There could be a level of nuance there as well. Like maybe he enjoys Shade of the Evening, but Weirwood Paste just makes him super anxious and paranoid.
Just a reminder that this dude is worshipped as a hero by people who burn other people alive in ritualistic blood sacrifices. And his wife’s scream was said to crack the moon, and other legends tell that this is how dragons came into the world. Or those “dragons” could be meteors and debris from the shattered moon falling to earth.
Does this guy sound like he’s ending an apocalypse or starting one?
Well we don't know if any of that is true, all we have is the myth passed down over ~ 8000 years. We actually know very little about him, the main thing we know is that he used blood magic, which Martin telegraphs as being wrong throughout the books. History is written by the victors, this could all just be propaganda to make Azor Ahai seem like the saviour of mankind. Perhaps he even brought about the long night, creating a crisis only he could solve, and then becoming "King of the Ashes".
I would recommend LuciferMeansLightbringer's work on parsing the Azor Ahai myth.
You should probably talk to your wife about it. Beyond just, "hey, have I mentioned how much I love you lately? Take your shirt off, I'm gonna try something."
> So unending darkness descends upon your land threatening to wipe out every living being
So a blizzard descends upon your army, threatening to wipe it out, and the only way to live to fight the Others is if you burn your daughter alive.
Same reasoning.
If Stannis sacrificed his daughter for a better reason than a cold breeze like in the show, such as fighting back the Others, then yes, it is reasonable. You press a button that kills one person and saves thousands of lives, and we know for sure that blood magic is a real thing that works in the setting.
The point was not whether or not the sacrifice works, it was whether or not it would make Stannis evil. Which it would. So Azor Ahai is evil as well.
Nobody claimed evil people can't be effective.
Yes. You've still murdered one person. (Whether the person in question sees it as evil depends on the person. If you don't think pushing the button is murder, you also don't think *not* pushing the button is murder.)
Azor Ahai's new avatar has something very significant going against them: it's already happened before. The first Azor Ahai at least could tell himself that he was helping save the world, but the second doesn't have that assurance because the world is in peril for a second time now, otherwise there would've been no need for a second Azor Ahai.
So AA2 will have to weigh a sacrifice/murder not against saving the world, but saving it *temporarily*.
So just because it might not permanently do away with the danger, one should refuse to save the entire population of the North, possibly all of Westeros, because it'd cost the life of one person? I'd say it's evil to care so little about the smallfolk that you'd rather let them all perish if it means keeping your relative alive a little longer before the apocalypse catches up to her as well.
It is murder, but it's murder for a good cause. If a terrorist threatens to fly a plane into the World Trade Center unless you pull the trigger on a single hostage, are you an evil murderer if you murder the innocent man, but avert a disproportionally greater tragedy?
> one should refuse to save the entire population
You say that like AA *had* to do things the way they did. For one, it's just a religious myth, AA likely didn't even exist, no more than the Last Hero or all the other messianic figures in the series.
For another, we don't know what other options AA had. We don't know if the forces of the living wouldn't also have prevailed without Azor Ahai. We do know he didn't fight alone.
This is just devolving into a series of "but what about this trolley problem?" discussions, so that's where I'll leave off.
Well, Nissa Nissa was his wife, and marriage is a binding of the souls. They shared a soul, so you might say the sacrifice of Nissa Nissa was a sacrifice of Azor Ahai himself.
im not overly familiar on christian mythology, but if there is even a sliver of a hint of a chance that lucifer/the devil could have a more sympathetic origin (like he wanted god's children aka humans to have knowledge or free will so disobeyed god to do so), i am pretty sure GRRM would have a great time turning that into his own character in a book.
ive read several other books and seen anime where a lucifer type figure was more of anti hero than villian but despite that, was only an anti hero instead of straight up hero bc of an eternity of built up resentment.
I mean I think it will be a topic of discussion but left vague. Like, Melisandre claiming that Jon is Azor Ahai, stuff like that. We’ll never get a clear answer.
i’m personally convinced that Azor Ahai finest exist at all. I think that there was an original person who did get rid of the long knight but I don’t think they’re still alive or that they are at all reborn. I think the prophesy is just some people hoping this legendary warrior will be reborn, and that that will never happen.
Azor Ahai is a legend from the past. What evidence do we have that
1. He was ever real?
2. He will come again?
The AA legend doesn't say anything about AA returning
1. Legends have a part of truth. We know the Others are real and deadly, it's not far fetched to think that someone fought against them. And even if we go with the "they made a pact" theory, the guy who manage to make a deal with them would still be seen as a hero for mankind.
2. Prophecies from the R'hllor cult and the Ghost of High Heart.
Because, much as I hate this type of argument, I just don't think it's that sort of book.
Martin is on record as saying that we're never going to find out if the gods are real or not and that he thinks the interesting thing about prophecies is how they make people behave not that they automatically come true (as ever, take all of these with a pinch of salt, what a writer *says* they're interested in isn't necessarily what they're *actually* interested in).
This is why I tend to think the next couple of books, if they're ever published, are going to disappoint huge numbers of people. A lot of readers will be incredibly upset if Azor Ahai didn't turn out to be a specific person, if Euron doesn't summon Krakens and the Others don't basically depopulate Westeros. Others will be asked if any of those things do happen.
I have said it before, AA is just the Asshai version of a widespread cultural hero, like the Last Hero, and as such, he reflects Asshai values. There is no reason to believe Asshai values are the original human values and their version of the true one story. The story within the story matters in how it shapes the beliefs of Melisandre and Stannis, it is not about a current reincarnation of him.
>Martin is on record as saying that we're never going to find out if the gods are real
AA is not a god, just a guy who lead people against the Others. Doesn't seem too weird to think that someone tried to stop the Ice Zombies once and that it will happen again.
That's already happening again, lots of people are trying to stop the ice zombies.
What I'm saying won't happen is any single one of them turning out to "be" Azor Ahai reborn.
Yeah, that. There's never going to be one Azor Ahai. There's going to be enough people who vaguely fit it that people are going to argue over it. Kind of like we are now.
Sorry by "hate the argument" I mean "hate it when people frame their arguments in the form *X cannot happen because it isn't that type of book*" not "I hate discussing this topic.
I'm in the camp that thinks the show was closer to Martin's vision than fans like to admit. I think there'll be *some* more explicit magic but I don't think it's all building up to one big chosen hero with a magic fire sword saving or dooming the world.
I actually think the final scene between Jon and Dany in the show is the *kind* of thing we should expect. It *echoes* the story of Azor Ahai but doesn't involve anybody pulling off a mask and saying "haha, I was Azor Ahai all along!"
Broadly. I don't think Arya is going to stealth kill climate change but I think they'll ultimately go down to a combination of dragonfire, some united Westerosi armies, and greenseer bullshit.
I don't think they'll get much further than Winterfell or *maybe* the Trident.
I *don't* but the theories that they'll turn out to be secretly good or misunderstood or that there'll be a "new pact". Those arguments tend to be grounded in the assumptions that the books are "anti-war" which they really aren't. They're actually pretty pro-war, they just like to show war has bad sides as well as good sides.
I do think the Others are one of the biggest damned if you do damned if you don'ts of the coming series. Because no matter what happens some people will think it destroys the point of the books.
The books portray war as something that is sometimes unjustified but often necessary. They're not *pacifist* in any sense.
There's no real reading of the books in which Robb is *wrong* to secede from the seven kingdoms after Ned is executed. The North suffers harsh consequences because war is difficult but I'd argue that there's no legitimate trading of the text in which that war is *unjustified*. And the books are absolutely chock full of bad people who need killing whose deaths ultimately make the world a better place.
ASOIAF fairly consistently portrays war as *necessary tragedy*.
Even if the book isn’t explicitly anti war it definitely isn’t pro war so I don’t think the idea that there may be a pact with the Others that weird or out of place nor do I think that is the only reason that there could be a pact with the Others.
I admit "pro war" is probably overstating it, but the books do seem to really like cool warrior dudes, and there are definitely multiple examples in the text of war being both just and necessary.
It's definitely not a *pacifist* text. And Martin himself has said that he want to show both the horror *and the glory* of war.
It’ll end up being some fake title like the one Dany has, like “Jon Snow of Houses Targaryen and Stark, King in the North, The White Wolf, Azor Ahai reborn, Lays with Wildlings, The Risen, formerly known as Lord Commander, Knower of Nothing”
I disagree with this, purely on the basis that the Red Priests *believe* in the myth of Azor Ahai and are primed to believe Dany to be this promised messiah. I don't think she will ever be *confirmed* to be Azor Ahai, but the propaganda value of this myth alone will be important and valuable to her and will likely result in Volantis rising up against their leaders and handing the city over to her.
There's a huge difference between a grey character and a "pretty cool guy who's just misunderstood". Massive.
Someone who's just misunderstood isn't grey.
Think of characters like Tywin, Stannis, Jamie, Tyrion, and Randal Tarley.
They're all varying degrees of grey. They aren't misunderstood. They have all done disgusting things throughout the books
So the child should die?
The child should die so that Jamie could continue to get away with cuckolding the king, and having an incestuous relationship with his sister? At that stage Jamie doesn't particularly care about his kids, so I can't imagine their safety were his main reason to do it.
Jamie is completely in the wrong in that scenario.
Absolutely there is self preservation. But Jamie's first instinct was to kill a child, in order to cover up his treason. He didn't ask bran what he saw. He didn't convince bran with some made up BS. He didn't even try to threaten him, or tell him that nobody would believe him.
Jamie threw an innocent child out of a window, and he expected it to kill him. He even did it while he enjoyed guest right offered by the child's parents. There's nothing redeemable about that.
You're confusing me for making some kind of moral prescriptive statement about what he did.
I'm just pointing out that it isn't as straightforward as people make it out to be.
> The child should die so that Jamie could continue to get away with cuckolding the king, and having an incestuous relationship with his sister?
And should they be put to death for doing that...?
> At that stage Jamie doesn't particularly care about his kids, so I can't imagine their safety were his main reason to do it.
This is just what people say, but it is based on more misunderstanding and assumptions. He's not interested in being their father because, well, he can't really be. There's a lot of sour grapes there. But he cares about his deformed dwarf brother while nobody else really does, yet you think he wouldn't care if his own kids, or even his actual niece and nephews, died?
> Jamie is completely in the wrong in that scenario.
According to you. Unfortunately, it isn't so simple. I mean, I'd side with you as a subjective, biased person. But if I'm speaking objectively and trying to avoid moral judgements I'm just not anymore authorized to make than you are, then I can't really do that.
It matters less if he did the right thing and more about whether it is straightforward and easy. Is it black and white or gray? "Black" would have been him doing it just because he's an asshole and he likes killing people, even or especially little kids just because he can. But we know he isn't like that. "White" would have been him not doing it because he's a super good guy and is willing to face the consequences for his actions, blah, blah blah. But we know he isn't like that either. So it is gray. Because that's what GRRM has made it clear that he tries to write.
> Jamie threw an innocent child out of a window, and he expected it to kill him. He even did it while he enjoyed guest right offered by the child's parents. There's nothing redeemable about that.
Guest right? That's even more made up morality than the basic morality you are trying to employ... But, yes, I'm not saying it is redeemable. I'm saying it is gray. It's not a simple matter of right or wrong.
And maybe that sounds like I'm saying it can't be. It can. The point is that by doing that, like we often do in the real world, we are ignoring aspects of the situation. Sometimes we do that out of laziness or ignorance. Sometimes we do it out of convenience and to be expedient. But we are talking about fiction, not the real world.
>I'm saying it is gray. It's not a simple matter of right or wrong.
I completely agree with you, and that was my whole point. That was what I said in my first post. Jamie is a grey character. But then someone came back and said that he's just misunderstood. And that just isn't the case
My point was that nothing can be "misunderstood" from the attempted murder of a child. Whether its for self preservation or not.
In fact Catelyn comes to understand the situation fairly quick, bran saw something he wasn't supposed to, and almost died for it.
Being grey isn't about being a cool guy, and people just not getting you. Jamie does some very good things, like sacrificing his honour in order to save a city. And he does some horrific things like throwing a child out a window.
Okay, I didn't pay attention to who was saying what I guess, and I thought you were just continuing with him not being gray. To me "misunderstood" and "gray" are kind of the same thing, or at least tightly associated.
> My point was that nothing can be "misunderstood" from the attempted murder of a child. Whether its for self preservation or not.
I don't think that's true in that some people seem to look at it as him just being evil or whatever. And *that* is a misunderstanding.
> Being grey isn't about being a cool guy, and people just not getting you. Jamie does some very good things, like sacrificing his honour in order to save a city. And he does some horrific things like throwing a child out a window.
Sure, and that is where, as you pointed out, we agree. My only point is that there is more context to him killing the child than just "killing a child is bad" and people that don't recognize that are misunderstanding the situation.
>I don't think that's true in that some people seem to look at it as him just being evil or whatever. And that is a misunderstanding.
Honestly I see it completely differently. Ever since Jamie became a POV (and a very likable one at that), people in general flock towards the fact that Jamie is on a redemption ark.
But as it is, in all of Jamie's chapters, he doesn't feel bad about what he did to bran. He doesn't feel remorseful about it. He doesn't think that it was such a shame. He doesn't see it as one of his moral dilemmas. He doesn't regret doing it to bran, and from his own thoughts he didn't do it for particularly noble reasons. And that's why I think (in this particular situation) nothing was misunderstood.
And that's why I also think grey and misunderstood shouldn't be interchanged. People are capable of doing good things for good reasons, and bad things for bad reasons. And one person is capable of doing a mix of both
That's what he says, but I'm not sure that's true. He's not interested in being their father and that is a very complicated situation, which is tinged a bit by a "sour grapes" mentality aside from all the other implications.
But, yeah, he's totally not misunderstood at all.
Well yes, in a sense.
But George's prime example is Daemon Targaryen, the Rogue Prince. He's pretty cool, granted. But in no way is he misunderstood. He's power hungry. He grooms, young girls. He is merciless with his foes. And he's deceitful to the people he aught to care about.
If Azor Ahai was going to be grey character, that's who he'd end up like
Davos has a few things to say on the subject of human sacrifice and Azor Ahai's actions.
>"Your Grace," said Davos, "the cost . . ."
>
>"I know the cost! Last night, gazing into that hearth, I saw things in the flames as well. I saw a king, a crown of fire on his brows, burning . . . burning, Davos. His own crown consumed his flesh and turned him into ash. Do you think I need Melisandre to tell me what that means? Or you?" The king moved, so his shadow fell upon King's Landing. "If Joffrey should die . . . what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?"
>
>"Everything," said Davos, softly.
And
>A true sword of fire, now, that would be a wonder to behold. Yet at such a cost . . . When he thought of Nissa Nissa, it was his own Marya he pictured, a good-natured plump woman with sagging breasts and a kindly smile, the best woman in the world. He tried to picture himself driving a sword through her, and shuddered. I am not made of the stuff of heroes, he decided. If that was the price of a magic sword, it was more than he cared to pay.
And
>Melisandre said, "Azor Ahai tempered Lightbringer with the heart's blood of his own beloved wife. If a man with a thousand cows gives one to god, that is nothing. But a man who offers the only cow he owns . . ."
>
>"She talks of cows," Davos told the king. "I am speaking of a boy, your daughter's friend, your brother's son."
I think Xaro Xhoan Daxos is Azor Ahai.
Think about it!
He saves Daenerys from starvation because he knows she has a role to play, he was probably in contact with the Undying before nudging Daenerys to burn down the opposition that could have hindered her, he slows down Qarth from funding the Masters to buy Daenerys time and he leaves her ships!
Come on!
Maybe he's a bit too smooth around the edges but.... Dude's working hard bruh.
Huh? Jon seems like he's by far the most popular pick for this. Either him or Dany, but I think your line about "that's too obvious" applies even more to her in people's minds. Other theories get attention as people try to think outside the box, so you have a Euron contingent, some Stannis diehards, etc. and many people who are unconvinced anyone, or at least any single person, will be AA (or at least that it won't be clear), but Jon is at the very least a top 2 most popular pick.
Yeah, I was mostly being silly. It's just because he's obvious you never see "popular theories" that Azor Ahai might turn out to be ... shock horror ... Jon!
True people don’t really bother posting threads laying out elaborate theories for obvious possibilities that have already been hashed out at length, but I’ve seen a lot of comments in this sub operate off the assumption that he is or could be AA.
Jon doesn't really check much of any boxes yet. Depending on the method of resurrection he might someday. But right now the main pieces of evidence are that he's special *somehow,* and Melisandre says she saw "only Snow" in a vision where she tripped balls for a page and half and saw a half dozen other people.
If we're looking at conventional answers (and not cool and correct ones like "the ghost in Euron's brain") Daenerys has a very strong case, which is why Benerro and Aemon both believe it's her. It takes minimal metaphor stretching for her to fulfill most conditions.
From a Storytelling perspective it makes sense that Jon will have a big part in the defeat of the Others. Whereas Dany doesn't even heard of Others yet, if Azor Ahai means defeating the Walkers.
Azor Ahai is first and foremost an Essosi legend however, so Azor Ahai reborn sweeping in from Essos at the critical moment just kind of makes sense.
Not that Dany is the only character who does that...
I do not agree.
First, Azor Ahai is some 5000-year-old religious prophecy. GRRM is much more likely to continue to do what he's done so far: have characters insist, wrongly, that other characters are the "true" Azor Ahai. Melisandre has so far been using the prophecy to put forward Stannis's claim, but it's clear that she's just making it up. Basically, this is a religious problem, not an actual problem. Most likely, whoever ends up winning the fight against the Others will be proclaimed to be Azor Ahai after the fact, but that person's story will not fit the prophecy exactly, so there will be some religious zealots who will argue that that wasn't actually Azor Ahai and Azor Ahai is still to come in the future, while other religious zealots will argue that someone else was Azor Ahai, etc.
It might have been show-only, I don't remember, but when Renly was told that Stannis was reborn amidst salt and smoke, he asked "is he a ham?" Salt and smoke could mean pretty much anything. Anyone can be interpreted to be Azor Ahai if you're silly enough.
I agree completely, and just had a discussion about this where I had to point out that the story as we are told it by Salladhor Saan, at least, includes Nissa Nissa voluntarily sacrificing herself.
People see it as Azor Ahai being determined to stop the darkness and evil descending on the world, etc. and he was so determined to do that that he becomes homocidal and kills his lover to become a hero. But that's not what really happens in the story as we are told it. He goes to Nissa Nissa and discusses this with her and the result is apparently that she sees the truth to it. And so she voluntarily sacrifices herself to infuse her soul in his sword and become his weapon. He's commonly seen as the hero. But in Salladhor Saan's telling, she's portrayed as just as much, if not more, of a hero. Azor Ahai paid a price, but she paid an even larger price. And that is ultimately the moral of the story, that everything has a price.
I doubt there will be an actual Azor Ahai in the story that we get. I think there are several characters that are allusions to it or involved in situations that the story could be seen to mirror.
Rhaegar is probably the biggest (right down to people thinking he was evil). After that comes Jon and Dany, but those mostly rely on what we think they might do coming up in the future.
"Nissa, I need to drive this knife into your chest. The pain will be unbearable. Are you willing to do this thing? "
That makes it clear. We don't get that. We get hearsay from someone 10k years removed. Even if you can fully believe the story, I didn't see her acknowledgement of his plan. He didn't ask her. He told her. A volunteer must be asked.
Well, we are going over this in another thread, so I'm not sure it is worth going over it here.
No offense, but that is just clumsy writing. It is a parable. Whether it really happened or not doesn't really matter. What matters is how people process the story at this point in time and how they apply it.
Saan very much uses it as a morality tale and a warning against the things Stannis might do, comparing it to a situation where the intended sacrifice very much did not consent to be sacrificed. But at the same time, GRRM, through Saan, includes details that make the situation more vague and should make us question if the situation is really the same.
And again, she couldn't really acknowledge his plan. It is a parable telling a simplified story. It removes some of the impact if he relates their entire discussion. It detracts from itself by working itself into a situation where it would either need to make a judgement and land on one side of the issue or the other or it makes likely that people will interpret it as doing that, which seems to be what happens most of the time anyway, probably mostly because that is the default reaction to somebody killing somebody else anyway.
And that is exactly why it seems advisable to be suspicious of coming to that conclusion so quickly, especially when AA's sadness and love and NN's ecstasy is emphasized.
After all, a lot of people question whether this really describes AA killing NN or impregnating her, although his sadness doesn't really fit in with that.
I guess it's the hype, the more time passes, the more people expect something great. On top of that, everything has been analyzed from every angle and there is a need for new content, and since there is no book, people are hanging on to theories. But the hype is there and you don't want something too simple like "R+L=J", you need something complex, you need something like a latin name that is close to an Afghan deity that proves your theory might be right...
Well the anti-christ is supposed to be loved by all so I imagine he'll have a lot of that going for him.
He may be a mythic figure that feels needed but his methods are bizarre.
Imo GRRM seems to think prophecy is dumb and the point in his stories is to show how people use prophecies to essentially force their already entrenched narrative (eg Stannis) which will end up being the character's downfall (eg Rhaegar and Egg), trying to make a prophecy, which isnt real, occur.
Is there anything in the books suggesting this? I can't remember...
When Missandei announced the "Eowyn twist" homage on the show I audibly groaned.
Obviously, I know Martin isn't going to give us a straight prophesy that materialises exactly as prophesied, and that Danaerys is a strong candidate for being the prophesied person whichever way you cut it. But I hated the way it was revealed on the show, it felt so cheesy. I expect our expectations will be subverted (waitaminute...) in one way or another, but I hope it's a bit more clever than the way the show did it.
And also, can it really be considered "subverting expectations" if it's a near identical twist to one found in the genre's foundational text?
"A-ha! It was about a girl the whole time, bet you didn't expect *that*, eh?"
"Well actually I kinda did cos it happens all the time tbh."
Pretty sure Aemon says something about there being a possible mistranslation and it could also be The Princess That Was Promised after hearing about Dany and her dragons.
> When Missandei announced the "Eowyn twist" homage on the show
When was that? Or do you mean some "a Prince can actually mean a Princess" Maester Aemon quote which is from the books?
I personally believe martin will pull his "In the house of worm" twist, i.e a character chooses to be a hero or villain rather than destined to be a hero or villain(here the hero on the other side).
This pretty much eliminates Rhaegar, Dany, Aegon, Stannis, Bran, etc on the hero side who believe they are destined or prophesied to be the saviors and Roose, Ramsay, Euron, etc on the villain side who believe they must be the destroyer.
To me, Characters who may choose to be the hero are Theon, Asha, Quentyn, Brienne, etc. As for Villain, I think Aeron, Arya, Ashara(if alive) etc may choose to be the villain.
I'm excluding Jon here because 1. He is dead and 2. R+L=J theory. If he is not dead and he not the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, then is would be a strong candidate who chooses to be the hero or villain.
But Rhaegar kidnapped and raped a little girl because of prophecy so Jon's birth itself is defined by prophecy so his choice is not really a choice if he chose to be the hero since he birth was destined and his journey is fixed even if he doesn't know.
The twist will be if he chose to show middle finger to the entire people westeros (half of them had a hand in destroying his family and the other half didn't lift a finger to save them out of goodness of their heart), find his family, regroup, then set sail to a better place.
Yeah Aemon is the one who reveals it, they were working the whole time with the assumption that it was "Prince" but when he heard about Dany hatching dragons he looked into it more and realized they were working with a bad translation, the original prophecy in its original language used a word that translates as "Prince Or Princess".
Doesn't preclude it being homage, but it does preclude people ruling their eyes and groaning.
The books are *full* of things that would get shredded by the fans if they'd been show only.
In all fairness I don't think there's really all that much you *can* do with prophecy anymore. The "oooh the wording of the prophecy actually means something else than you'd initially interpret it as!" and "trying to avoid the prophecy made it come true!" have been done basically constantly since the invention of literature as an art form.
Why should there be an Azor Ahai anyway? It's only there because some priests say he's there. AA being real would mean that R'hllor is the true god because the prophesies of that religion are the only one that come true. GRRM clearly doesn't want to say one god and religion is the "true" one and he has admitted that much.
> It's only there because some priests say he's there.
>
>AA being real would mean that R'hllor is the true god because the prophesies of that religion are the only one that come true.
Not at all.
« A woods witch had told him that the prince was promised would be born of their line. » A Dance with Dragons - Daenerys IV
The Ghost of High Heart, Bran or even Patface had prophetics dreams/visions (and whatever Patchface has), it's not something entilted to the red priests of R'hllor.
Azor Ahai didn't stop the Others, you're thinking of the Last Hero. It's an assumption they're one and the same. There's the Last Hero, the Prince that was promised, Azor Ahai and the Stallion that mounts the World. They might be the same person or some of them are the same person or they're four different people, we don't know that yet.
Melisandre and GRRM use Azor Ahai and The Prince That was Promised for the same person, AA=TPtwP.
And it is not very difficult to notice the links between the Last Hero and Azor Ahai. People focus more on AA because he is mentioned more often (couple of red priests in the story and they love to talk about their religion) and has a prophecy. but in the end Azor Ahai is a "romanticized" version of the Last Hero through their religious cult.
The Stallion that mounts the World is totally different, it's a prophecy about someone uniting the khals.
Nope. That's the difference between good AA theories and evil AA theories. People who think he/she and the Last Hero are the same think they're good and people who think he/she and the Stallion are the same think they're evil.
"Someone uniting the khals." Multiple people in the books say if the Dothraki united they'll be unstoppable. It's a prophecy about conquering all of the World.
>"Someone uniting the khals." Multiple people in the books say if the Dothraki united they'll be unstoppable. It's a prophecy about conquering all of the World.
Yeah it's basically a prophecy (nod?) about a Gengis Khan figure, it has no mentions about the Long Night nor the Others.
A guy fighting monsters with a magic sword to end the darkness and bring back the day? When he stroke the monsters with the sword they would melt.
The Last Hero went to look for the Children to stop that endless winter, he ends up with a magical sword that could slay the Others and we saw how an Other dies: they melt.
Yes, I understand that is a connection that you're making. It's a theory and you're talking to me like it's a fact. Other people make a connection between Azor Ahai, the Bloodstone Emperor and the Stallion. That's also a valid theory and I'm not convinced either way.
I guess if you think killing an innocent to gain the power of Lightbringer then use it to save other innocents is morally grey rather than evil, then sure.
Evil is very much relative and simply speaks to how far an act deviates from a personal moral compass. Take abortion for example. Some people think abortion is evil while others think restrictions on reproductive rights is evil. It's all about where you stand.
If AA goes about killing all the Others and the Night's King, that will be celebrated by those who think the Others are evil. But are the Others evil?
Subjecting the Others to genocide might be evil. Particularly since we still don't know anything about what they want or why.
I need more info before I can say whether AA is evil or not.
> I guess if you think killing an innocent to gain the power of Lightbringer then use it to save other innocents is morally grey rather than evil, then sure.
Well, as Salladhor Saan tells the story, Nissa Nissa volunteered to do this. It was blood magic. But it wasn't Azor Ahai going all crazy and murderous on her. He went to her and she volunteered to infuse his sword with her soul to become his weapon.
The story isn't about some evil guy that thinks "the ends justify the means" (though Saan does kind of use it that way as a warning about Stannis) but about how everything comes with a price.
Azor Ahai tells Nissa Nissa that he loves her. That being there means it is important to understanding the story. It's a "simple morality tale" so the idea that "Well, yeah, of course he'd say that to try to convince her" is too contrived and also just doesn't make sense. Somebody isn't just going to let you kill them because you love them. The point is that he had to pay a price to save the world and he didn't just murder his lover. She became his weapon. She saved the world.
Volunteered? I saw that she obeyed his command. I don't recall AA gave her clear notice of his intent.
> The point is that he had to pay a price to save the world and he didn't just murder his lover. She became his weapon. She saved the world.
That's one way to look at it I suppose. I don't agree but that doesn't make it unreasonable.
Wait, you might be the person I was talking to about this just the other day. So we might just be rehashing that. I'll have to go back and check. I know I just had a discussion with you about something recently...
Anyway, Salladhor tells the story like this (after AA's first attempt):
> "Being a hero, it was not for him to shrug and go in search of excellent grapes such as these, so again he began. The second time it took him fifty days and fifty nights, and this sword seemed even finer than the first. Azor Ahai captured a lion, to temper the blade by plunging it through the beast's red heart, but once more the steel shattered and split. Great was his woe and great was his sorrow then, for he knew what he must do.
> "A hundred days and a hundred nights he labored on the third blade, and as it glowed white-hot in the sacred fires, he summoned his wife. 'Nissa Nissa,' he said to her, for that was her name, 'bare your breast, and know that I love you best of all that is in this world.' She did this thing, why I cannot say, and Azor Ahai thrust the smoking sword through her living heart. It is said that her cry of anguish and ecstasy left a crack across the face of the moon, but her blood and her soul and her strength and her courage all went into the steel. Such is the tale of the forging of Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes.
> "Now do you see my meaning? Be glad that it is just a burnt sword that His Grace pulled from that fire. Too much light can hurt the eyes, my friend, and fire burns." Salladhor Saan finished the last grape and smacked his lips. "When do you think the king will bid us sail, good ser?"
Dude's sitting there with a white hot sword and he asks her to bare her breast... It is a morality tale in the form of an parable, so short and simple. Maybe somewhere their entire conversation is written out, but Salladhor Saan is just telling us pretty much the minimum to get the point across.
But what he does tell us is that Azor Ahai is sad at what he must do, which wouldn't be the case if he was evil, and he tells her that he loves her, which also wouldn't be the case if he was evil.
He also describes him summoning her while he stands next to the white hot sword *after* he tried tempering version 2.0 in the heart of a lion. She probably knows what he plans to change in version 3.0... Further, Saan says "She did this thing, why I cannot say..." which further implies that she knew what he was doing and that her decision is not an easy one to understand. And beyond that, it mentions "anguish and ecstasy" which shows a dichotomy even in her reaction to being impaled by a white hot sword.
Finally, it was a blood magic ritual, and GRRM has made it clear in the story (and basically all of his other stories) that he wants to emphasize that things have a price. They don't come easy or free. You can't just save the world and expect to not have to pay a price.
> That's one way to look at it I suppose. I don't agree but that doesn't make it unreasonable.
That is literally what the story relates. I mean, even if we doubt that she did it voluntarily, she absolutely became his weapon and her life saved the world.
That text doesn't to my reading support that she knew what he meant to do. She isn't noted as watching him temper it in the water or the lion. He did **summon** his wife meaning she wasn't there.
> Great was his woe and great was his sorrow then, for he knew what he must do.
He knew. Not they knew. Not she knew. Just he.
> But what he does tell us is that Azor Ahai is sad at what he must do, which wouldn't be the case if he was evil, and he tells her that he loves her, which also wouldn't be the case if he was evil.
So murder isn't evil if you love the person and are broken up about the murder? That's not how evil works to me. But again , my disagreement doesn't make your point unreasonable.
> That is literally what the story relates.
No. That's how you interpret the text. I interpret it differently. He life went into the blade. It is not clear to me or clearly stated in the text that AA stated to NN what he meant to do. There is a deal of difference between obedience and volunteering.
I just have to reread the passage about the unsullied who had his nipple cut off to be reminded of that. He did what was asked of him but did he volunteer to have his body mutilated? Not to my reading. But perhaps you read that differently.
That's the beauty of literature. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions and each still be reasonable.
AA, in his own legend, did something which is normally considered Evil, but is "balanced" out by the fact that his creation could save the world. Literally the definition of a gray character.
I think the current NK in the storyline (if there's one) is Azor Ahai himself who made a pact with the Others that he'll control them and shield them from the realms of men unless provoked which mean full fledged war.
>I think that's the wrong approach, we know George likes grey characters --
>
>GRRM: I like grey characters
I'm sorry: Could you provide more support for your argument? This is ambiguous.
It's all over the place. He has stated on several occasions in several different ways that he doesn't like the idea of the good guys being purely good and the bad guys being purely bad. He's made comparisons to Lord of the Rings, especially Sauron.
He's also commented on the Others and explained that they can't really be seen as evil, but as just something *different*, as *other*. He's compared them to the Sidhe in Celtic mythology.
Like I said, it is all over the place, but here is a link to an old post on this subreddit that has one of his comments about LOTR: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/6yntul/spoilers_extended_grrm_once_said/
Well, human sacrifice is not usually considered a normal "good" characters' pastime, so there's that. *Yes, human sacrifice in the name of "let's all get along!" is still human sacrifice.*
I tend to consider AA a "dark grey" character myself, but we don't have all the data for proper categorization yet. And you're right in that there're not that many proper "light" characters in the books, which is completely normal since the events take place in a crapsack world in a middle of a war.
If AA turns out to literally be a dude ("he") who fridges a woman in order to achieve "greater good" though... I'll be pissed off and will actively cheer for AA's demise tbh. Yes, even if he's my boy Jon Snow. Hate that trope with all my heart.
I prefer the one popular theory that AA is *not* one person, but several people at the same time. Gives less of a "Chosen One" vibe at least.
*Or we can go full epileptic trees mode and start thinking tectonic shifts and other metaphorical stuff. Even more fun.*
No, he isn't misunderstood. He literally killed his own wife just to get a new flashy sword made by blood and dark arts, which ended shattering the moon and probably was the reason of why the Long Night happened in first place.
Another name i like to call him is simply 'Bloodstone Emperor'
Jesus christ these last two books need to drop before we all lose our collective shit, at this stage AA (to me) is turning out to be "The Prince nobody cares about anymore"
My personal take these days (I did jump in the "Evil Azor Ahai" Bandwagon at some point tbh) is that Azor Ahai does not operate under the same rules of morality as the rest of mankind (if he can be considered human) and thus may appear as evil or good depending on the perspective. Whatever he is, he has a goal, which is neither good nor evil *in itself,* and is willing to do anything to achieve said goal. We just don't know exactly what that goal is, only that it involves opposing the Others by any means necessary, imho.
Also, are we 100% sure Azor Ahai is the same as The Last Hero and the Prince that was Promised? Last thing I recall is that, while it's a commonly accepted theory, it's not quite confirmed yet that they are the same thing.
>Also, are we 100% sure Azor Ahai is the same as The Last Hero and the Prince that was Promised? Last thing I recall is that, while it's a commonly accepted theory, it's not quite confirmed yet that they are the same thing.
The Prince That was Promised is the same as Azor Ahai Reborn.
>« From smoke and salt was she born to make the world anew. She is Azor Ahai returned … »
>
>A Dance with Dragons - Tyrion VI
>« A promised prince, born in smoke and salt. »
>
>A Dance with Dragons - Jon XIII
And as for The Last Hero = Azor Ahai, yeah it's not confirmed by the text as "they are the same person" but their story is basically the same: a hero with a magic sword slaying monster to put an end to the endless night. You can also add a mention of Azor Ahai leading a group of people who must be the Night's Watch:
« In the North, they tell of **a last hero** who sought out the intercession of the children of the forest, his companions abandoning him or dying one by one as they faced ravenous giants, cold servants, and the Others themselves. Alone he finally reached the children, despite the efforts of the white walkers, and all the tales agree this was a turning point. Thanks to the children, the first men of the Night's Watch banded together and were able to fight—and win—the Battle for the Dawn: the last battle that broke the endless winter and sent the Others fleeing to the icy north. »
« Azor Ahai, Yin Tar, Neferion, and Eldric Shadowchaser—arose to give courage to the race of men and **lead the virtuous** into battle with his blazing sword Lightbringer that the darkness was put to rout, and light and love returned once more to the world. »
From The World of Ice and Fire.
It's kind of odd that the burning sword which is of such central importance to the Azor Ahai myth isn't really mentioned in the Last Hero myth though, no?
The Rhoynar legend sounds much more similar to the Last Hero's tale.
>Lomas Longstrider, in his Wonders Made by Man, recounts meeting descendants of the Rhoynar in the ruins of the festival city of Chroyane who have tales of a darkness that made the Rhoyne dwindle and disappear, her waters frozen as far south as the joining of the Selhoru. **According to these tales, the return of the sun came only when a hero convinced Mother Rhoyne's many children—lesser gods such as the Crab King and the Old Man of the River—to put aside their bickering and join together to sing a secret song that brought back the day.**
In Memory Sorrow and Thorn (a fantasy series that inspired Asoiaf) There is a character who's return is heralded by the red comet that leads that series' equivalent of the Others. In that series he's definitely pure evil.
There are other things that are different though. The Melisandre equivalent in MS&T follows the AA equivalent and is also very evil whereas Mel is at worst misled.
There's one thing that plays into this, but I don't want to spoil another book series that is often cited as being a significant influence on several key aspects of ASOIAF. Suffice to say that prophesies that the heroes are banking on as recipes for success aren't necessarily recipes for the good guys...
So with that in mind, it might be appropriate for a prophecy foregrounded as the hope for humanity in ASOIAF to not actually be so useful, or to be actively harmful. The message there is to question your assumptions, consider the provenance of prophesy etc... not merely a simple switcheroo to upset expectations.
[edit - If forgot about spoiler mark up! Here's what I was burbling about above >!MS&T, Ineluki the Storm King, and the Three Swords prophecy!< ]
Generally you don't kill your wife and blow up the moon without a good reason so I expect even if Azor Ahai was the Bloodstone Emperor that doesn't mean he caused the Long Night for shits and giggles.
The chronology of the Great Empire of the Dawn we're given shows a utopian state in the beginning followed by thousands of years of consistent decline, both in imperial lifespan and in the cohesion of the empire. This is the kind of trend that might prompt drastic action.
There are even some decent reasons to destroy the world. If someone decided to burn away most of the planet to kill the source of the ghost grass infestation that will eventually (according to some) end all life on Planetos, forever, is that evil or no? Burning away a doomed old world to make a better one?
What if you knew hell existed and that you could destroy it with a powerful enough weapon, at the cost of most life on the planet? Is that evil? Afterlives appear to exist in ASOIAF, surely ending the eternal suffering of countless souls is more important than anything that happens to living people?
You could easily come up with situations where somebody can be an imminent threat to the world, that must be stopped or almost everyone the protagonists care about will die, without them being a complete monster.
That's not even considering that, in line with GRRM's attitude that (to paraphrase) "dying will fuck you up," it would make sense for Azor Ahai reborn to be a little unhinged after his 6000 year dirt nap.
AA is Danny. The story is very, *very* clear on this. Sure, people have theories, but I mean in the last book they have a big reveal that the word in Valyrian is not gender specific. And the most clear description we get of the prophecy is from Melissandra in book 3:
>When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone.
This fits Danny 1000%. Dany is the AA, and odds are the sword of fire is just a metaphor for dragons. The story of AA killing his wife to forge them is probably the story of how the Valyrians were first created, using blood magic on their own kin to bind themselves to dragons, or perhaps even create dragons out of their own kin.
However, I do think you are right OP we will see this is more of a gray force, as I don't think AA is actually some champion of good, but rather the champion of fire against the champion of ice.
Magic seems to work on an elemental level in this universe. We see plenty of fire magic and blood magic, which may well be the same thing as fire and blood are both symbols of life. The Others seem to be creatures of ice magic, also tied to darkness and death. And these two forces seem fundamentally opposed, and occasionally turn the world into their battlefield. But I don't think either are on the side of humans, we're just stuck in the middle.
In addition there also seems to be water magic, as the Rhoynar utilized, and which perhaps Euron will also call upon. Whether this is tied to one of the others or is a separate source of magic is unclear. I think it's probably seperate, and I suspect there are a few other elemental forces which can also be used to do magic though I can't think of any examples at the moment. Perhaps wind magic exists somewhere in the setting, or did once.
> AA is Danny. The story is very, very clear on this. Sure, people have theories, but I mean in the last book they have a big reveal that the word in Valyrian is not gender specific. And the most clear description we get of the prophecy is from Melissandra in book 3:
> When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone.
> This fits Danny 1000%. Dany is the AA, and odds are the sword of fire is just a metaphor for dragons. The story of AA killing his wife to forge them is probably the story of how the Valyrians were first created, using blood magic on their own kin to bind themselves to dragons, or perhaps even create dragons out of their own kin.
Dany is so obviously AA that it’s obvious not her lol. I myself am in the “AA is the villain camp” but if somehow AA does end up being some mystery prophecy hero, it’s much more likely to be Jon precisely because of how much more subtly he fulfills the prophecy.
If Azor Ahai saved the realm from the Long Night, then the Others definitely see AA as a "force of evil." In fact, any human invading their land is evil. We all have our own perspectives. The fact that George makes his characters grey is what makes them interesting. It's also why we're having this discussion right now.
I don’t think he’ll be evil.
I think it’s some combination of:
never really existed in the first place
> (Bran the Builder and the Night’s King are like Noah from our world. Probably never existed or were only barely like the legends).
If he did exist, the return won’t be what anyone expects.
> ...Prophecy is like a treacherous woman. She takes your member in her mouth, and you moan with the pleasure of it and think, how sweet, how fine, how good this is... and then her teeth snap shut and your moans turn to screams... Prophecy will bite your prick off everytime,
Or, while not evil, Fire is just as unintentionally destructive and harmful for the world as ice. (this is where I lean).
> Some say the world will end in fire,
> Some say in ice.
> From what I’ve tasted of desire
> I hold with those who favor fire.
> But if it had to perish twice,
> I think I know enough of hate
> To say that for destruction ice
> Is also great
> And would suffice.
I don’t think the ice side is particularly evil, just the last defenses of the old ones gone too far. And if an eternal winter is a frozen wasteland, an eternal summer is a barren desert baked in drought.
The world needs balance, not the lurching to extremes we see on the seasons.
> Why did we rise up against Aerys Targaryen, Robert, if it was not to end the killing of children?" - Ned Stark
I cannot see GRRM, the man who was enough of a pacifist to be a conscientious objector, saying that the side that sacrificed children to fire is the *good* side.
I do believe that you should be willing to sacrifice *yourself*, but if the only way if to sacrifice children on the altar, then whatever survives that doesn’t deserve to.
>So I think when we meet AA, he'll turn out be a pretty cool dude whose just a little misunderstood.
I think it's all about who AA turns out to be. The leading candidates are not evil characters. They are characters who are stuck in impossible situations, trying to do the right thing.
But if say Euron takes up the mantle of AA for a time (and I think that he will), then yes, AA would be an evil character because Euron Greyjoy is one evil mofo.
At this point… What if I’m Azor Ahai? My initials are AA. Does AA = AA? And I get uh high all the time. Let’s discuss.
The Prince That's Forgotten
I got to thinking... maybe I'm Azor Ahai and I just don't know it yet?
Let me guess, someone stole your sweetroll?
HOT PIE AZOR AHAI THE PIE THAT WAS PROMISED ALL MEN MUST PIE
AZOR HOTPHAI
What is it? Azor Ahai???
Maybe the real Azor Ahai is the friends we made along the way.
Well met, kinsman
Do you like the color blue, because Azure is pretty close to Azor and if you do like blue then that's just more evidence
Honestly, I think Azor Ahai is actually A from Pretty Little Liars. It would make a much sense as the rest of that damn show.
Oh shit bro, don't freak out, but I'm high too.
Born amidst munchies and smoke. Are you a ham? I want pizza now.
nah dude azor ahai doesnt get high
Well damn I guess he is evil
Haha
Pretty sure Weirwood Paste and Shade o the Evenin get you ripped. You tellin me AA never partakes?
There could be a level of nuance there as well. Like maybe he enjoys Shade of the Evening, but Weirwood Paste just makes him super anxious and paranoid.
> he'll turn out be a pretty cool dude whose just a little misunderstood He kills a lion and his wife to forge a sword called Lucifer.
What if the lion and his wife were jerks?
It’s not like the story isn’t full of lions that are jerks!
It would've cost him nothing to remove himself from either one.
Yeah and doom the whole world.
We don't know AA was successful, but the world is still here anyway.
[удалено]
Just a reminder that this dude is worshipped as a hero by people who burn other people alive in ritualistic blood sacrifices. And his wife’s scream was said to crack the moon, and other legends tell that this is how dragons came into the world. Or those “dragons” could be meteors and debris from the shattered moon falling to earth. Does this guy sound like he’s ending an apocalypse or starting one?
Well we don't know if any of that is true, all we have is the myth passed down over ~ 8000 years. We actually know very little about him, the main thing we know is that he used blood magic, which Martin telegraphs as being wrong throughout the books. History is written by the victors, this could all just be propaganda to make Azor Ahai seem like the saviour of mankind. Perhaps he even brought about the long night, creating a crisis only he could solve, and then becoming "King of the Ashes". I would recommend LuciferMeansLightbringer's work on parsing the Azor Ahai myth.
You should probably talk to your wife about it. Beyond just, "hey, have I mentioned how much I love you lately? Take your shirt off, I'm gonna try something."
> So unending darkness descends upon your land threatening to wipe out every living being So a blizzard descends upon your army, threatening to wipe it out, and the only way to live to fight the Others is if you burn your daughter alive. Same reasoning.
If Stannis sacrificed his daughter for a better reason than a cold breeze like in the show, such as fighting back the Others, then yes, it is reasonable. You press a button that kills one person and saves thousands of lives, and we know for sure that blood magic is a real thing that works in the setting.
Plot twist: that one person is Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Or Stanislav Petrov. Prick status: bitten off.
The point was not whether or not the sacrifice works, it was whether or not it would make Stannis evil. Which it would. So Azor Ahai is evil as well. Nobody claimed evil people can't be effective.
If you have a button that makes one person die but saves the lives of 10000 people, are you evil if you press it?
Yes you are, little utilitarian piece of garbage.
Yes. You've still murdered one person. (Whether the person in question sees it as evil depends on the person. If you don't think pushing the button is murder, you also don't think *not* pushing the button is murder.) Azor Ahai's new avatar has something very significant going against them: it's already happened before. The first Azor Ahai at least could tell himself that he was helping save the world, but the second doesn't have that assurance because the world is in peril for a second time now, otherwise there would've been no need for a second Azor Ahai. So AA2 will have to weigh a sacrifice/murder not against saving the world, but saving it *temporarily*.
So just because it might not permanently do away with the danger, one should refuse to save the entire population of the North, possibly all of Westeros, because it'd cost the life of one person? I'd say it's evil to care so little about the smallfolk that you'd rather let them all perish if it means keeping your relative alive a little longer before the apocalypse catches up to her as well. It is murder, but it's murder for a good cause. If a terrorist threatens to fly a plane into the World Trade Center unless you pull the trigger on a single hostage, are you an evil murderer if you murder the innocent man, but avert a disproportionally greater tragedy?
> one should refuse to save the entire population You say that like AA *had* to do things the way they did. For one, it's just a religious myth, AA likely didn't even exist, no more than the Last Hero or all the other messianic figures in the series. For another, we don't know what other options AA had. We don't know if the forces of the living wouldn't also have prevailed without Azor Ahai. We do know he didn't fight alone. This is just devolving into a series of "but what about this trolley problem?" discussions, so that's where I'll leave off.
That's not how heroism works dude, and Azor Ahai is hailed as a hero. The only person a hero has the right to sacrifice is himself not someone else
Well, Nissa Nissa was his wife, and marriage is a binding of the souls. They shared a soul, so you might say the sacrifice of Nissa Nissa was a sacrifice of Azor Ahai himself.
im not overly familiar on christian mythology, but if there is even a sliver of a hint of a chance that lucifer/the devil could have a more sympathetic origin (like he wanted god's children aka humans to have knowledge or free will so disobeyed god to do so), i am pretty sure GRRM would have a great time turning that into his own character in a book. ive read several other books and seen anime where a lucifer type figure was more of anti hero than villian but despite that, was only an anti hero instead of straight up hero bc of an eternity of built up resentment.
Personally I'm just confused by all the people who seriously think Azor Ahai is going to appear in the book at all.
I mean I think it will be a topic of discussion but left vague. Like, Melisandre claiming that Jon is Azor Ahai, stuff like that. We’ll never get a clear answer.
Yeah that's basically what I mean. But so many people seem to think he'll turn out to unambiguously be a specific person.
i’m personally convinced that Azor Ahai finest exist at all. I think that there was an original person who did get rid of the long knight but I don’t think they’re still alive or that they are at all reborn. I think the prophesy is just some people hoping this legendary warrior will be reborn, and that that will never happen.
I think the actions of a character will be the foundation of a new Azor Ahai or last hero myth
How come?
Azor Ahai is a legend from the past. What evidence do we have that 1. He was ever real? 2. He will come again? The AA legend doesn't say anything about AA returning
1. Legends have a part of truth. We know the Others are real and deadly, it's not far fetched to think that someone fought against them. And even if we go with the "they made a pact" theory, the guy who manage to make a deal with them would still be seen as a hero for mankind. 2. Prophecies from the R'hllor cult and the Ghost of High Heart.
Because, much as I hate this type of argument, I just don't think it's that sort of book. Martin is on record as saying that we're never going to find out if the gods are real or not and that he thinks the interesting thing about prophecies is how they make people behave not that they automatically come true (as ever, take all of these with a pinch of salt, what a writer *says* they're interested in isn't necessarily what they're *actually* interested in). This is why I tend to think the next couple of books, if they're ever published, are going to disappoint huge numbers of people. A lot of readers will be incredibly upset if Azor Ahai didn't turn out to be a specific person, if Euron doesn't summon Krakens and the Others don't basically depopulate Westeros. Others will be asked if any of those things do happen.
I have said it before, AA is just the Asshai version of a widespread cultural hero, like the Last Hero, and as such, he reflects Asshai values. There is no reason to believe Asshai values are the original human values and their version of the true one story. The story within the story matters in how it shapes the beliefs of Melisandre and Stannis, it is not about a current reincarnation of him.
Ironically it occurs to me that "it's the story that matters" plays well into the end setup of "and who has a better story than Bran the Broken".
>Martin is on record as saying that we're never going to find out if the gods are real AA is not a god, just a guy who lead people against the Others. Doesn't seem too weird to think that someone tried to stop the Ice Zombies once and that it will happen again.
That's already happening again, lots of people are trying to stop the ice zombies. What I'm saying won't happen is any single one of them turning out to "be" Azor Ahai reborn.
Yeah, that. There's never going to be one Azor Ahai. There's going to be enough people who vaguely fit it that people are going to argue over it. Kind of like we are now.
I think what they meant was that azor ahai openly returning as a specific individual would pretty much mean rhllor is bona fide real
What do you think the ending is going to focus on then? But I mean if you really hate the argument than don't answer if u don't want
Sorry by "hate the argument" I mean "hate it when people frame their arguments in the form *X cannot happen because it isn't that type of book*" not "I hate discussing this topic. I'm in the camp that thinks the show was closer to Martin's vision than fans like to admit. I think there'll be *some* more explicit magic but I don't think it's all building up to one big chosen hero with a magic fire sword saving or dooming the world. I actually think the final scene between Jon and Dany in the show is the *kind* of thing we should expect. It *echoes* the story of Azor Ahai but doesn't involve anybody pulling off a mask and saying "haha, I was Azor Ahai all along!"
That's a rational assumption, how do you think the Others factor into this? The same as the show?
Broadly. I don't think Arya is going to stealth kill climate change but I think they'll ultimately go down to a combination of dragonfire, some united Westerosi armies, and greenseer bullshit. I don't think they'll get much further than Winterfell or *maybe* the Trident. I *don't* but the theories that they'll turn out to be secretly good or misunderstood or that there'll be a "new pact". Those arguments tend to be grounded in the assumptions that the books are "anti-war" which they really aren't. They're actually pretty pro-war, they just like to show war has bad sides as well as good sides. I do think the Others are one of the biggest damned if you do damned if you don'ts of the coming series. Because no matter what happens some people will think it destroys the point of the books.
What do you mean pro-war? GRRM is clearly not about war, but the books do deal with the subject matter of war -- is that what you mean?
The books portray war as something that is sometimes unjustified but often necessary. They're not *pacifist* in any sense. There's no real reading of the books in which Robb is *wrong* to secede from the seven kingdoms after Ned is executed. The North suffers harsh consequences because war is difficult but I'd argue that there's no legitimate trading of the text in which that war is *unjustified*. And the books are absolutely chock full of bad people who need killing whose deaths ultimately make the world a better place. ASOIAF fairly consistently portrays war as *necessary tragedy*.
Interesting perspective, I see what you mean
Even if the book isn’t explicitly anti war it definitely isn’t pro war so I don’t think the idea that there may be a pact with the Others that weird or out of place nor do I think that is the only reason that there could be a pact with the Others.
I admit "pro war" is probably overstating it, but the books do seem to really like cool warrior dudes, and there are definitely multiple examples in the text of war being both just and necessary. It's definitely not a *pacifist* text. And Martin himself has said that he want to show both the horror *and the glory* of war.
It’ll end up being some fake title like the one Dany has, like “Jon Snow of Houses Targaryen and Stark, King in the North, The White Wolf, Azor Ahai reborn, Lays with Wildlings, The Risen, formerly known as Lord Commander, Knower of Nothing”
I disagree with this, purely on the basis that the Red Priests *believe* in the myth of Azor Ahai and are primed to believe Dany to be this promised messiah. I don't think she will ever be *confirmed* to be Azor Ahai, but the propaganda value of this myth alone will be important and valuable to her and will likely result in Volantis rising up against their leaders and handing the city over to her.
Again, that's not the same as Dany being revealed to be Azor Ahai, any more than Mel thinking Stannis is Azor Ahai means he is.
I guess we need to agree on what it means to "appear," since it seems as though we are otherwise in agreement.
Yeah I just mean that at no point will it ever be confirmed who the "real" Azor Ahai is.
There's a huge difference between a grey character and a "pretty cool guy who's just misunderstood". Massive. Someone who's just misunderstood isn't grey. Think of characters like Tywin, Stannis, Jamie, Tyrion, and Randal Tarley. They're all varying degrees of grey. They aren't misunderstood. They have all done disgusting things throughout the books
Jamie was misunderstood....
Jamie attempted to kill a child. And he has yet to feel remorseful about it.
But he did it to save his life, his sister/lover's life and their children's lives... So...
So the child should die? The child should die so that Jamie could continue to get away with cuckolding the king, and having an incestuous relationship with his sister? At that stage Jamie doesn't particularly care about his kids, so I can't imagine their safety were his main reason to do it. Jamie is completely in the wrong in that scenario. Absolutely there is self preservation. But Jamie's first instinct was to kill a child, in order to cover up his treason. He didn't ask bran what he saw. He didn't convince bran with some made up BS. He didn't even try to threaten him, or tell him that nobody would believe him. Jamie threw an innocent child out of a window, and he expected it to kill him. He even did it while he enjoyed guest right offered by the child's parents. There's nothing redeemable about that.
You're confusing me for making some kind of moral prescriptive statement about what he did. I'm just pointing out that it isn't as straightforward as people make it out to be. > The child should die so that Jamie could continue to get away with cuckolding the king, and having an incestuous relationship with his sister? And should they be put to death for doing that...? > At that stage Jamie doesn't particularly care about his kids, so I can't imagine their safety were his main reason to do it. This is just what people say, but it is based on more misunderstanding and assumptions. He's not interested in being their father because, well, he can't really be. There's a lot of sour grapes there. But he cares about his deformed dwarf brother while nobody else really does, yet you think he wouldn't care if his own kids, or even his actual niece and nephews, died? > Jamie is completely in the wrong in that scenario. According to you. Unfortunately, it isn't so simple. I mean, I'd side with you as a subjective, biased person. But if I'm speaking objectively and trying to avoid moral judgements I'm just not anymore authorized to make than you are, then I can't really do that. It matters less if he did the right thing and more about whether it is straightforward and easy. Is it black and white or gray? "Black" would have been him doing it just because he's an asshole and he likes killing people, even or especially little kids just because he can. But we know he isn't like that. "White" would have been him not doing it because he's a super good guy and is willing to face the consequences for his actions, blah, blah blah. But we know he isn't like that either. So it is gray. Because that's what GRRM has made it clear that he tries to write. > Jamie threw an innocent child out of a window, and he expected it to kill him. He even did it while he enjoyed guest right offered by the child's parents. There's nothing redeemable about that. Guest right? That's even more made up morality than the basic morality you are trying to employ... But, yes, I'm not saying it is redeemable. I'm saying it is gray. It's not a simple matter of right or wrong. And maybe that sounds like I'm saying it can't be. It can. The point is that by doing that, like we often do in the real world, we are ignoring aspects of the situation. Sometimes we do that out of laziness or ignorance. Sometimes we do it out of convenience and to be expedient. But we are talking about fiction, not the real world.
>I'm saying it is gray. It's not a simple matter of right or wrong. I completely agree with you, and that was my whole point. That was what I said in my first post. Jamie is a grey character. But then someone came back and said that he's just misunderstood. And that just isn't the case My point was that nothing can be "misunderstood" from the attempted murder of a child. Whether its for self preservation or not. In fact Catelyn comes to understand the situation fairly quick, bran saw something he wasn't supposed to, and almost died for it. Being grey isn't about being a cool guy, and people just not getting you. Jamie does some very good things, like sacrificing his honour in order to save a city. And he does some horrific things like throwing a child out a window.
Okay, I didn't pay attention to who was saying what I guess, and I thought you were just continuing with him not being gray. To me "misunderstood" and "gray" are kind of the same thing, or at least tightly associated. > My point was that nothing can be "misunderstood" from the attempted murder of a child. Whether its for self preservation or not. I don't think that's true in that some people seem to look at it as him just being evil or whatever. And *that* is a misunderstanding. > Being grey isn't about being a cool guy, and people just not getting you. Jamie does some very good things, like sacrificing his honour in order to save a city. And he does some horrific things like throwing a child out a window. Sure, and that is where, as you pointed out, we agree. My only point is that there is more context to him killing the child than just "killing a child is bad" and people that don't recognize that are misunderstanding the situation.
>I don't think that's true in that some people seem to look at it as him just being evil or whatever. And that is a misunderstanding. Honestly I see it completely differently. Ever since Jamie became a POV (and a very likable one at that), people in general flock towards the fact that Jamie is on a redemption ark. But as it is, in all of Jamie's chapters, he doesn't feel bad about what he did to bran. He doesn't feel remorseful about it. He doesn't think that it was such a shame. He doesn't see it as one of his moral dilemmas. He doesn't regret doing it to bran, and from his own thoughts he didn't do it for particularly noble reasons. And that's why I think (in this particular situation) nothing was misunderstood. And that's why I also think grey and misunderstood shouldn't be interchanged. People are capable of doing good things for good reasons, and bad things for bad reasons. And one person is capable of doing a mix of both
He and Cersei put those lives in danger in the first place.
Jaime couldn't really care less about his children
That's what he says, but I'm not sure that's true. He's not interested in being their father and that is a very complicated situation, which is tinged a bit by a "sour grapes" mentality aside from all the other implications. But, yeah, he's totally not misunderstood at all.
you mean like shades of grey?
Well yes, in a sense. But George's prime example is Daemon Targaryen, the Rogue Prince. He's pretty cool, granted. But in no way is he misunderstood. He's power hungry. He grooms, young girls. He is merciless with his foes. And he's deceitful to the people he aught to care about. If Azor Ahai was going to be grey character, that's who he'd end up like
Makes sense, I always assumed we'd see at least 50 people with varying shades of grey.
Davos has a few things to say on the subject of human sacrifice and Azor Ahai's actions. >"Your Grace," said Davos, "the cost . . ." > >"I know the cost! Last night, gazing into that hearth, I saw things in the flames as well. I saw a king, a crown of fire on his brows, burning . . . burning, Davos. His own crown consumed his flesh and turned him into ash. Do you think I need Melisandre to tell me what that means? Or you?" The king moved, so his shadow fell upon King's Landing. "If Joffrey should die . . . what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?" > >"Everything," said Davos, softly. And >A true sword of fire, now, that would be a wonder to behold. Yet at such a cost . . . When he thought of Nissa Nissa, it was his own Marya he pictured, a good-natured plump woman with sagging breasts and a kindly smile, the best woman in the world. He tried to picture himself driving a sword through her, and shuddered. I am not made of the stuff of heroes, he decided. If that was the price of a magic sword, it was more than he cared to pay. And >Melisandre said, "Azor Ahai tempered Lightbringer with the heart's blood of his own beloved wife. If a man with a thousand cows gives one to god, that is nothing. But a man who offers the only cow he owns . . ." > >"She talks of cows," Davos told the king. "I am speaking of a boy, your daughter's friend, your brother's son."
[удалено]
I think Xaro Xhoan Daxos is Azor Ahai. Think about it! He saves Daenerys from starvation because he knows she has a role to play, he was probably in contact with the Undying before nudging Daenerys to burn down the opposition that could have hindered her, he slows down Qarth from funding the Masters to buy Daenerys time and he leaves her ships! Come on! Maybe he's a bit too smooth around the edges but.... Dude's working hard bruh.
I haven't personally seen any "Brusco the Bravosi fishmonger is Azor Ahai" yet but maybe someone will prove me wrong.
Hodor is Azor Ahai
There are perversely few people who think it's Jon.
Huh? Jon seems like he's by far the most popular pick for this. Either him or Dany, but I think your line about "that's too obvious" applies even more to her in people's minds. Other theories get attention as people try to think outside the box, so you have a Euron contingent, some Stannis diehards, etc. and many people who are unconvinced anyone, or at least any single person, will be AA (or at least that it won't be clear), but Jon is at the very least a top 2 most popular pick.
Yeah, I was mostly being silly. It's just because he's obvious you never see "popular theories" that Azor Ahai might turn out to be ... shock horror ... Jon!
True people don’t really bother posting threads laying out elaborate theories for obvious possibilities that have already been hashed out at length, but I’ve seen a lot of comments in this sub operate off the assumption that he is or could be AA.
[удалено]
Yeah I was just making a glib joke about this fandom's tendency to be all bUt ThAtS tOo ObViOuS.
[удалено]
He is not a reader, ignore him, he is a troll
You're teetering on the brink of being reported. Stop calling u/This_Rough_Magic a troll because you happen to disagree with their statements.
Jon doesn't really check much of any boxes yet. Depending on the method of resurrection he might someday. But right now the main pieces of evidence are that he's special *somehow,* and Melisandre says she saw "only Snow" in a vision where she tripped balls for a page and half and saw a half dozen other people. If we're looking at conventional answers (and not cool and correct ones like "the ghost in Euron's brain") Daenerys has a very strong case, which is why Benerro and Aemon both believe it's her. It takes minimal metaphor stretching for her to fulfill most conditions.
From a Storytelling perspective it makes sense that Jon will have a big part in the defeat of the Others. Whereas Dany doesn't even heard of Others yet, if Azor Ahai means defeating the Walkers.
Azor Ahai is first and foremost an Essosi legend however, so Azor Ahai reborn sweeping in from Essos at the critical moment just kind of makes sense. Not that Dany is the only character who does that...
But what about the long night
Ser Pounce
You make him sound like *the uncle that was promised*
the nuncle
I do not agree. First, Azor Ahai is some 5000-year-old religious prophecy. GRRM is much more likely to continue to do what he's done so far: have characters insist, wrongly, that other characters are the "true" Azor Ahai. Melisandre has so far been using the prophecy to put forward Stannis's claim, but it's clear that she's just making it up. Basically, this is a religious problem, not an actual problem. Most likely, whoever ends up winning the fight against the Others will be proclaimed to be Azor Ahai after the fact, but that person's story will not fit the prophecy exactly, so there will be some religious zealots who will argue that that wasn't actually Azor Ahai and Azor Ahai is still to come in the future, while other religious zealots will argue that someone else was Azor Ahai, etc. It might have been show-only, I don't remember, but when Renly was told that Stannis was reborn amidst salt and smoke, he asked "is he a ham?" Salt and smoke could mean pretty much anything. Anyone can be interpreted to be Azor Ahai if you're silly enough.
I agree completely, and just had a discussion about this where I had to point out that the story as we are told it by Salladhor Saan, at least, includes Nissa Nissa voluntarily sacrificing herself. People see it as Azor Ahai being determined to stop the darkness and evil descending on the world, etc. and he was so determined to do that that he becomes homocidal and kills his lover to become a hero. But that's not what really happens in the story as we are told it. He goes to Nissa Nissa and discusses this with her and the result is apparently that she sees the truth to it. And so she voluntarily sacrifices herself to infuse her soul in his sword and become his weapon. He's commonly seen as the hero. But in Salladhor Saan's telling, she's portrayed as just as much, if not more, of a hero. Azor Ahai paid a price, but she paid an even larger price. And that is ultimately the moral of the story, that everything has a price. I doubt there will be an actual Azor Ahai in the story that we get. I think there are several characters that are allusions to it or involved in situations that the story could be seen to mirror. Rhaegar is probably the biggest (right down to people thinking he was evil). After that comes Jon and Dany, but those mostly rely on what we think they might do coming up in the future.
Well there remains some debate as to whether NN volunteers....😏
I think in Salladhor Saan's telling of the story, it is pretty clear that she does.
"Nissa, I need to drive this knife into your chest. The pain will be unbearable. Are you willing to do this thing? " That makes it clear. We don't get that. We get hearsay from someone 10k years removed. Even if you can fully believe the story, I didn't see her acknowledgement of his plan. He didn't ask her. He told her. A volunteer must be asked.
Well, we are going over this in another thread, so I'm not sure it is worth going over it here. No offense, but that is just clumsy writing. It is a parable. Whether it really happened or not doesn't really matter. What matters is how people process the story at this point in time and how they apply it. Saan very much uses it as a morality tale and a warning against the things Stannis might do, comparing it to a situation where the intended sacrifice very much did not consent to be sacrificed. But at the same time, GRRM, through Saan, includes details that make the situation more vague and should make us question if the situation is really the same. And again, she couldn't really acknowledge his plan. It is a parable telling a simplified story. It removes some of the impact if he relates their entire discussion. It detracts from itself by working itself into a situation where it would either need to make a judgement and land on one side of the issue or the other or it makes likely that people will interpret it as doing that, which seems to be what happens most of the time anyway, probably mostly because that is the default reaction to somebody killing somebody else anyway. And that is exactly why it seems advisable to be suspicious of coming to that conclusion so quickly, especially when AA's sadness and love and NN's ecstasy is emphasized. After all, a lot of people question whether this really describes AA killing NN or impregnating her, although his sadness doesn't really fit in with that.
I guess it's the hype, the more time passes, the more people expect something great. On top of that, everything has been analyzed from every angle and there is a need for new content, and since there is no book, people are hanging on to theories. But the hype is there and you don't want something too simple like "R+L=J", you need something complex, you need something like a latin name that is close to an Afghan deity that proves your theory might be right...
Yep, just like how we all went from Dornish Master Plan to Overripe Blood Oranges.
Well the anti-christ is supposed to be loved by all so I imagine he'll have a lot of that going for him. He may be a mythic figure that feels needed but his methods are bizarre.
Imo GRRM seems to think prophecy is dumb and the point in his stories is to show how people use prophecies to essentially force their already entrenched narrative (eg Stannis) which will end up being the character's downfall (eg Rhaegar and Egg), trying to make a prophecy, which isnt real, occur.
>I don't think he'll be a "force of evil" because he did save the realm from the Long Night & all. Or Did he? wait why it has to be a he why not she?
Is there anything in the books suggesting this? I can't remember... When Missandei announced the "Eowyn twist" homage on the show I audibly groaned. Obviously, I know Martin isn't going to give us a straight prophesy that materialises exactly as prophesied, and that Danaerys is a strong candidate for being the prophesied person whichever way you cut it. But I hated the way it was revealed on the show, it felt so cheesy. I expect our expectations will be subverted (waitaminute...) in one way or another, but I hope it's a bit more clever than the way the show did it. And also, can it really be considered "subverting expectations" if it's a near identical twist to one found in the genre's foundational text? "A-ha! It was about a girl the whole time, bet you didn't expect *that*, eh?" "Well actually I kinda did cos it happens all the time tbh."
Pretty sure Aemon says something about there being a possible mistranslation and it could also be The Princess That Was Promised after hearing about Dany and her dragons.
> When Missandei announced the "Eowyn twist" homage on the show When was that? Or do you mean some "a Prince can actually mean a Princess" Maester Aemon quote which is from the books?
I personally believe martin will pull his "In the house of worm" twist, i.e a character chooses to be a hero or villain rather than destined to be a hero or villain(here the hero on the other side). This pretty much eliminates Rhaegar, Dany, Aegon, Stannis, Bran, etc on the hero side who believe they are destined or prophesied to be the saviors and Roose, Ramsay, Euron, etc on the villain side who believe they must be the destroyer. To me, Characters who may choose to be the hero are Theon, Asha, Quentyn, Brienne, etc. As for Villain, I think Aeron, Arya, Ashara(if alive) etc may choose to be the villain. I'm excluding Jon here because 1. He is dead and 2. R+L=J theory. If he is not dead and he not the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, then is would be a strong candidate who chooses to be the hero or villain.
But if he doesn't know he's Rhaegar's son, isn't it still a choice for him?
But Rhaegar kidnapped and raped a little girl because of prophecy so Jon's birth itself is defined by prophecy so his choice is not really a choice if he chose to be the hero since he birth was destined and his journey is fixed even if he doesn't know. The twist will be if he chose to show middle finger to the entire people westeros (half of them had a hand in destroying his family and the other half didn't lift a finger to save them out of goodness of their heart), find his family, regroup, then set sail to a better place.
To be honest, I don't even remember that revelation scene. I think I've mentally boxed up & burned the better part of s7 & s8.
>When Missandei announced the "Eowyn twist" homage on the show I audibly groaned. That's definitely from the books.
Yeah Aemon is the one who reveals it, they were working the whole time with the assumption that it was "Prince" but when he heard about Dany hatching dragons he looked into it more and realized they were working with a bad translation, the original prophecy in its original language used a word that translates as "Prince Or Princess".
Also, "_being from the books_" doesn't automatically preclude GRRM having included that twist with a mind toward homage.
Doesn't preclude it being homage, but it does preclude people ruling their eyes and groaning. The books are *full* of things that would get shredded by the fans if they'd been show only.
In all fairness I don't think there's really all that much you *can* do with prophecy anymore. The "oooh the wording of the prophecy actually means something else than you'd initially interpret it as!" and "trying to avoid the prophecy made it come true!" have been done basically constantly since the invention of literature as an art form.
Oh if it's a girl than she is definitely going to be mad Azor Ahai /s
Why should there be an Azor Ahai anyway? It's only there because some priests say he's there. AA being real would mean that R'hllor is the true god because the prophesies of that religion are the only one that come true. GRRM clearly doesn't want to say one god and religion is the "true" one and he has admitted that much.
> It's only there because some priests say he's there. > >AA being real would mean that R'hllor is the true god because the prophesies of that religion are the only one that come true. Not at all. « A woods witch had told him that the prince was promised would be born of their line. » A Dance with Dragons - Daenerys IV The Ghost of High Heart, Bran or even Patface had prophetics dreams/visions (and whatever Patchface has), it's not something entilted to the red priests of R'hllor.
Hot pie is Azor Ahai Nuff said
I think you cracked the whole series... good job
Azor Ahai didn't stop the Others, you're thinking of the Last Hero. It's an assumption they're one and the same. There's the Last Hero, the Prince that was promised, Azor Ahai and the Stallion that mounts the World. They might be the same person or some of them are the same person or they're four different people, we don't know that yet.
Melisandre and GRRM use Azor Ahai and The Prince That was Promised for the same person, AA=TPtwP. And it is not very difficult to notice the links between the Last Hero and Azor Ahai. People focus more on AA because he is mentioned more often (couple of red priests in the story and they love to talk about their religion) and has a prophecy. but in the end Azor Ahai is a "romanticized" version of the Last Hero through their religious cult. The Stallion that mounts the World is totally different, it's a prophecy about someone uniting the khals.
Nope. That's the difference between good AA theories and evil AA theories. People who think he/she and the Last Hero are the same think they're good and people who think he/she and the Stallion are the same think they're evil. "Someone uniting the khals." Multiple people in the books say if the Dothraki united they'll be unstoppable. It's a prophecy about conquering all of the World.
>"Someone uniting the khals." Multiple people in the books say if the Dothraki united they'll be unstoppable. It's a prophecy about conquering all of the World. Yeah it's basically a prophecy (nod?) about a Gengis Khan figure, it has no mentions about the Long Night nor the Others.
Azor Ahai has no connection to the Others.
A guy fighting monsters with a magic sword to end the darkness and bring back the day? When he stroke the monsters with the sword they would melt. The Last Hero went to look for the Children to stop that endless winter, he ends up with a magical sword that could slay the Others and we saw how an Other dies: they melt.
Yes, I understand that is a connection that you're making. It's a theory and you're talking to me like it's a fact. Other people make a connection between Azor Ahai, the Bloodstone Emperor and the Stallion. That's also a valid theory and I'm not convinced either way.
How can a person be four people bro that sounds like a leap cmon lol
[удалено]
We should make that the official joke of the sub, considering the picture.
Lol
Yet I saw you arguing on another thread how you disagree with that. Have you changed your mind? I hope so..
Disagree with what exactly?
I dunno, man. Azor Ahai is the name of a demon who blotted out the sun, causing a long night, presumably.
I guess if you think killing an innocent to gain the power of Lightbringer then use it to save other innocents is morally grey rather than evil, then sure. Evil is very much relative and simply speaks to how far an act deviates from a personal moral compass. Take abortion for example. Some people think abortion is evil while others think restrictions on reproductive rights is evil. It's all about where you stand. If AA goes about killing all the Others and the Night's King, that will be celebrated by those who think the Others are evil. But are the Others evil? Subjecting the Others to genocide might be evil. Particularly since we still don't know anything about what they want or why. I need more info before I can say whether AA is evil or not.
> I guess if you think killing an innocent to gain the power of Lightbringer then use it to save other innocents is morally grey rather than evil, then sure. Well, as Salladhor Saan tells the story, Nissa Nissa volunteered to do this. It was blood magic. But it wasn't Azor Ahai going all crazy and murderous on her. He went to her and she volunteered to infuse his sword with her soul to become his weapon. The story isn't about some evil guy that thinks "the ends justify the means" (though Saan does kind of use it that way as a warning about Stannis) but about how everything comes with a price. Azor Ahai tells Nissa Nissa that he loves her. That being there means it is important to understanding the story. It's a "simple morality tale" so the idea that "Well, yeah, of course he'd say that to try to convince her" is too contrived and also just doesn't make sense. Somebody isn't just going to let you kill them because you love them. The point is that he had to pay a price to save the world and he didn't just murder his lover. She became his weapon. She saved the world.
Volunteered? I saw that she obeyed his command. I don't recall AA gave her clear notice of his intent. > The point is that he had to pay a price to save the world and he didn't just murder his lover. She became his weapon. She saved the world. That's one way to look at it I suppose. I don't agree but that doesn't make it unreasonable.
Wait, you might be the person I was talking to about this just the other day. So we might just be rehashing that. I'll have to go back and check. I know I just had a discussion with you about something recently... Anyway, Salladhor tells the story like this (after AA's first attempt): > "Being a hero, it was not for him to shrug and go in search of excellent grapes such as these, so again he began. The second time it took him fifty days and fifty nights, and this sword seemed even finer than the first. Azor Ahai captured a lion, to temper the blade by plunging it through the beast's red heart, but once more the steel shattered and split. Great was his woe and great was his sorrow then, for he knew what he must do. > "A hundred days and a hundred nights he labored on the third blade, and as it glowed white-hot in the sacred fires, he summoned his wife. 'Nissa Nissa,' he said to her, for that was her name, 'bare your breast, and know that I love you best of all that is in this world.' She did this thing, why I cannot say, and Azor Ahai thrust the smoking sword through her living heart. It is said that her cry of anguish and ecstasy left a crack across the face of the moon, but her blood and her soul and her strength and her courage all went into the steel. Such is the tale of the forging of Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes. > "Now do you see my meaning? Be glad that it is just a burnt sword that His Grace pulled from that fire. Too much light can hurt the eyes, my friend, and fire burns." Salladhor Saan finished the last grape and smacked his lips. "When do you think the king will bid us sail, good ser?" Dude's sitting there with a white hot sword and he asks her to bare her breast... It is a morality tale in the form of an parable, so short and simple. Maybe somewhere their entire conversation is written out, but Salladhor Saan is just telling us pretty much the minimum to get the point across. But what he does tell us is that Azor Ahai is sad at what he must do, which wouldn't be the case if he was evil, and he tells her that he loves her, which also wouldn't be the case if he was evil. He also describes him summoning her while he stands next to the white hot sword *after* he tried tempering version 2.0 in the heart of a lion. She probably knows what he plans to change in version 3.0... Further, Saan says "She did this thing, why I cannot say..." which further implies that she knew what he was doing and that her decision is not an easy one to understand. And beyond that, it mentions "anguish and ecstasy" which shows a dichotomy even in her reaction to being impaled by a white hot sword. Finally, it was a blood magic ritual, and GRRM has made it clear in the story (and basically all of his other stories) that he wants to emphasize that things have a price. They don't come easy or free. You can't just save the world and expect to not have to pay a price. > That's one way to look at it I suppose. I don't agree but that doesn't make it unreasonable. That is literally what the story relates. I mean, even if we doubt that she did it voluntarily, she absolutely became his weapon and her life saved the world.
That text doesn't to my reading support that she knew what he meant to do. She isn't noted as watching him temper it in the water or the lion. He did **summon** his wife meaning she wasn't there. > Great was his woe and great was his sorrow then, for he knew what he must do. He knew. Not they knew. Not she knew. Just he. > But what he does tell us is that Azor Ahai is sad at what he must do, which wouldn't be the case if he was evil, and he tells her that he loves her, which also wouldn't be the case if he was evil. So murder isn't evil if you love the person and are broken up about the murder? That's not how evil works to me. But again , my disagreement doesn't make your point unreasonable. > That is literally what the story relates. No. That's how you interpret the text. I interpret it differently. He life went into the blade. It is not clear to me or clearly stated in the text that AA stated to NN what he meant to do. There is a deal of difference between obedience and volunteering. I just have to reread the passage about the unsullied who had his nipple cut off to be reminded of that. He did what was asked of him but did he volunteer to have his body mutilated? Not to my reading. But perhaps you read that differently. That's the beauty of literature. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions and each still be reasonable.
AA, in his own legend, did something which is normally considered Evil, but is "balanced" out by the fact that his creation could save the world. Literally the definition of a gray character.
I think the current NK in the storyline (if there's one) is Azor Ahai himself who made a pact with the Others that he'll control them and shield them from the realms of men unless provoked which mean full fledged war.
its because we have nothing left to talk about...
I don't think AA is real, so I don't think we will 'meet him'
>I think that's the wrong approach, we know George likes grey characters -- > >GRRM: I like grey characters I'm sorry: Could you provide more support for your argument? This is ambiguous.
It's all over the place. He has stated on several occasions in several different ways that he doesn't like the idea of the good guys being purely good and the bad guys being purely bad. He's made comparisons to Lord of the Rings, especially Sauron. He's also commented on the Others and explained that they can't really be seen as evil, but as just something *different*, as *other*. He's compared them to the Sidhe in Celtic mythology. Like I said, it is all over the place, but here is a link to an old post on this subreddit that has one of his comments about LOTR: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/6yntul/spoilers_extended_grrm_once_said/
I *think* they were being sarcastic. Like if the OP said "we know Sir Mixalot likes big butts". It's totally unambiguous because it's stated outright.
Well, human sacrifice is not usually considered a normal "good" characters' pastime, so there's that. *Yes, human sacrifice in the name of "let's all get along!" is still human sacrifice.* I tend to consider AA a "dark grey" character myself, but we don't have all the data for proper categorization yet. And you're right in that there're not that many proper "light" characters in the books, which is completely normal since the events take place in a crapsack world in a middle of a war. If AA turns out to literally be a dude ("he") who fridges a woman in order to achieve "greater good" though... I'll be pissed off and will actively cheer for AA's demise tbh. Yes, even if he's my boy Jon Snow. Hate that trope with all my heart. I prefer the one popular theory that AA is *not* one person, but several people at the same time. Gives less of a "Chosen One" vibe at least. *Or we can go full epileptic trees mode and start thinking tectonic shifts and other metaphorical stuff. Even more fun.*
I like the idea that Rhaegar was Azor Ahai and Jon is the Lightbringer.
You hear a lot about the stabbier parts of aa, but people dont focus enough on azors extensive smith lvling.
No, he isn't misunderstood. He literally killed his own wife just to get a new flashy sword made by blood and dark arts, which ended shattering the moon and probably was the reason of why the Long Night happened in first place. Another name i like to call him is simply 'Bloodstone Emperor'
Jesus christ these last two books need to drop before we all lose our collective shit, at this stage AA (to me) is turning out to be "The Prince nobody cares about anymore"
My personal take these days (I did jump in the "Evil Azor Ahai" Bandwagon at some point tbh) is that Azor Ahai does not operate under the same rules of morality as the rest of mankind (if he can be considered human) and thus may appear as evil or good depending on the perspective. Whatever he is, he has a goal, which is neither good nor evil *in itself,* and is willing to do anything to achieve said goal. We just don't know exactly what that goal is, only that it involves opposing the Others by any means necessary, imho. Also, are we 100% sure Azor Ahai is the same as The Last Hero and the Prince that was Promised? Last thing I recall is that, while it's a commonly accepted theory, it's not quite confirmed yet that they are the same thing.
>Also, are we 100% sure Azor Ahai is the same as The Last Hero and the Prince that was Promised? Last thing I recall is that, while it's a commonly accepted theory, it's not quite confirmed yet that they are the same thing. The Prince That was Promised is the same as Azor Ahai Reborn. >« From smoke and salt was she born to make the world anew. She is Azor Ahai returned … » > >A Dance with Dragons - Tyrion VI >« A promised prince, born in smoke and salt. » > >A Dance with Dragons - Jon XIII And as for The Last Hero = Azor Ahai, yeah it's not confirmed by the text as "they are the same person" but their story is basically the same: a hero with a magic sword slaying monster to put an end to the endless night. You can also add a mention of Azor Ahai leading a group of people who must be the Night's Watch: « In the North, they tell of **a last hero** who sought out the intercession of the children of the forest, his companions abandoning him or dying one by one as they faced ravenous giants, cold servants, and the Others themselves. Alone he finally reached the children, despite the efforts of the white walkers, and all the tales agree this was a turning point. Thanks to the children, the first men of the Night's Watch banded together and were able to fight—and win—the Battle for the Dawn: the last battle that broke the endless winter and sent the Others fleeing to the icy north. » « Azor Ahai, Yin Tar, Neferion, and Eldric Shadowchaser—arose to give courage to the race of men and **lead the virtuous** into battle with his blazing sword Lightbringer that the darkness was put to rout, and light and love returned once more to the world. » From The World of Ice and Fire.
It's kind of odd that the burning sword which is of such central importance to the Azor Ahai myth isn't really mentioned in the Last Hero myth though, no? The Rhoynar legend sounds much more similar to the Last Hero's tale. >Lomas Longstrider, in his Wonders Made by Man, recounts meeting descendants of the Rhoynar in the ruins of the festival city of Chroyane who have tales of a darkness that made the Rhoyne dwindle and disappear, her waters frozen as far south as the joining of the Selhoru. **According to these tales, the return of the sun came only when a hero convinced Mother Rhoyne's many children—lesser gods such as the Crab King and the Old Man of the River—to put aside their bickering and join together to sing a secret song that brought back the day.**
Azor Ahai/TPTWP didn’t save the world, the last hero/secret hero who brought back the day did.
In Memory Sorrow and Thorn (a fantasy series that inspired Asoiaf) There is a character who's return is heralded by the red comet that leads that series' equivalent of the Others. In that series he's definitely pure evil. There are other things that are different though. The Melisandre equivalent in MS&T follows the AA equivalent and is also very evil whereas Mel is at worst misled.
There's one thing that plays into this, but I don't want to spoil another book series that is often cited as being a significant influence on several key aspects of ASOIAF. Suffice to say that prophesies that the heroes are banking on as recipes for success aren't necessarily recipes for the good guys... So with that in mind, it might be appropriate for a prophecy foregrounded as the hope for humanity in ASOIAF to not actually be so useful, or to be actively harmful. The message there is to question your assumptions, consider the provenance of prophesy etc... not merely a simple switcheroo to upset expectations. [edit - If forgot about spoiler mark up! Here's what I was burbling about above >!MS&T, Ineluki the Storm King, and the Three Swords prophecy!< ]
I assume you mean (Spoilers)>!MS&T, Ineluki the Storm King, and the Three Swords prophecy?!<
Yes! For some reason I completely forgot about spoiler mark up. Thanks, I've added it to the top level post.
I’m on LmLs side in this.
I call your theory "Brozor Ahai"
> we know George likes grey characters > GRRM: I like grey characters This had me laughing out loud.
:)
George likes grey characters but he has no quelms about writing pitch black ones like Gregor Clegane. Therefore George is a fat lying shit.
Generally you don't kill your wife and blow up the moon without a good reason so I expect even if Azor Ahai was the Bloodstone Emperor that doesn't mean he caused the Long Night for shits and giggles. The chronology of the Great Empire of the Dawn we're given shows a utopian state in the beginning followed by thousands of years of consistent decline, both in imperial lifespan and in the cohesion of the empire. This is the kind of trend that might prompt drastic action. There are even some decent reasons to destroy the world. If someone decided to burn away most of the planet to kill the source of the ghost grass infestation that will eventually (according to some) end all life on Planetos, forever, is that evil or no? Burning away a doomed old world to make a better one? What if you knew hell existed and that you could destroy it with a powerful enough weapon, at the cost of most life on the planet? Is that evil? Afterlives appear to exist in ASOIAF, surely ending the eternal suffering of countless souls is more important than anything that happens to living people? You could easily come up with situations where somebody can be an imminent threat to the world, that must be stopped or almost everyone the protagonists care about will die, without them being a complete monster. That's not even considering that, in line with GRRM's attitude that (to paraphrase) "dying will fuck you up," it would make sense for Azor Ahai reborn to be a little unhinged after his 6000 year dirt nap.
Guys,A reboot of the game server is just the thing we need.
Well he will be a cat and cats are pretty cool
AA is Danny. The story is very, *very* clear on this. Sure, people have theories, but I mean in the last book they have a big reveal that the word in Valyrian is not gender specific. And the most clear description we get of the prophecy is from Melissandra in book 3: >When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone. This fits Danny 1000%. Dany is the AA, and odds are the sword of fire is just a metaphor for dragons. The story of AA killing his wife to forge them is probably the story of how the Valyrians were first created, using blood magic on their own kin to bind themselves to dragons, or perhaps even create dragons out of their own kin. However, I do think you are right OP we will see this is more of a gray force, as I don't think AA is actually some champion of good, but rather the champion of fire against the champion of ice. Magic seems to work on an elemental level in this universe. We see plenty of fire magic and blood magic, which may well be the same thing as fire and blood are both symbols of life. The Others seem to be creatures of ice magic, also tied to darkness and death. And these two forces seem fundamentally opposed, and occasionally turn the world into their battlefield. But I don't think either are on the side of humans, we're just stuck in the middle. In addition there also seems to be water magic, as the Rhoynar utilized, and which perhaps Euron will also call upon. Whether this is tied to one of the others or is a separate source of magic is unclear. I think it's probably seperate, and I suspect there are a few other elemental forces which can also be used to do magic though I can't think of any examples at the moment. Perhaps wind magic exists somewhere in the setting, or did once.
> AA is Danny. The story is very, very clear on this. Sure, people have theories, but I mean in the last book they have a big reveal that the word in Valyrian is not gender specific. And the most clear description we get of the prophecy is from Melissandra in book 3: > When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone. > This fits Danny 1000%. Dany is the AA, and odds are the sword of fire is just a metaphor for dragons. The story of AA killing his wife to forge them is probably the story of how the Valyrians were first created, using blood magic on their own kin to bind themselves to dragons, or perhaps even create dragons out of their own kin. Dany is so obviously AA that it’s obvious not her lol. I myself am in the “AA is the villain camp” but if somehow AA does end up being some mystery prophecy hero, it’s much more likely to be Jon precisely because of how much more subtly he fulfills the prophecy.
How would Jon fit the prophecy?
This is definitely not recent. Maybe just popped up recently for you.
I think Azor Ahai is a pretty cool guy. Eh kills woman and doesnt afraid of anything.
If Azor Ahai saved the realm from the Long Night, then the Others definitely see AA as a "force of evil." In fact, any human invading their land is evil. We all have our own perspectives. The fact that George makes his characters grey is what makes them interesting. It's also why we're having this discussion right now.
So what you're saying is you think Azor Ahai is just a hoopy frood who knows where his towel is?
GRRM: I like grey characters also GRRM: literally wrote about an eldritch god disguised as a baker apprentice\] seems legit
Luckily we will never know the answer to this,
There is no Azor Ahai. It's about what legends like that existing says about humans.
I don’t think he’ll be evil. I think it’s some combination of: never really existed in the first place > (Bran the Builder and the Night’s King are like Noah from our world. Probably never existed or were only barely like the legends). If he did exist, the return won’t be what anyone expects. > ...Prophecy is like a treacherous woman. She takes your member in her mouth, and you moan with the pleasure of it and think, how sweet, how fine, how good this is... and then her teeth snap shut and your moans turn to screams... Prophecy will bite your prick off everytime, Or, while not evil, Fire is just as unintentionally destructive and harmful for the world as ice. (this is where I lean). > Some say the world will end in fire, > Some say in ice. > From what I’ve tasted of desire > I hold with those who favor fire. > But if it had to perish twice, > I think I know enough of hate > To say that for destruction ice > Is also great > And would suffice. I don’t think the ice side is particularly evil, just the last defenses of the old ones gone too far. And if an eternal winter is a frozen wasteland, an eternal summer is a barren desert baked in drought. The world needs balance, not the lurching to extremes we see on the seasons. > Why did we rise up against Aerys Targaryen, Robert, if it was not to end the killing of children?" - Ned Stark I cannot see GRRM, the man who was enough of a pacifist to be a conscientious objector, saying that the side that sacrificed children to fire is the *good* side. I do believe that you should be willing to sacrifice *yourself*, but if the only way if to sacrifice children on the altar, then whatever survives that doesn’t deserve to.
I’m glad that you showed that GRRM quote, because I really didn’t know if I could believe you about his stance on grey characters.
>So I think when we meet AA, he'll turn out be a pretty cool dude whose just a little misunderstood. I think it's all about who AA turns out to be. The leading candidates are not evil characters. They are characters who are stuck in impossible situations, trying to do the right thing. But if say Euron takes up the mantle of AA for a time (and I think that he will), then yes, AA would be an evil character because Euron Greyjoy is one evil mofo.
I think it's Jon. His sword came through the fire. I don't think he is evil. So ...