A Song Of Ice And Fire

I believe that's the theory that suggests Jon never leaves Ghost, instead Bran turns his body into a meat puppet for his own use so he can live the life he'd wanted to have before being pushed out of the tower after saving the world.

Yep. And Bran steadily loses himself in Jon.

It's very Neverending story-ish. Bran is the reader and Jon is the character he's inside.

The idea is that true resurrection doesn't exist in this series. Rather the people who we think are being resurrected are people who think they're that person.

Basically all R'hllor resurrection does is bring back a person like Drogo. They're alive but they have no will of their own. Someone fills in for that consciousness and in the process while they're inside, they think they're that person.

Beric and LS are being warged by BR. Beric's first appearance is even him sitting under a Weirwood tree.

Bloodraven-LS is going to resurrect Jon-Bran.

Ghost will act as the the permanent vessel for Jon's ghost.

Basically GRRM is playing with themes of identity because it's all going to culminate in Bran deciding whether he wants to be Jon and live out his dreams or be himself the crippled little boy.

edited 1st Oct '16 4:42:45 PM by MadSkillz

I still don't know how I feel about that theory. Of course the show has effectively confirmed that it's not the case. I know, I know, the books aren't the show but I feel like such a huge plot twist would be kept.

@Kostya The show producers said that GRRM gave them one huge twist at the end. This could be what they're talking about.

edited 2nd Oct '16 9:54:15 AM by MadSkillz

Jon's importance isn't as a figurehead, though. He's intelligent, thoughtful, good at seeing the big picture, and willing to recognize when he's wrong and learn from experience. He had been raised seeing the Watch as an honourable profession and was blindsided to realize it was mainly a bunch of criminals, but he adapted to it and built strong and loyal friendships. He'd been taught all his life that the Wildlings were enemies, savages, but when he lived with them he gained an understanding of their culture and built a foundation of respect that was strong enough for him to negotiate a peace (or, more accurately, their surrender) in return for letting them through the Wall. That was an absolutely essential action that no one else in the Watch would have taken.

He doesn't gain his position through a name or a lineage or superpowers - he gains it through his character and personality, through winning people's trust. Bran doesn't have that; he'd have the mystique of Jon appearing to be back from the dead, but he has none of the leadership and decision-making ability.

That's part of the tragedy though. Jon had what it took to be the Chosen One but he got himself killed off and so someone has to step up and fill in his shoes just like Ned had to step up to fill in for Brandon's shoes and Garlan had to step up to fill in for Renly.

I'd argue this. Jon being Ned's bastard son is a big reason why he's chosen as Lord Commander. It's also why Jeor Mormont wants him as his steward and is training him for command. Mance even lets him join because he is the bastard son of Ned Stark and thinks he has a bone to pick with the North. And he is seemingly being helped out by Bloodraven. That Crow trick at the end of ASOS was no coincidence.

The idea is that just like Bran knows how to do wolf things when he's in Summer, he'll also have access to all of Jon's abilities and knowledge as well.

Jon will not be possessed by Bran. He will come back as Jon Wolf! He is still human, but he behaves a lot like a wolf now.

Crack : Rhaella and Tywin were lovers after the Defiance of Duskendale. Part to get back at Aerys. Daenerys is actually Tywin's daughter

Must be a bloody long pregnancy to last six years.

All of Tywin's kids are really Aerys' and all of Aerys' kids are Tywin's.

"Yer a Lannister, Jon."

double plot twist: Aerys and Tywin were gay lovers. All of their children are actually the cause of massive orgies.

I remenber someone pass a "ASOF if Ragnarok" theory link a time go, can someone pass it again, please?

A more serious WMG: I think that Craster is Maester Aemon's bastard. As noble and nice as he is, this is A Song of Ice and Fire where even the noblest of people have faults. I could picture a young Aemon having a brief slip-up and sleeping with a wildling, like an adorkable virgin. He doesn't know since the wildling never bothered to stick around and tell him, and just said Craster was a member of the Night's Watch

Aemon's not that judgmental about Jon breaking his vows or the men visiting the Mole's Town brothel(there's probably a few Crow Snows from there), so I wouldn't blame him having at least one tryst. If he knew, he'd obviously call out Craster for him scumbaggery and try to cull him, but sadly he doesn't. Much like with Jon Snow, he got to be with a relative of his in the twilight of his life

I'm still kinda not over that Aemon never found that Jon was his great-great nephew.

And that Stannis and Aemon never had a meaningful conversation. I mean Stannis is literally Aemon's closest living relative seeing as he's his great-grand nephew.

I mean I guess Stannis angrily snaps at everyone while Aemon responds in a calming voice, mentions that he knows who Aemon is and then he shows him Lightbringer.

You can't really show a blind person anything.

And it does keep with GRRM's writing style to have something as bittersweet as the oldest living Targaryen not finding out that he has a great nephew in the form of Jon Snow.

That moment when you realize that both Jon and Robb got assassinated because of a Jeyne.

And then a different Jeyne led Dunk the Small into renouncing the crown.

Jeyne is a really bad name. Jeynes should be outlawed.

edited 9th Oct '16 11:03:12 PM by MadSkillz

Jeyne rhythms with pain.....

Cool.

Part 10 of Blood of the Conqueror(Young Griff's Conquest) is out.

edited 10th Oct '16 2:08:08 PM by MadSkillz

Re that quote, I thought Martin had said something similar but glad you quoted it because it's a good illustration of his historical knowledge and use of parallels ranging from the accurate and clever to the laughably bad.

The quote is an example of the latter. The multiple popes denouncing each other thing coupled with overall Church corruption sounds like a reference to the Avignon Papacy, which is like something completely different than the Protestant Reformation, happening well before it was a thing.

And to state the obvious, neither Luther nor Calvin declared themselves to be Pope. Instead, they broke from the Catholic Church and started their own.

What Martin seems to be thinking about is more like Internal Reformist criticisms of the Catholic Church that occurred before Protestantism (or I guess in some cases occurred at a point where Protestantism existed- but these people were not Protestants).

edited 10th Oct '16 2:21:26 PM by Hodor2

I don't think Martin wants to suggest that his story provides perfectly accurate parallels to real-world history. He's said a bunch of times he draws inspiration from it, not entire plot lines or characters. It would be weird - and perhaps a little bit lazy of Martin - if the events in the books were an accurate depiction of real-world religions and their history.

Well I know that and I guess you could say that the Sparrows are a combination of ascetic internal reformists within the Catholic Church and Protestant reformers. But like in the quote Martin legitimately doesn't seem to know the difference between the two/doesn't know what he's talking about. Like he's conflating two mostly unrelated things.

To me it reads like "The Valyrians conquered the surrounding lands like the Romans or the Mongols". It doesn't mean to suggest that those two conquests are related, or similar in any other way than that they were extensive and (relatively) quick. (Well, that's assuming that that's the point my hypothetical GRRP was making with that hypothetical quote.)

So, I'm rereading the quote and the point of contention is whether Martin is characterizing "having a bunch of popes denouncing each other" as a trait associated with the Protestant Reformation. The way I'm reading the quote (or at least read the quote) is that he is, but I admit it's kind of ambiguous due to the phrasing.

edited 10th Oct '16 3:09:17 PM by Hodor2

It's ambiguous, yes.

The first time I read that I thought the aside (marked with the em dashes) was only related to the bit before it, and not after it. So it's sort of "Thing A -and subset a1- and subset a2". Now that you mention it, though, I can see that it can also be read as "Thing A -and subset a1- and this is also about a1".

So funnily enough I just read about how dashes are used in my Communications book.

So to explain, the part where he says "-the greatest of them being the Protestant Reformation, which led to the splitting of the church-" is GRRM mentioning that as an aside and doesn't follow what he leads into. It's for extra detail that's isn't too important to the idea of the sentence.

You're supposed to read it more like this:

But I believe he spoke in the interview. He didn't write what he was saying so someone else thought this sentence needed dashes.

edited 10th Oct '16 4:21:25 PM by MadSkillz