you say, if the gods "exist" at all as anything other than
the focus for the magic-users' energies and beliefs, then we can
wonder. But there's no evidence of it. Is the classic D&D cleric
powerful because he derives his power from God, or does he just draw
on the power of the universe and *call* it God?

Well, I guess in D&D we have cases where the cleric communicates with
his God ... but it's a lot more ambiguous in A Song of Ice and Fire.

> > Well, indeed. I never really bought the whole "it has to be a king's
> > blood" thing anyway, particularly once you get into the details of how
> > precisely the Baratheons became kings, and how *Mance* became a king.
>
> Well, yes, that was a good point. Baratheon basically bullied his way to the
> top so I don't see how his blood is suddenly sacred, let alone that of his
> stupid brothers. If it is, maybe one of his (blood-related) children will
> come in later.

*nod* Didn't Melisandre already want to burn one or another of
Robert's bastards, and Davos let him go?

> Kings galore in Westeros. Only the Targaryens can put a claim for the
> "special blood"-thing because they're kinda special anyway. But they would
> be, even without being monarchs.

Yeah, something magical sort of needs to account for the dragon
connection, as we've seen it is a difficult thing to fake.

> Heh. One of my co-workers is following the series, without knowing the
> books. I don't follow the series. So I will say things like, "how's Jon Snow
> doing?" and he'll go on a rant about who died horribly this week. This was
> especially funny, in a very sad way, for the first few episodes. Ned Stark
> this, Ned Stark that... Aha, aha, tell me more. Interesting!
> "You could have told me his head would be chopped off!"
> "..."
> "No, no, you couldn't have."
> "So, how's Melisandre doing?"
> "..."

Bahaha, I know. It's all kinds of fun. I like it when they say, "does
Tyrion at least survive? No wait, stop, don't tell me. Just ... okay,
does Robb avenge his father? No, wait, don't tell me, stop *grinning*
like that."

> > As to whether the various magics are getting more powerful because of
> > the dragons, or the dragons were born because the background magic is
> > increasing ... well, that's not really something we can answer right
> > now.
>
> Oh, I'm convinced Daenarys made the dragons be born, unknowingly causing
> magic to go on the rise. But, I didn't even think of the alternative. What
> made you (anyone) think of that?

Don't rightly know. Why did the dragons dwindle away and die out the
first time, apparently in time with the previous magic cycle / long
winter? What does the red comet have to do with it all? We have
examples of magical things becoming more potent before the dragons
show up, but not enough to make it unambiguous at this point.

> >> Bah, in the end, all gods are bastards.
> > An awful lot of people on this newsgroup have chips on their shoulders
> > and bugs up their arses about religion in general, but we soldier on
> > regardless. *grin*
>
> /me glowers
>
> Wait. I'm not a native speaker, I don't actually know what you mean by that.
> Doesn't "chips on their shoulders" mean being hypocritical about something?

No, not at all. It just means "bearing a grudge" or being otherwise
cranky about a certain topic, like it's a pet peeve, something that
annoys you on some long-term or even hereditary level. I admit my
explanation might not help ... but that's the gist of it.

> > It was a classic. I definitely found it harrowing to re-read the Red
> > Wedding when I CHOWed it.
>
> So... you /don't/ have fond memories of it?

Of Joffrey's wedding? Sure. The Red Wedding, not so much - it was a
different sort of wedding.



B@w
--
Still hilarious, though.

[Michelle Haines]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 12:58:22 PM UTC-5, Taemon wrote:

> But would the gods exist without the believers doing their magic? Would the
> magic exist without the gods? Have we seen magic from, er, atheists?

Dany has no particular religious affiliation that I recall.

[John Vreeland]

She supposedly is a follower of the Seven, but has had very little
training, if any. Their guardian died when she was about seven years
old, and her brother knew little more of Westeros than she did
herself. If called upon to witness she would say she followed the Old
Gods and the Seven New, simply because she is not stupid and wants to
rule Westeros.

[Rast]

Butterbumps@Work wrote...

> > But would the gods exist without the believers doing their magic? Would the
> > magic exist without the gods? Have we seen magic from, er, atheists?
>
> Well, as you say, if the gods "exist" at all as anything other than
> the focus for the magic-users' energies and beliefs, then we can
> wonder. But there's no evidence of it.

I think their clerics are tapping into fate. That's why, for instance,
the red priests get ambiguous visions in fire, rather than Word Of God.

> Is the classic D&D cleric
> powerful because he derives his power from God, or does he just draw
> on the power of the universe and *call* it God?

Either in some editions, but just the first in other editions.

>

[Taemon]

Butterbumps@Work wrote:

> On 5 kes�, 20:58, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

>> Butterbumps@Work wrote:
>>> Well, indeed. I never really bought the whole "it has to be a king's
>>> blood" thing anyway, particularly once you get into the details of
>>> how precisely the Baratheons became kings, and how *Mance* became a
>>> king.
>> Well, yes, that was a good point. Baratheon basically bullied his
>> way to the top so I don't see how his blood is suddenly sacred, let
>> alone that of his stupid brothers. If it is, maybe one of his
>> (blood-related) children will come in later.
> *nod* Didn't Melisandre already want to burn one or another of
> Robert's bastards, and Davos let him go?

True, true. Maybe she thought "better safe than sorry". Or, probably she
thought "rwaaaarw burn burn burn".

>> Kings galore in Westeros. Only the Targaryens can put a claim for the
>> "special blood"-thing because they're kinda special anyway. But they
>> would be, even without being monarchs.
> Yeah, something magical sort of needs to account for the dragon
> connection, as we've seen it is a difficult thing to fake.

Why does Daenerys still want the throne? She's infertile. She thinks she's
the last.

> Bahaha, I know. It's all kinds of fun. I like it when they say, "does
> Tyrion at least survive? No wait, stop, don't tell me. Just ... okay,
> does Robb avenge his father? No, wait, don't tell me, stop *grinning*
> like that."

ROFL! Yes, exactly.

>
>>> As to whether the various magics are getting more powerful because
>>> of the dragons, or the dragons were born because the background
>>> magic is increasing ... well, that's not really something we can
>>> answer right now.
>> Oh, I'm convinced Daenarys made the dragons be born, unknowingly
>> causing magic to go on the rise. But, I didn't even think of the
>> alternative. What made you (anyone) think of that?
> Don't rightly know. Why did the dragons dwindle away and die out the
> first time, apparently in time with the previous magic cycle / long
> winter?

Hmmmm. I didn't think of that. Maybe, ah, the Targaryens of the time
weren't... nah, I have no idea.

>>>> Bah, in the end, all gods are bastards.
>>> An awful lot of people on this newsgroup have chips on their
>>> shoulders and bugs up their arses about religion in general, but we
>>> soldier on regardless. *grin*
>> /me glowers
>> Wait. I'm not a native speaker, I don't actually know what you mean
>> by that. Doesn't "chips on their shoulders" mean being hypocritical
>> about something?
> No, not at all. It just means "bearing a grudge" or being otherwise
> cranky about a certain topic, like it's a pet peeve, something that
> annoys you on some long-term or even hereditary level. I admit my
> explanation might not help ... but that's the gist of it.

Nono, that's fine, perfectly understandable. If a bit weird. Where does that
expression come from?

Anyway, I like fantasy because it opens up new worlds in my head. New
possibilities for me to think about. And I like thinking. And gods are the
ultimate show-stoppers, you know? Like, "goddidit" is the essential deus ex
machina and it paints everything shiny into a dull brown. No, I don't like
gods at all.

Having said that, I'm currently reading Gaiman's "American Gods" and it's
all kinds of fun.

T.

[Will in New Haven]

On Jun 14, 12:02 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> Butterbumps@Work wrote:

It doesn't mean _quite_ what he says. It means being ready to fight
without much provacation. The implication is that one is carrying a
wooden chip on ones shoulder and will fight if anyone knocks, or even
brushes, it off.

--
Will in New Haven

[Taemon]

Will in New Haven wrote:

> On Jun 14, 12:02 pm, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>> Wait. I'm not a native speaker, I don't actually know what you mean
>>>> by that. Doesn't "chips on their shoulders" mean being hypocritical
>>>> about something?

> It doesn't mean _quite_ what he says. It means being ready to fight
> without much provacation. The implication is that one is carrying a
> wooden chip on ones shoulder and will fight if anyone knocks, or even
> brushes, it off.

Huh. Okay, that's much clearer. Thank you.

T.

[John Vreeland]

Or even if you bump into them accidentaly.